L
- Status
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
GEddie;10287575:
Read my posts above. A " duality " requires two separate beings, two separate substances - that can exist separately. Modes of thought based on " duality " of soul and body lead to skepticism, eventually to pantheism.
The Catholic Church rejects firmly the " duality " of body and soul. So please stop referring the the Human Person as a " duality. " It is not even a " sort of duality. "
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
A term does not have to be Scholastic or used in the Catechism to be valid. Thomism is not a set of infallible propositions nor is it the only possible Catholic interpretation of all details of reality.See my latest response to Tornery. It is not a Scholastic term and it is not used in the Catechism. Appears to have been first used by John Lock. Not saying its good, bad, indifferent, true, or false. But from that time it has been used by many different schools of thought, including some Neo-Thomist philosophers. But it is not used by traditional Thomists since Thomas never used the term himself. The closest he came was in his definition of Person - a human nature that actually existed. And the Church adopted his definition in defining the Person of Jesus Christ as two natures in One Person.
G
GEddie
Guest
!!Although we have taken each other to task many times, it seems we are in agreement for once.
ICXC NIKA
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
I don’t know about “many” but it would be odd if we were in total agreement about everything!
Although we have taken each other to task many times, it seems we are in agreement for once.
ICXC NIKA
T
tonyrey
Guest
Then it remains mysterious! I’m not sure “thing” is an appropriate description of the questioner - even though it happens to be me.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Your typo makes it sound as if I’m dealing in torn items… possibly arguments.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
It is to be expected that there is disagreement about the nature of the self because, like matter, it is beyond our comprehension. No one can understand how persons and things originated. All explanations are unverified theories although some seem more probable than others. The notion that persons are merely things is as absurd as the notion that things are merely persons! Self-control vanishes if the self is a fantasy. It would mean all our conclusions are uncontrolled and therefore untrustworthy.
The success of science - together with the philosophical principles on which science is based - is indisputable evidence to the contrary. Ironically those who worship science are confirming their confidence in the power of our intellectual independence. Whatever the self may be it is certainly not an insignificant quirk of chemical units which are the antipodes of rational individuals…
The success of science - together with the philosophical principles on which science is based - is indisputable evidence to the contrary. Ironically those who worship science are confirming their confidence in the power of our intellectual independence. Whatever the self may be it is certainly not an insignificant quirk of chemical units which are the antipodes of rational individuals…
T
tonyrey
Guest
When some one says to me “I’m sorry” for something unimportant I say “I’m sorry you’re sorry!”
My attempts at humour on this forum sometimes get me into trouble…
L
levinas12
Guest
Tonyrey, sorry about the delay in responding … I’ve been felled by the flu … powerful virus indeed.
Let me clarify “transcendental”. We are not outside space and time - as in Kant, we are “where” space and time happen, it’s almost as if we bring space and time with us but with a strong caveat (and this again from Kant) - space and time are intuitions, that is, they are “given” to us - to use a Super Bowl analogy, we are “receivers” not the quarterbacks - and who is the “giver”? - a great mystery - Heidegger refers us to the “es” in the “es gibt” but the “es” , the “it”, is too impersonal (like the “id” in Freud, mutatis mutandis) - Levinas replaces the “es” with the “Other” (almost like Buber’s “Thou”).
But to return to your comment about comprehending reality as if we were outside space and time.
We are not outside space and time in an ontological sense (maybe early Husserl thought so with his “transcendental ego” but probably not the later Husserl and certainly not his successors like Merleau-Ponty et al).
On the other hand, without us human beings, there would be no space and time.
But we’re not talking about space and time as mathematical abstractions. First and foremost, they are “my” space and “my” time. Where does the sense of “my” come from? Why do I regard my physiological churnings as “mine”? Why do I regard my face as “mine”?
As Heidegger argues, it is my “being-towards-death”, towards the “ownmost” possibility of no longer being here on earth, of having run out of possibilities (possibilities in a worldly sense - I don’t think this conflicts with Catholic teaching) - it is this life-long anticipation of my own personal mortality which leads me to become aware of “my thereness”, “my self”. There’s much more that can be said, especially our being-with-others, but that will have to be deferred.
L
levinas12
Guest
so to continue …
I cannot be “my self” without other selves - “me” requires “you” and “we” and other constellations of personal pronouns. “Self” contra Descartes can never exist in absolute solitude.
“Self” requires a plurality of selves. So, “being-with-others” is “there” from the git-go, it is a primordial ontological “structure”, it is not constructed from more original and disconnected elements.
But this does no lessen the role of “being-towards-death” - no one can take my place on my death bed - death is something I have do all by “myself”.
But “death” also allows a life to be “stretched out”, “to be led”. “My” space, “my” time" are finite and bounded and singular. This is what gives the “self” a “thickness”.
And this finitude is what makes possible biographies. And why plays and symphonies have a beginning, middle and end.
I cannot be “my self” without other selves - “me” requires “you” and “we” and other constellations of personal pronouns. “Self” contra Descartes can never exist in absolute solitude.
“Self” requires a plurality of selves. So, “being-with-others” is “there” from the git-go, it is a primordial ontological “structure”, it is not constructed from more original and disconnected elements.
But this does no lessen the role of “being-towards-death” - no one can take my place on my death bed - death is something I have do all by “myself”.
But “death” also allows a life to be “stretched out”, “to be led”. “My” space, “my” time" are finite and bounded and singular. This is what gives the “self” a “thickness”.
And this finitude is what makes possible biographies. And why plays and symphonies have a beginning, middle and end.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I hope you have fully recovered.
You are fully justified in rejecting a totally impersonal view of reality.
Time is subjective to some extent but it must also be objective if we are to make sense of clocks and historical events!
I think awareness of our mortality heightens awareness of our individuality but I don’t think it is a necessary condition. There seems no reason why we cannot distinguish ourselves from others when we are immortal…
T
tonyrey
Guest
According to that argument heaven is eternally dull!
L
levinas12
Guest
Not if heaven is a beatific “repetition” of every moment of our lives - but without the absences, the deaths, the unresolved pains and conflicts, etc.According to that argument heaven is eternally dull!
Think of C.S. Lewis’ idea that, in heaven, we will walk again through the meadows of our childhood.
Or that wonderful movie, “The Five People You Meet in Heaven” where the main character, Eddie, re-encounters people and moments from his life but now with understanding and reconciliation - you say that Eddie now sees what happened through God’s eyes.
Proust would approve of this scenario (time is regained in a big way).
So too would Nietzsche. Every moment of our lives is lived “eternally” - but, “this time”, blissfullly - lovingly.
Nothing will be lost. Not one iota.
T
tonyrey
Guest
L
levinas12
Guest
Well, what does God do with the moments of our lives? I would think that, for Him, these moments don’t fade away but continue to exist eternally.
Down here on earth, all our moments are always “slipping away”.
But, in Heaven, these very same moments remain supernaturally fresh.
See the lyrics of the song “Heaven” (Talking Heads):
metrolyrics.com/heaven-lyrics-talking-heads.html
A lot of people think this song presents a sarcastic negative view of Heaven. But, on the contrary, I think it is a very positive affirmation.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Our concepts of heaven are quite different but that is a topic for another thread. We agree that the self is a reality and not merely a word.
- Status