He continues the quote above: — Fooloso4
I was delighted with this cause and it seemed to me good, in a way, that Mind should be the cause of all. I thought that if this were so, the directing Mind would direct everything and arrange each thing in the way that was best.
A divine mind is a premise or endoxa not a conclusion. — Fooloso4
If it were a matter of reasoning then, as is the case with mathematics, Aristotle could reach clear, definitive, undisputed, and necessary conclusions. — Fooloso4
Wayfarer made a very obvious and rational comment. Do you actually disagree with it? If not, why are you objecting? — Leontiskos
But the quote is from Plato, not Aristotle, and therefore it seems you have not given any evidence in favor of your claim. — Leontiskos
Mind was a well know and frequently discussed topic in the Academy and Lyceum. It is not as if it was a reasoned discovery. — Fooloso4
(Metaphysics 984b)Hence when someone said that there is Mind in nature, just as in animals, and that this is the cause of all order and arrangement, he seemed like a sane man in contrast with the haphazard statements of his predecessors. We know definitely that Anaxagoras adopted this view; but Hermotimus of Clazomenae is credited with having stated it earlier. Those thinkers, then, who held this view assumed a principle in things which is the cause of beauty, and the sort of cause by which motion is communicated to things.
Aristotle complains about the modern mathematization of philosophy (Metaphysics, 992a33); — Leontiskos
he speaks specifically about the differing precisions of different sciences (Nicomachean Ethics, 1094b12) — Leontiskos
... for it is the mark of an educated mind to expect that amount of exactness in each kind which the nature of the particular subject admits.
and he even speaks about those who incessantly question authority and require demonstrations ad infinitum (Metaphysics, 1011a2). — Leontiskos
they require a reason for things which have no reason, since the starting-point of a demonstration is not a matter of demonstration.
I have never understood what "modernism" means — Dfpolis
If I remember correctly, (Hadot) had an early interest in mysticism but later moved away from Plotinus’ Neoplatonism. — Fooloso4
If it were a matter of reasoning then, as is the case with mathematics, Aristotle could reach clear, definitive, undisputed, and necessary conclusions. But he does not, and neither has anyone else. — Fooloso4
Hence it is clear that Wisdom must be the most perfect of the modes of knowledge. The wise man therefore must not only know the conclusions that follow from his first principles, but also have a true conception of those principles themselves. Hence Wisdom must be a combination of Intelligence and Scientific Knowledge: it must be a consummated knowledge of the most exalted objects — Nichomachean Ethics
I specifically said that I didn't think it was Wayfarer's intention to be patronising, but this kind of argument can easily been understood that way. — Tom Storm
I didn't take your comment pejoratively - but at the same time, there's a cultural dynamic at work in this topic. This goes back to one essential plank of liberal democracy, namely, that everyone is equal. — Wayfarer
Secular culture tends to level everyone in that sense - it questions any form of charismatic authority or any sense of there being a higher truth. — Wayfarer
It is also hard to believe that you are reading him with sympathy — Leontiskos
I do think when people reach for the term 'higher truth' we should question this as it can be used in a range of ways. And it can be used to shut down discussions. As in, 'There are higher truths you don't understand, Son.' — Tom Storm
Which, according to you, neither Aristotle nor anyone else has ever had! — Wayfarer
Suppose that your experience leads you to a fork in the road. On one fork is said to be a place of great natural beauty, on the other a person you have texted with and are interested in, but not met or made any commitment to. I am saying that your choice of which fork to take is based on how you choose to value these incommensurate goods. On your theory, how is this valuation made? — Dfpolis
By the same token, unless someone is wise they may be wrong when attributing wisdom to Aristotle or anyone else. Is there anyone here able to make that determination? — Fooloso4
Yes, that is my position. It is possible that I am wrong, that I do not recognize wisdom because I am not wise. By the same token, unless someone is wise they may be wrong when attributing wisdom to Aristotle or anyone else. Is there anyone here able to make that determination? — Fooloso4
Yes, that is my position. It is possible that I am wrong, that I do not recognize wisdom because I am not wise. By the same token, unless someone is wise they may be wrong when attributing wisdom to Aristotle or anyone else. Is there anyone here able to make that determination? — Fooloso4
Well, true, it's a magnet for abusers of all kinds, as we seen amply and tragically demonstrated many times over. But as Rumi said 'there would be no fool's gold if there were no actual gold'. — Wayfarer
Is that negation based on a distinction between Real Things and Ideal Beings?So, how do thought and matter interact? They don't -- because the question is ill-formed. What we have is being, with different beings having different capabilities. — Dfpolis
I think this is the serious danger in censoring that sort of language for fear of abuse. — Leontiskos
It's not so much about censoring it - there's no prohibition on discussions of it, it's more that there's a kind of tacit disapproval because of its association with religion and or with cultic ideas. — Wayfarer
My view is that the process of secularisation in the West is a major factor in many of these debates. But it's like a tectonic plate movement - hard to detect on the surface but still capable of producing violent effects. I'm still working through it, and will probably never succeed in coming to a conclusion, all the more so as I'm very much a product of the very forces that I'm critiquing. :yikes: — Wayfarer
I am an elitist when it comes to art, literature and movies. I consider that there are better and worse texts... — Tom Storm
Just saying Dan Brown is not as good a writer as George Elliot, say, may be seen by many as elitism, rightly or wrongly. — Tom Storm
Yes, but is secularization inherently tied up with strong notions of egalitarianism? If not, then where does the strong egalitarianism come from? — Leontiskos
Our minds do not—contrary to many views currently popular—create truth. Rather, they must be conformed to the truth of things given in creation. And such conformity is possible only as the moral virtues become deeply embedded in our character, a slow and halting process. We have, Pieper writes, “lost the awareness of the close bond that links the knowing of truth to the condition of purity.” That is, in order to know the truth we must become persons of a certain sort. The full transformation of character that we need will, in fact, finally require the virtues of faith, hope, and love. And this transformation will not necessarily—perhaps not often—be experienced by us as easy or painless. Hence the transformation of self that we must undergo “perhaps resembles passing through something akin to dying.”
I am egalitarian in believing that every individual should be treated equally by the law. The issue I was getting at was the denial of what I described as the 'vertical dimension', the axis of value (as distinct from the horizontal axis of quantitative measurement). That is required to make the sense of the idea of there being a higher truth, as without such a dimension, there could be no higher or lower. — Wayfarer
I'm not mentioning that as an exhortation to a specifically Catholic philosophy, but as preserving what I think of as a kind of universalist insight. Firstly the idea that there's a kind of understanding which also requires a transformation in order for it to be meaningful. Secondly that this is not easy or painless. I don't see an equivalent of that in much of secular philosophy. — Wayfarer
Case in point - an excerpt from an article on the Catholic philosopher, Joseph Pieper, apparently very well-known (although not to me) — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.