Relationship between personality and the soul?

[greylorn]

You’ve never read (or understood) either of their works then. They clearly define every technical term they use and don’t use vague language when making logical syllogisms. Do you honestly think philosophy doctors would even bother to study their works if it were so?

With apologies for possibly usurping S.J., yes! As a matter of fact, “philosophy doctors” only study vague and meaningless philosophers. That’s all they can do. They study such stuff because they are not competent to study physics, mathematics, and various hard sciences. To be successful “philosophy doctors,” they only need to memorize lots of stuff and defend it glibly, using copious quantities of obfuscating jargon.

 

[EphelDuath]

Of course. Have you noticed that atheism is the world’s fastest growing religion?

1. Popular opinion is X
2. Therefore Y is discredited

Delightful logical syllogism. Maybe if people were more inclined to read and understand Aristotle and St. Thomas, atheism wouldn’t be on the rise.

Or that it is not even possible for Christian groups to get a simple note about the possibility of intelligent design into a preface to public high school biology books?

What?

Although the correct word should be “antephysics,”

No.

metaphysics is the theoretical study of what must have preceded the laws and events described by physics.

Nope. Metaphysics is the study of beings qua beings, as opposed to merely their physical properties.

How then, could someone who got physics totally wrong have managed to get any aspect of metaphysics right?

They did not get physics totally wrong, just partially wrong (given that it’s a science based on empirical observation, this should not be a surprise to anybody); and physics is a subset of metaphysics, not the reverse.

With apologies for possibly usurping S.J., yes! As a matter of fact, “philosophy doctors” only study vague and meaningless philosophers. That’s all they can do.

I’m sorry you’re infected by such a bizarre and false stereotype. Though I fail to see how Aristotle can be “vague and meaningless” if he strictly defines every single technical term he uses.

They study such stuff because they are not competent to study physics, mathematics, and various hard sciences. To be successful “philosophy doctors,” they only need to memorize lots of stuff and defend it glibly, using copious quantities of obfuscating jargon.

Pass a philosophy exam at the Catholic University of America “using copious quantities of obfuscating jargon” and I’ll give you a medal.

 

[StrawberryJam]

With apologies for possibly usurping S.J., yes! As a matter of fact, “philosophy doctors” only study vague and meaningless philosophers. That’s all they can do. They study such stuff because they are not competent to study physics, mathematics, and various hard sciences. To be successful “philosophy doctors,” they only need to memorize lots of stuff and defend it glibly, using copious quantities of obfuscating jargon.

I stand in full agreement with you and you did nothing to apologize for my friend!

 

[StrawberryJam]

.

To EpelDuath,

I need some time to reflect and be careful how I will reply to your posting. Let me say this much now.
I am not easily manipulated by smiley face emoticons, or claimed knowledge of a topic.

It may be best I never post a reply to your response, as objectionable as it is.

Edit to add: I do hope you have a happy day!

 

[StrawberryJam]

You’ve never read (or understood) either of their works then. They clearly define every technical term they use and don’t use vague language when making logical syllogisms. Do you honestly think philosophy doctors would even bother to study their works if it were so?

I object to your assesment of my understanding of metaphysics. I simply do not see it as a valid position.

 

[EphelDuath]

I need some time to reflect and be careful how I will reply to your posting. Let me say this much now.
I am not easily manipulated by smiley face emoticons, or claimed knowledge of a topic.

You’ve said nothing except “I think philosophy is a bunch of baloney.” There’s not much to be said in response to that, except remarking upon how obvious it is that you’ve never engaged in it. Heck, the very point that’s being made (that Aristotle speaks too vaguely to be taken in any sort of objective notion) is demonstrably false. He defines most of every technical word he uses.

It’s interesting. You’re of course not the only person I’ve known to take that position. There were three or four people with that attitude I knew in my Philosophy 101 class at CUA (well, really 201, but it was the introduction course). Three of them failed outright thinking they could simply BS their way through the exams, and the fourth changed his mind by the end of the class.

I object to your assesment of my understanding of metaphysics. I simply do not see it as a valid position.

Why do you not see it as a valid position?

 

[tjm190]

I believe trying to what elements of the personality are attributable to the brain and what it is attributable to the soul is like trying to determine what elements of water (no pun intended) are attributable to oxygen and what is attributable to hydrogen- aka you really aren’t going to get far, especially without intricate knowledge about how the two function separately.

 

[greylorn]

I believe trying to what elements of the personality are attributable to the brain and what it is attributable to the soul is like trying to determine what elements of water (no pun intended) are attributable to oxygen and what is attributable to hydrogen- aka you really aren’t going to get far, especially without intricate knowledge about how the two function separately.

That knowledge is available, on both subjects.

 

[greylorn]

So they got things about physics wrong – something they admitted was possible. Has anything of their metaphysics been discredited yet?

Yes. Every aspect.

 

[Monica4316]

I think that each soul is unique, and we’ll still have our personalities in Heaven… so the two are probably linked. (of course, our personalities will no longer include anything sinful, in Heaven).

 

[EphelDuath]

Yes. Every aspect.

Oh, well I’m sure every Thomist and Aristotelian professor in the world would like to hear your sound unilateral discrediting of the two philosophies. Let’s hear it!

 

[greylorn]

1. Popular opinion is X
2. Therefore Y is discredited

Delightful logical syllogism. Maybe if people were more inclined to read and understand Aristotle and St. Thomas, atheism wouldn’t be on the rise.

Here you are, employing the same argument to which you object.

Perhaps if Aristotle and Aquinas were relevant, more people would read them.

What?

I’m not clear on your question. Did you really mean, “Huh?” or perhaps, “Dunh…?”

No.

Here we see the keen insights of a philosopher brought to bear on a subject upon which he, she, or possibly it, disagrees.

Nope. Metaphysics is the study of beings qua beings, as opposed to merely their physical properties.

Nonsense. Metaphysics is the category of stuff your cherished Aristotle wrote, about the circumstances necessary to precede physics. He got every bit of that as wrong as his goofy physics, and to underscore that, his confused followers placed these ideas after his writings about physics when cataloging his material. (“meta” is a Greek prefix meaning “after.”)

These ideas logically preceded any notions of physics (notions is an appropriate word for Aristotle’s incompetent thoughts on the subject) and would have been better named antephysics. (“ante” is a Greek prefix meaning “before.” The word is used properly in poker, but not at all in philosophy where it belongs in place of “meta”.)

They did not get physics totally wrong, just partially wrong (given that it’s a science based on empirical observation, this should not be a surprise to anybody); and physics is a subset of metaphysics, not the reverse.

Aristotle got so much of physics wrong that any correct opinions must be regarded as an accident, or something too obvious for even him to miss.

Perhaps for philosophers, who have been irrelevant to human thinking for several centuries, physics is a subset of metaphysics. That is because they do not understand any physics, but regard metaphysics as yet another subject that they can make up lots of nonsensical ideas about without being held to account. Or, especially important to their limited minds, without having to understand mathematical physics. That process actually requires a 3-digit I.Q.

How does anyone imagine that a subject related to physics can be understood without first understanding its antecedent? Have you ever heard of prerequisites? Before you were allowed to study Rudimentary Basket Weaving 101b, weren’t you required to take BW 101a— What Exactly Is a Basket?

If you happen to open a dictionary to investigate the meaning of “basket,” you might want to also look up “empirical.” Science is based upon *experimental *evidence. Many nits have confused the term “empirical” with “experimental,” probably because they begin and end with the same letters. You don’t want to be one of those nitwits.

Pass a philosophy exam at the Catholic University of America “using copious quantities of obfuscating jargon” and I’ll give you a medal.

I already have medals, thank you.

There was a time when philosophy was the mother of all studies, and a student thereof rightfully respected. Hence the once meaningful title, Ph.D., Doctor of Philosophy, which our universities now hand out freely to garden variety nitwits who’ve passed simple- minded multiple-choice tests, proctored by other garden variety nitwits. Ph.D’s are so cheap that any fool who gets elected president will be awarded one, if he is really a fool. My brother-in-law has a genuine Doctorate of Philosophy in, guess what, philosophy! It cost him $10,000 dollars and about 100 hours on the internet, back when worthless diplomas were expensive.

I’ve aced the only philosophy course I ever took, after writing my first philosophy book. It required a lot of unprofitable work, mostly memorizing the opinions of intellectuals who wrote very convincingly about things which they were unequipped to actually understand. I’ve more interesting things to do than reiterate that experience, even for a medal from you, which would probably be a bus token for a transit line that went bankrupt in 1910.

 

[greylorn]

Oh, well I’m sure every Thomist and Aristotelian professor in the world would like to hear your sound unilateral discrediting of the two philosophies. Let’s hear it!

If they genuinely ask for an elucidation of my ideas, I will do my best to explain whatever of my writings they have taken the trouble to read, but did not understand. I may ask them to apply their professorial minds to a few basic physics and math classes, by way of prerequisite.

No point engaging a diving instructor without first learning to swim.

Of course, you could be such a professor. If that were the case, there would be clues you’ve not bothered to drop.

But professors do not post here, and I do not expect to engage them here. Many CAF posters are professor wanna-be’s. Some of those who post here are individuals with good minds and honest questions, and I will honor their questions with my best and honest answers.

 

[greylorn]

I stand in full agreement with you and you did nothing to apologize for my friend!

“Friend” is a word rarely posted in my behalf. Thank you.

 

[greylorn]

I think that each soul is unique, and we’ll still have our personalities in Heaven… so the two are probably linked. (of course, our personalities will no longer include anything sinful, in Heaven).

Monica, you are a sweetheart and clearly a devout Catholic. This is a philosophy forum, not a dogma reiteration forum. Why are you here?

That might be a tough question to answer. Mark Twain’s short story, “Captain Stormfield’s Trip to Heaven,” is available in libraries, usually found in compendiums of Twain’s stories. I suspect that he wrote this entertaining tale for you.

Please let me know what you think of it— after you’ve thought on it, of course.

 

[EphelDuath]

Here you are, employing the same argument to which you object.

I have never employed the syllogism “popular opinion is X, therefore ~X is discredited.”

Perhaps if Aristotle and Aquinas were relevant, more people would read them.

Even if you don’t agree with what they have to say, their influence on the fields of physics, biology, theology, metaphysics, politics, sociology and anthropology are so profound that no credible scholar would ever call them irrelevant.

I’m not clear on your question. Did you really mean, “Huh?” or perhaps, “Dunh…?”

Please rephrase your statement, because it is unclear.

Here we see the keen insights of a philosopher brought to bear on a subject upon which he, she, or possibly it, disagrees.

There’s nothing to respond to, when a conclusion is stated without any reason to accept it.

Nonsense. Metaphysics is the category of stuff your cherished Aristotle wrote, about the circumstances necessary to precede physics. He got every bit of that as wrong as his goofy physics, and to underscore that, his confused followers placed these ideas after his writings about physics when cataloging his material. (“meta” is a Greek prefix meaning “after.”)

Astounding that you can complain that I respond with a simple “no,” and then proceed to say that he got “every bit of that wrong” without any evidence, or without even any statements whatsoever.

The prefix “meta” translates literally to “after,” but can be more practically thought to mean “of itself.” A metajoke is a joke about jokes; metahistory is the history of history, etc. Metaphysics then is the “physics of physics,” or rather, the mechanics in which physics is based. Therefore, false conclusions of the physical sciences in no way discredit any conclusions Aristotle and St. Thomas came to of metaphysics. They simply aren’t connected in this manner.

Perhaps for philosophers, who have been irrelevant to human thinking for several centuries,

Given the fact that literally every law that exists in Western civilization is a result of the underpinnings of philosophers, I’m going to have to laugh this off.

physics is a subset of metaphysics. That is because they do not understand any physics, but regard metaphysics as yet another subject that they can make up lots of nonsensical ideas about without being held to account. Or, especially important to their limited minds, without having to understand mathematical physics. That process actually requires a 3-digit I.Q.

Their beliefs on metaphysics were not based on their beliefs of physics. Actually, they’re almost entirely mutual. Physics pertains to physical properties of beings (time, space, and matter); metaphysics pertains to the ontological properties of beings (form and causality).

Your only arguments are that we can immediately disregard Aristotelian-Thomist metaphysics because (a) their conclusions of the physical sciences were wrong [which is irrelevant], and (b) because they speak imprecise nonsense that has no meaning to begin with [which you haven’t demonstrated, and is almost itself contradicted by the fact that Aristotle firmly defines all of the technical words he uses].

If you happen to open a dictionary to investigate the meaning of “basket,” you might want to also look up “empirical.” Science is based upon *experimental *evidence. Many nits have confused the term “empirical” with “experimental,” probably because they begin and end with the same letters. You don’t want to be one of those nitwits.

The word empirical means “derived from or guided by experience or experiment.” Look it up in the dictionary before you insult somebody for allegedly misusing terminology.

There was a time when philosophy was the mother of all studies, and a student thereof rightfully respected. Hence the once meaningful title, Ph.D., Doctor of Philosophy, which our universities now hand out freely to garden variety nitwits who’ve passed simple- minded multiple-choice tests, proctored by other garden variety nitwits.

Evidence please.

Ph.D’s are so cheap that any fool who gets elected president will be awarded one, if he is really a fool. My brother-in-law has a genuine Doctorate of Philosophy in, guess what, philosophy! It cost him $10,000 dollars and about 100 hours on the internet, back when worthless diplomas were expensive.

I’ve aced the only philosophy course I ever took, after writing my first philosophy book. It required a lot of unprofitable work, mostly memorizing the opinions of intellectuals who wrote very convincingly about things which they were unequipped to actually understand. I’ve more interesting things to do than reiterate that experience, even for a medal from you, which would probably be a bus token for a transit line that went bankrupt in 1910.

I’m sorry your time at an entirely irrelevant community college was not well-spent. We’re talking about real centers of learning here, thanks. If you think you’re so knowledgeable about what you speak, please go ahead and support the statements you’ve made with something beyond (a) personal anecdotes and (b) “no, you’re wrong, you idiot.”

 

[EphelDuath]

Of course, you could be such a professor. If that were the case, there would be clues you’ve not bothered to drop.

I am not a professor. But I engage in the field enough to know that it’s not as fraudulent as you would like it to be.

But professors do not post here, and I do not expect to engage them here. Many CAF posters are professor wanna-be’s. Some of those who post here are individuals with good minds and honest questions, and I will honor their questions with my best and honest answers.

Write a letter to Dr. Alasdair MacIntyre or Dr. John F. X. Knasas, explaining to them clearly why their beliefs on Aristotelianism and Thomism are false. I’ll be happy to hear what happens.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I have never employed the syllogism “popular opinion is X, therefore ~X is discredited.”

Even if you don’t agree with what they have to say, their influence on the fields of physics, biology, theology, metaphysics, politics, sociology and anthropology are so profound that no credible scholar would ever call them irrelevant.

Please rephrase your statement, because it is unclear.

There’s nothing to respond to, when a conclusion is stated without any reason to accept it.

Astounding that you can complain that I respond with a simple “no,” and then proceed to say that he got “every bit of that wrong” without any evidence, or without even any statements whatsoever.

The prefix “meta” translates literally to “after,” but can be more practically thought to mean “of itself.” A metajoke is a joke about jokes; metahistory is the history of history, etc. Metaphysics then is the “physics of physics,” or rather, the mechanics in which physics is based. Therefore, false conclusions of the physical sciences in no way discredit any conclusions Aristotle and St. Thomas came to of metaphysics. They simply aren’t connected in this manner.

Given the fact that literally every law that exists in Western civilization is a result of the underpinnings of philosophers, I’m going to have to laugh this off.

Their beliefs on metaphysics were not based on their beliefs of physics. Actually, they’re almost entirely mutual. Physics pertains to physical properties of beings (time, space, and matter); metaphysics pertains to the ontological properties of beings (form and causality).

Your only arguments are that we can immediately disregard Aristotelian-Thomist metaphysics because (a) their conclusions of the physical sciences were wrong [which is irrelevant], and (b) because they speak imprecise nonsense that has no meaning to begin with [which you haven’t demonstrated, and is almost itself contradicted by the fact that Aristotle firmly defines all of the technical words he uses].

The word empirical means “derived from or guided by experience or experiment.” Look it up in the dictionary before you insult somebody for allegedly misusing terminology.

Evidence please.

I’m sorry your time at an entirely irrelevant community college was not well-spent. We’re talking about real centers of learning here, thanks. If you think you’re so knowledgeable about what you speak, please go ahead and support the statements you’ve made with something beyond (a) personal anecdotes and (b) “no, you’re wrong, you idiot.”

Just pointing out something you missed in this. Greylorn mentioned his brother in law spending time and money for a piece of paper.
I could be wrong, but it seems that you have not given him any reason to respond back based many factors. One could be that you don’t really spend enough time to read his posts?

 

[EphelDuath]

Just pointing out something you missed in this. Greylorn mentioned his brother in law spending time and money for a piece of paper.
I could be wrong, but it seems that you have not given him any reason to respond back based many factors. One could be that you don’t really spend enough time to read his posts?

I saw that when I first read his post, and I don’t see the relevance of it whatsoever.

I don’t expect him to respond back because it’s incredulous to think that somebody with such vapid arguments will ever provide any substance to the claims he’s making. Notice how he continually says that Aristotle being wrong about physics discredits his metaphysics, without providing a single example of this, other than an absurd quibbling about what the word “metaphysics” means.

 

[greylorn]

I saw that when I first read his post, and I don’t see the relevance of it whatsoever.

I don’t expect him to respond back because it’s incredulous to think that somebody with such vapid arguments will ever provide any substance to the claims he’s making. Notice how he continually says that Aristotle being wrong about physics discredits his metaphysics, without providing a single example of this, other than an absurd quibbling about what the word “metaphysics” means.

If you saw no relevance to my comments about the ease of obtaining an “advanced” degree, which was simple and obvious, then I cannot expect you to see the relevance in any more complex argument.

I try to reply to all posts sent my way, or which engage my interest. I’ve learned not to reply to posters who I don’t find interesting, or who show signs of intellectual dishonesty, or who quote religious dogma as a counter argument to a philosophical issue. I like good manners, but it would be hypocritical of me to insist upon them.

But the most important thing I take into consideration when choosing to reply, is, will anything I write make a difference to the person I’m engaging? When the answer to that is clearly negative, I don’t reply.