The East frees us from Thomism?

[IvanKaramozov]

Yes, but empiricism is the dogmatic one–it’s an anti-rational dogma that arbitrarily decides some concepts are beyond the reach of reason.

How so?

Schroedinger, for instance, discovered he had to use Aristotelian terminology to discuss what was going on in quantum physics, you know.

that’s nice, however he was an idealist so was he using that puerly for the vocabulary, or for some more substantial reasone?

Your little joke about trying to sit on the chair’s essence was, I feel, simply a rather displeasing way of making yourself sound like a moron. The forms of inanimates are non-subsistent forms that can only be actualized in particular individuals. You’re allowed to disagree with our philosophy, but not with your illiterate mischaracterization of our philosophy.

Why does the Church persist with Aristorilian philosophy?

 

[Hastrman]

How so?

If you can’t be bothered to learn the definition of “empiricism,” why should I have to explain it to you?

And the Church persists with Thomistic-Aristotelian philosophy because it’s the best game out there, bar none. That is unless we were going to adopt Ramanuja’s philosophy, but since Aquinas already did the work of adapting Aristotelianism, why bother?

 

[mathematician]

If you can’t be bothered to learn the definition of “empiricism,” why should I have to explain it to you?

Empiricism means, roughly, that you rely upon observation for your knowledge of the physical world, rather than intuition or a priori reasoning. If you want to know about the physical world (and that includes the cosecrated elements) the physical world seems to me a pretty good place to look.

But not if your a fundamentalist Catholic, with about as much interest in evidence as any biblical fundamentalist.

The reason the Catholic Church clings on to aristotlean metaphysics is that it is “infallible”, and that supposed infallibility has rubbed off onto Aristotle. Lucky man.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

If you can’t be bothered to learn the definition of “empiricism,” why should I have to explain it to you?

I know the definition of empericism, I’m asking about your charge, “arbitrarily decides some concepts are beyond the reach of reason.”

specifically the “arbitrary” part.

And the Church persists with Thomistic-Aristotelian philosophy because it’s the best game out there, bar none. That is unless we were going to adopt Ramanuja’s philosophy, but since Aquinas already did the work of adapting Aristotelianism, why bother?

I understand you have a very high oppinion of Aristotilian philosophy, I’m asking why it is the best

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Empiricism means, roughly, that you rely upon observation for your knowledge of the physical world, rather than intuition or a priori reasoning. If you want to know about the physical world (and that includes the cosecrated elements) the physical world seems to me a pretty good place to look.

But not if your a fundamentalist Catholic, with about as much interest in evidence as any biblical fundamentalist.

The reason the Catholic Church clings on to aristotlean metaphysics is that it is “infallible”, and that supposed infallibility has rubbed off onto Aristotle. Lucky man.

I am somewhat familiar with empericism, I was asking about a claim he made about empericism, but thanks

 

[Hastrman]

I know the definition of empericism, I’m asking about your charge, “arbitrarily decides some concepts are beyond the reach of reason.”

specifically the “arbitrary” part.

You said you knew the definition, but if you think mathematician’s definition is right, obviously you don’t.

Empiricism in philosophy means that reasoning is only possible about abstract math and things ascertained by the scientific method. It puts all things other than math and science wholly outside the sphere of reason.

For, incidentally, no reason. That’s why I said it’s arbitrary.

And since neither you nor that arrogant “mathematician” even knows the real meaning of the word, as used in philosphy rather than merely in conversation, why do you think you have the right to discuss it as a philosophy?

I understand you have a very high oppinion of Aristotilian philosophy, I’m asking why it is the best

Because it neither divorces philosophy from the real world as Platonism does nor does it divorce it from the realm of ideas and spirits as Cartesian empiricism and various fideisms both do. It is, in other words, the only philosophy that makes it possible to have a total view of the universe.

But not if your a fundamentalist Catholic, with about as much interest in evidence as any biblical fundamentalist.

The reason the Catholic Church clings on to aristotlean metaphysics is that it is “infallible”, and that supposed infallibility has rubbed off onto Aristotle. Lucky man.

Since, as I said, you don’t even know what empiricism actually means, nor, obviously, do you know Aristotelian metaphysics from a hole in the ground, you’re not qualified to judge.

And the Church, you illiterate, has never said Aristotelianism is infallible. Quite the opposite.

Your unfounded arrogance is an eyesore.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Hey, I’ve got a fantastic idea, how about you get a glass, go to the kitchen, and pour yourself a nice, tall glass of “chill the hell out”(not only is it tasty, it detracts from being a jackass)

You said you knew the definition, but if you think mathematician’s definition is right, obviously you don’t.

I did not evaluate his argument, I simply was trying to be polite, he offered me a definition, I thanked him for his time, and moved on.

Empiricism in philosophy means that reasoning is only possible about abstract math and things ascertained by the scientific method. It puts all things other than math and science wholly outside the sphere of reason.

For, incidentally, no reason. That’s why I said it’s arbitrary.

really, because according to most philosophers and the handy dandy Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy

“The Empiricism Thesis: We have no source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience.
Empiricism about a particular subject rejects the corresponding version of the Intuition/Deduction thesis and Innate Knowledge thesis. Insofar as we have knowledge in the subject, our knowledge is a posteriori, dependent upon sense experience. Empiricists also deny the implication of the corresponding Innate Concept thesis that we have innate ideas in the subject area. Sense experience is our only source of ideas. They reject the corresponding version of the Superiority of Reason thesis. Since reason alone does not give us any knowledge, it certainly does not give us superior knowledge. Empiricists generally reject the Indispensability of Reason thesis, though they need not. The Empiricism thesis does not entail that we have empirical knowledge. It entails that knowledge can only be gained, if at all, by experience. Empiricists may assert, as some do for certain subjects, that the rationalists are correct to claim that experience cannot give us knowledge. The conclusion they draw from this rationalist lesson is not that we gain knowledge by indispensable reason, but that we do not know at all.”

Now, if you want to have a big boy discussion, about empericism(like correcting me), Aristotilian philosophy, or why kitties wearing hats are funny, I’d be delighted to, if not, please just say so.

 

[mathematician]

You said you knew the definition, but if you think mathematician’s definition is right, obviously you don’t.

Empiricism in philosophy means that reasoning is only possible about abstract math and things ascertained by the scientific method. It puts all things other than math and science wholly outside the sphere of reason.

Funny, when I went to school that was called logical positivism, not empiricism. Perhaps you should look up the definition of empiricism.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Funny, when I went to school that was called logical positivism

I think it still is

of course, he claimes the demarcation is arbitrary, Logical positivisms demarcation between, “sense and nonsense” was certianly not arbitrary, so who know’s what he’s talking about.

 

[Hastrman]

Funny, when I went to school that was called logical positivism, not empiricism. Perhaps you should look up the definition of empiricism.

No, logical positivism says nothing is true that isn’t derived from math or science–basically it takes empiricism’s stance on what can be reasoned about, and then says that nothing is true that isn’t reached by reason. That’s why nobody’s a logical positivist anymore, because that’s nonsense.

But Cartesian empiricism is just a titch older than that.

Come to think of it that might not be what is always meant by empiricism (frankly all post-Enlightenment “thought” is far too vague in its terminology–do you know how many meanings there are for “Monism” alone?), so I apologize for being nasty about you using the term differently from me.

Empiricism by your definition is, admittedly, more intelligent than I gave it credit for, since it at least acknowledges the relation between expreience and ideas–but I’ll wager it gets the relation between ideas and thought wrong (are they that which we are conscious of, or that by which we are conscious, however imperfectly, of things-in-themselves?).

But the fact remains it has a fatal flaw–considering that the Empiricism you referenced means, if one actually looks at it, that we cannot discuss imaginary numbers or non-Euclidean geometry, since nobody has or can have any experience of them. Ditto particles–they’re not only impossible to experience, they’re not even picturable.

Empiricism was permissable in the era of Newton and Euclid–not so much in the era of Einstein and Schroedinger. The only way to deal with quantum theory, relativity, or string theory is by reason and reason alone, because our sense experience is limited to the macro-scale and the first four dimensions (and only a little of the fourth, at that).

 

[mathematician]

But the fact remains it has a fatal flaw–considering that the Empiricism you referenced means, if one actually looks at it, that we cannot discuss imaginary numbers or non-Euclidean geometry, since nobody has or can have any experience of them.

In the last resort mathematics, or at least pure mathematics, is one huge exercise in set theory (i.e. formal logic). The physical sciences may find it useful, but it is not itself a physical science.

Ditto particles–they’re not only impossible to experience, they’re not even picturable. Empiricism was permissable in the era of Newton and Euclid–not so much in the era of Einstein and Schroedinger. The only way to deal with quantum theory, relativity, or string theory is by reason and reason alone, because our sense experience is limited to the macro-scale and the first four dimensions (and only a little of the fourth, at that).

Scientific theories have to be empirically testable otherwise they are not scientific theories. You cannot directly observe sub-atomic particles, but you can say that if this theory is correct then certain consequences ought to follow, and then do experiments to discover whether or not those consequences do follow. One major gripe not a few physicists have with string theory is that so far no way has been found to test it. As they put it, if it isn’t testable, it ain’t science, it’s philosophy.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

No, logical positivism says nothing is true that isn’t derived from math or science–basically it takes empiricism’s stance on what can be reasoned about, and then says that nothing is true that isn’t reached by reason. That’s why nobody’s a logical positivist anymore, because that’s nonsense.

No, Logical Positivism opperate on verificationism, it certianly would not adopt your definition as the Logical Positivists were very suspicisious of “truth”

But Cartesian empiricism is just a titch older than that.

Come to think of it that might not be what is always meant by empiricism (frankly all post-Enlightenment “thought” is far too vague in its terminology–do you know how many meanings there are for “Monism” alone?), so I apologize for being nasty about you using the term differently from me.

It’s not vague, it states that nothing is in the mind that is not first in the senses, different philosophers take different stands, however generally empericism is fairly agread upon as far as definitions go.

Empiricism by your definition is, admittedly, more intelligent than I gave it credit for, since it at least acknowledges the relation between expreience and ideas–but I’ll wager it gets the relation between ideas and thought wrong (are they that which we are conscious of, or that by which we are conscious, however imperfectly, of things-in-themselves?).

I may have misunderstood what you are saying, or mathematician may need to correct me, however most empericists I can think of reject the notion that we know “things in themselves” hence indirect realism and primary and secondary qualities.

But the fact remains it has a fatal flaw–considering that the Empiricism you referenced means, if one actually looks at it, that we cannot discuss imaginary numbers or non-Euclidean geometry, since nobody has or can have any experience of them. Ditto particles–they’re not only impossible to experience, they’re not even picturable.

Well, I’m not an empericist, however generally empericists I know of would simply account for them by experience, John Stewart Mill gave an empericist account of mathematics, now I personally feel Frege gave a fairly strong can for platonism in mathematics, however those empericists are clever.

Empiricism was permissable in the era of Newton and Euclid–not so much in the era of Einstein and Schroedinger. The only way to deal with quantum theory, relativity, or string theory is by reason and reason alone, because our sense experience is limited to the macro-scale and the first four dimensions (and only a little of the fourth, at that).

Wait, now as Aristotle was an empericist, how can you claim this?

 

[mathematician]

Well, I’m not an empericist, however generally empericists I know of would simply account for them by experience, John Stewart Mill gave an empericist account of mathematics, now I personally feel Frege gave a fairly strong can for platonism in mathematics, however those empericists are clever.

Although I’m not amongst them, my guess would be that most mathematicians are platonists.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Although I’m not amongst them, my guess would be that most mathematicians are platonists.

What camp do you fall into, if I may ask?

 

[mathematician]

What camp do you fall into, if I may ask?

As indicated above, I see mathematics primarily as a system of formal logic. Of course, in the light of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, that means that there must be some propositions in mathematics which are neither true nor false, given my way of looking at things.

(And being able to live with that wouldn’t be a good qualification for being a Roman Catholic I suppose.)

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

No you are right. Because the East rejects thomism, they east tends to shy away from reason and logic, leaving its doctrines poorly defined and underdeveloped. I suppose some people relate to this ideology but I simply cannot.

They don’t like Thomas, & they dont like Augustine - they don’t like any theology that is Western or Latin, because it’s Latin. This is all of a piece with the xenophobia of Russian Orthodoxy.​

It’s easily explained - Orthodoxy has its own universe, which is all-inclusive, with everything in its place. Latins, Jews, & other intruders can’t be accommodated in this tidy scheme; so they can only be trashed. Holy Russia is Orthodox, so not one inch of it is Papal. So it is a waste of time & effort to bother with the Orthodox [edited by Moderator].

 

[Alethiaphile]

That’s probably why the east kept falling into heresy… almost all those weird “isms” you can name pretty much came from eastern Herisiarchs.
.

First, to say, even in the first millenium, that the “east kept falling into heresy” is a simplistic overstatement. Some parts of the east, including some patriarchs, fell, at some times, into heresy.
Second, please detail the heresies that the East has fallen into since the Schism.
Third, to suggest that “isms” such as “modernism” and “naturalism” came from “eastern Heresiarchs” is absurd. They came from the west, clearly. Joe

 

[Alethiaphile]

They don’t like Thomas, & they dont like Augustine - they don’t like any theology that is Western or Latin, because it’s Latin. This is all of a piece with the xenophobia of Russian Orthodoxy.​

It’s easily explained - Orthodoxy has its own universe, which is all-inclusive, with everything in its place. Latins, Jews, & other intruders can’t be accommodated in this tidy scheme; so they can only be trashed. Holy Russia is Orthodox, so not one inch of it is Papal. So it is a waste of time & effort to bother with the Orthodox [edited by Moderator].

Sorry to interrupt your diatribe, but Augustine is revered and venerated in much of Orthodoxy. See Fr. Seraphim Rose the Place of Blessed Augustine in Orthodoxy. Joe

 

[mathematician]

One Orthodox monk I know thinks that the West needs to repent of its ability to turn out dogma as if it was confetti. I have to admit, I think he has a point.

 

[I_like_Mike]

I believe that people just like to argue. The more clever the person the more inventive the words used to put a formal set of rules to their brand of thinking.

As I look at my coffee and consider the Brownian motion I can’t help but imagining a whole group of physicists on their little rocket sleds all waving and shouting at each other that they are the reference point and every one else’s watch is running slowly.

I try to reduce logic to fun and simple things like a book for dummies on how this or that works. Take a hard one quantum mechanics. This is easy just the words are big.

The only way to measure a thing is to see how much energy it hits the target with. This is the really small scale of atoms and such. So take a watermelon seed and spin it like crazy to give it the weight of a watermelon and in the real world you just have a watermelon seed going very fast.

In the world of atoms we are told this makes the watermelon seed a real watermelon. In the real world if you throw a watermelon hard against the wall there are bit everywhere, real bits.

In the world of atoms the real watermelon hits the wall and there are no bits everywhere. The wall is clean and no bits.

So a real seed is given energy to make it a real watermelon to throw against a wall leaving no mess and the only thing getting measured is energy. Maybe it is just me but I think all the clever people have lost it big time.