Sat, Chit, Ananda — skyblack

Merci beaucoup monsieur/mademoiselle!

How do you explain the conspicuous absence of metaphysics from the transcendentalia? — Agent Smith

Specify what you mean in this context by "metaphysics".

IIRC, Aristotle refers to "unity" (i.e. substance), Plotinus-Proclus refers to "the one", Parmenides / Anselm refers to "being" (which I guess corresponds to Plato's "Form of the Good"), etc. Historically, a variety of "transcendentals" besides the usual trinity.

Again, my conception does not consist of "true good beautiful"-as-universals (or transcendent idea(ls)) as, if you recall, Smith, I propose an 'apophatic metaphysics' ...

Before I forget, a million thanks.

:up: Yw.

Well, by metaphysics, I refer to what Aristotle kickstarted (the fundamentals, the first principles of all under the sun).

What intrigues me is the plain and simple fact that the 3 components of the the transcendentalia (verum, bonum, and pulchrum) do not mention metaphysics separately, kinda like how omnipresence is hardly ever mentioned in discussions about YHWH. Is omnipresence/metaphysics implicit/deleted as an attribute of/from YHWH/transcendentalia?

Another muddle. :sweat:

NB: Aristotle didn't "kickstart the fundamentals ..." by a long shot; in the western tradition, that would be Thales / Anaximander / Pythagoras ... (and in the eastern tradition, the Upanishads & Laozi, respectively).

NB: Aristotle didn't "kickstart the fundamentals ..." by a long shot; in the western tradition that would be Thales / Anaximander (and in the eastern tradition, the Upanishads & Laozi, respectively). — 180 Proof

:ok:

Are the transcendentalia based on hedonism or is it the other way round? Is this question nonsense?

But then establishing the truth of it? Some of us are still trying to establish the truth of “I am”. — javra

Very sensible. First is it true? then, (if I am), am I good? and am i beautiful? can be considered.

On what grounds – "principle" – does one "really believe" truth if "truth is the first principle"? — 180 Proof

One believes that truth is the first principle of language because otherwise it doesn't communicate, and there would e nothing to learn. Then one comes across the boy or the politician or the priest who cries wolf, and one learns scepticism. Therefore truth is prior to doubt. Mummy says the wheels on the bus go round and round, and that reveals the truth and meaning of language and the world, all day long.

It appears that the transcendentalia are not a package deal. Each of the items (verum, bonum, pulchrum) are sold separately in a manner of speaking.

But then establishing the truth of it? Some of us are still trying to establish the truth of “I am”. — javra

Very sensible. First is it true? then, (if I am), am I good? and am i beautiful? can be considered. — unenlightened

I can work with your appraisal.

How would you respond to the claim that “even primordial sentience needs to be innately aware of truths (conformities to what is real) in order to survive; that only more developed sentience will become in any way aware of notions of ethical good; and that the awareness of beauty is relegated only to the most developed of sentience,” this as we know of sentience on planet Earth … say from monocellular organisms (granting their being sentient) to humans?

This addresses “awareness of”, be it consciously reasoned or not. But, then again, why care at all about truth (lower case “t”) if it is neither a good to be pursued nor something just and, thereby, an aspect of what is fair? This at least for us humans that can discern and contemplate all three.

(For instance, your reply to 180 Proof seems to indicate that truth is both good and fair (in the sense of just).)

I think you've got the cart before the horse, sir. We first attempt to communicate – coordinate our behaviors for collaborate tasks – and discover that discursive language is good for planning and sharing plans. Then we adopt (varieties of) 'truth-telling' in order to build trusting bonds with one other; wherein 'truth', such as it is, is mostly pragmatic – a trial-and-error semantic tactic (ruse) –and only propositional as a semantic by-product. Ex post facto, fortuitous effect is misrecognized as ideal cause (à la Feuerbach), idolatry of "transcendentals" ensues.

How would you respond to the claim that “even primordial sentience needs to be innately aware of truths (conformities to what is real) in order to survive; — javra

I would say that a yeast cell, say, has no language, and no means of representation that could correspond to reality or not in a way that I would connect with the notion of true or false. It responds directly to ingest sugars and oxygen and excrete CO2. Yeast cells have direct access to reality and immediate responses.

A cat has similarly direct access to reality, but is also informed by memory and habit as well as a more complex repertoire of instinctive responses.

Here is where truth and falsehood begins:

we adopt (varieties of) 'truth-telling' in order to build trusting bonds with one other; wherein 'truth', such as it is, is mostly pragmatic — 180 Proof

Above is the story of The Monkey who cried 'Snake'. And it is surely obvious that trust is the prerequisite for untruth, not the effect of truth-telling???

It's not either-or but both-and. Trust is risky.

Not that I find your reply addressed my questions in regard to truth, good, and beauty/fairness (I'm living with it just fine), but OK. Yup, monkeys (and other animals) - can not only communicate but also intentionally deceive - thereby evidencing innate awareness not only of what is true and what is false but of what is termed a theory of mind.

Verum: Philosophy
Bonum: Religion
Pulchrum: Epicureanism/Hedonism

A coupla points:

1. I've heard this often, mathematical truths are beautiful. This one :point: $e^{\pi i} + 1 = 0$ has been voted as numero uno in the looks department.

2. There's this notion of truthiness (vide Wikipedia for details) that may have a lot to do with beauty as it were. Beauty, instead of logical argumentation/justification, could be a reliable indicator of truthfulness & goodness both. A cursory look into mythology will give you some idea of what I'm getting at.

Not necessarily though i.e. the correlation between pulchrum and the other two transcendentalia (verum, bonum) isn't that strong or rather isn't that well established to be reliable - (lies, evil and beauty seem to join forces to produce a lethal cocktail to all who drink from it).

Perhaps the transcendentalia describe an ideal, best-case scenario as acknowledged by other posters.