When Spinoza declares substance to be the cause of its modes, or Aristotle when he considers the whole to be the cause of its parts, clearly these are also cases where the “cause” in question could not possibly exist in time without the effect in question also taking shape at the same exact point in time. So we can see that, in terms of historical discussion on causes, temporality was never too much of a concern for these thinkers. — Pretty
If we were to prevent parenthood in the first parent, and thus fully prevent parenthood as a real thing, then childhood too would be removed to the same degree. But we can see that this abstract level causality is actually eternal in some sense, because although the parent corporeally exists before the child does, as abstract concepts of parent and child they only ever come about at the same exact time, and yet the parent has a clear priority to the child that thus can’t be explained by means of time. Another way to say it is that the definition of parent has causality in its essence — it cannot itself exist without having some degree of the child in existence as well. — Pretty
From here, I see ways that proper causality can be asserted for both. The latter is a little easier to start with — a parent is only understood *as* a parent, when the child is actually in some way existent. Edith, who we are trying to consider as simply a parent, still lived and existed many years without being a parent to Tim. The parent in her though, did not exist until the child was born. In this way, we can say that a parent, qua parent, is universally the cause of the child, qua child, insofar as they cannot exist separate from each other. — Pretty
100%, that is a very good point. All that I would say is that in other senses, science is not like religion, because science is atheist (or at least agnostic). Individual scientists can be religious, but that is a private matter. Science, in the public sense, is not religious (it cannot be, by definition). — Arcane Sandwich
Yes, all we have is a Ground Of Determination - the Quantum 'vacuum'. — PoeticUniverse
I am definitely aware of my emotions in most times. I can feel happiness when seeing the newly arrived parcels, and when I opened them, the contents inside of the parcel were what I was expecting and satisfactory in quality. I feel satisfied and happy about them. I go to the online store, and leave a positive feedback reflecting my satisfaction and happiness on the goods delivered. This whole process is based on my reflective reasoning.Agreed, but does that make to reason on content the same as to reason to emotion? — Mww
Yes, this is it. We can reflect and reason the felt emotions after the experience of emotion. Hence it looks like our emotions could be the subject matter for reason. According to Kant, reason can even reason about reason itself, which is then pure reason. In that case, why couldn't reason reason on the emotions or the content of emotions?On the other hand, I can see here I might reason to an emotion I’ve already felt, given a cause I’ve already experienced. But this is mediated emotion, rather than immediate affectation, so in these cases, I’d be less inclined to question the idea. — Mww
Anytime Mww. Thank you.Anyway….thanks. — Mww
We cannot eat oysters as they are in themselves. That is true. I only wish the premises were true as well. — Arcane Sandwich
I don't think art, which we analyse, necessarily 'pleases' our brain, but rather that, through thorough reflection about it and contemplation on the object itself, we reach a (reasoned) conclusion regarding its' qualities, like that it is beautiful. — Prometheus2
On “reasoned beauty”:
Do you think we reason to an aesthetically pleasing emotion? — Mww
Hmm... So what you mean to say is that...perhaps beauty is something purely contingent and subjective, and if it were not, there would have to be some kind of consistent, determinable pattern behind its' occurrence or emergence? — Prometheus2
Philosophers have some very complicated things to say about existence, and they don't agree with each other on that point. — Arcane Sandwich
Hmmm... that's a really good point. You seem to be a very good metaphysician. — Arcane Sandwich
Sure. But then I can talk about how those people talked about those objects. And how do I do that? First, I study what they said, then I study what those objects are. — Arcane Sandwich
You think? I'm not so sure myself. Calling someone "ignorant" is just rude. Maybe I should retire that word from my personal vocabulary, but I'm not sure. What do you think about that? Is the word "ignorant" somehow insulting? I think it is, but I could be wrong. — Arcane Sandwich
To the Quantum Depths of the Poetic Universe:
Lost in the Haystack? — PoeticUniverse
Hmmm... I'm not sure, really. I dont know "what to make of it", as some people say. Can you explain to me why you certainly don't think so? Thanks in advance. — Arcane Sandwich
Could you elaborate that? (this other aspect?) — Prometheus2
I believe he is saying more or less one of the things that I have been saying in another thread: not everything is possible, not even at the level of pure theory, not even at the level of pure metaphysical speculation. — Arcane Sandwich
So this is how I would establish the universality of efficient causes. I feel like most graspings of it fail to account for time properly — although it is constantly in flux, its instants seem obviously brought about by necessity of the, sometimes immediate, past. What is, is only temporarily. And what will be, will only be potentially. But what has been, will always have been, and *must* have been, for the rest of history. This is the universality hiding right under our noses in the ever-changing current of time. — Pretty
You seem to be mixing together sufficient and efficient cause here. There is a pretty big difference between the Aristotelian Four Causes and Humean constant conjunction and counterfactual analysis, although the two notions can be used in concert. I am not sure about "antiquated." Both concepts are employed in the sciences all the time, e.g. do-calculus, etc. Any student in the natural or social sciences has to take statistics and they will be taught again and again that "correlation does not equal causation." — Count Timothy von Icarus
Dead bodies also have DNA. So having DNA is not the right criteria for being alive.and those people were indeed alive, because they had DNA, RNA, and body cells, — Arcane Sandwich
Ok, fair point. But it is still possible to talk about non-alive objects such as the fire breathing dragons and demons. Because many people know about them, and like them obviously from the video.even though they did not know that specific fact about themselves and about the world in general. They were, I guess you could say, ignorant of that fact. — Arcane Sandwich
Hi! Returning with a confusion towards this specific definition we concluded on: how does this explain efficient causes? Would the parent not be considered the efficient cause of the child? Or the craftsman an efficient cause of their works? And we know these clearly don’t fall under the stricter consideration of cause and effect, so would we say efficient cause is something different altogether? — Pretty
No. They cannot be alive, because they are like stones in that sense. A machine is not alive (i.e., it does not have genetic material, it does not have DNA and/or RNA, and it is not composed of cells, it is not "made" of cells). — Arcane Sandwich
In the example of the video that you showed, the "dragon" only meets one of the two criteria: it breaths fire, but it is not alive. And, technically speaking, it doesn't breathe fire either, because only living beings (only some of them, not all) can breathe. — Arcane Sandwich
Many chronically and pharmaceutically untreatable depressed and/or anxiety-ridden people won’t miss this world when they finally pass away. — FrankGSterleJr
For example, the idea that there might be a living, fire-breathing dragon somewhere on planet Earth, right now, in the year 2024, is an idea that is theoretically impossible, in the literal sense: it is incompatible with the body of knowledge that modern science currently has. Technically speaking, they do not co-here, there would be no coherence within a theoretical system that accepts, at the same time and in the same sense, the idea of a living, fire-breathing dragon in the world and the body of knowledge of modern science. — Arcane Sandwich
The problem is, if you publish a paper on the metaphysics of demons, people laugh at you. But if you publish a paper on the metaphysics of Pegasus, people at least have the basic decency to tell you why your ideas are wrong. — Arcane Sandwich
Wow, yeah, I quite like that thought. These two sides of beauty. — Prometheus2
The Permanent Ultimate Something is not alive, but as we see, the potential for life was there for the Temporaries. — PoeticUniverse
So you are a professional Metaphysician. Cool.Right, but here's my question, as a professional metaphysician (I think I've earned the right to call myself that, I have enough metaphysical publications in professional journals to qualify as such), — Arcane Sandwich
I think Metaphysics could discuss such topics e.g. Demons, Ghosts and God, Souls and Freedom etc. That is what Metaphysics is about. No one would suggest to discuss these topics under Physics or Chemistry. If you say, even Metaphysics cannot discuss them, then what is the point of Metaphysics?Are there people out there, in the world, that are somehow under another impression? I'm extremely curious about that. I'm a bit of an amateur anthropologist, you could say. What do you think? What is your opinion on the Metaphysics of ghosts and demons? — Arcane Sandwich
What do you mean? — Arcane Sandwich
Cool, I’ve been slowly gathering this as the thread continued, I’m surprised it took this long to get explicated. Thanks!! It really does clear up a lot — Pretty
And what I'm arguing is that ghost and demons do not exist. They do not have the property of existence, because in my personal philosophy, existence is a property. Ghosts and demons do not have that property, therefore they do not exist. I did not invent this idea myself, this is simply something that I took from Mario Bunge's philosophy. — Arcane Sandwich
Why not? Why do you say that it would not happen? The circumstances of the case, of every case, become irrelevant if you abandon the PSR in its strongest form. And that's the only way to sensibly deny it. — Arcane Sandwich
Of course it's a groundless and irrational belief. But to abandon it is to say that a dragon or a squid can suddenly pop up into existence, anywhere, at any time, for no reason whatsoever (since we've abandoned the strongest version of the PSR, which is the only version of the PSR that "makes sense", and yes, the appeal to good common sense is a fallacy, it's an "appeal to the stone"). — Arcane Sandwich
I think I can understand Nothing better. In math, it is simple. 1-1 =0. 0 is nothing. There was 1, but 1 was subtracted from 1 or taken away from 1, hence 0, Nothing.‘Nothing’ cannot even be meant, as per Parmedies’ philosophy; — PoeticUniverse
I had problems trying to understand the Ultimate Something there. But after some reflection,the Ultimate Something has no opposite, and as such it has no alternative; so, it has to be. — PoeticUniverse
I'm an atheist. I hold that it's metaphysically impossible for beings of a divine nature to exist. But if such beings, or such a being, existed, then we would be debating theology: does God have the moral obligation to intervene in reality, in every act? That's what the occasionalists believed, in matters of theology. — Arcane Sandwich