The argument of natural theology is not that 'God' is some testable theory, but the reason that anything exists at all in the first place. Of course that is not a 'testable theory' in that you can't then replicate the entire universe under controlled conditions of there being God or no God. — Wayfarer

I think that this is the right way of looking at things. In this sense, all empirical evidence supports God, and we can know that God is the truth, stronger than we can know any other fact. The argument is basically that each and every aspect of existence, as observed, is an organized, or ordered, arrangement of parts. And, organized or ordered arrangements require something which orders them. The thing which ordered the parts is called God, So God is a necessary conclusion.

Now, having said that, there is some issues with the appearance of disorganization, or disorderly activity in fundamental parts (particles). I see two distinct ways to approach these issues. We can say that this appearance of disorder in the universe is evidence of not-God, or we can say that this appearance of disorder is evidence of a failing in our capacity to understand, what is really organized and orderly. Of course the latter is the rational approach, because it inspires us to subject our scientific theories to strict skepticism, in an attempt to determine their deficiencies, and why these theories render basic parts of an organized and ordered universe as unintelligible to us. The alternative approach, that fundamental parts of the universe are disorganized and disorderly, and an organized and orderly structured universe magically sprang into existence on top of a disorganized foundation, hence not-God, is clearly irrational.

Interestingly, there are forms of realism people have proposed where the only universals/forms are the fundemental particles. I've never seen nominalism of this sort before, but I could see how it would work. Fundemental particles would be the only tropes, and tropes would really just be names for the excitations of quantum fields we observe. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is Platonic realism. "Fundamental particles" are nothing but mathematical equations made to represent observations. When we claim that these mathematical representations constitute the reality of what is observed, this is Platonism. I don't think this qualifies as nominalism, because nominalism would say that these equations are just our way of describing what is observed.

Physicists generally claim that fundemental particles do lack haeccity. Lately though, there has been some debate as to how indiscernible particles really are. In some cases, they may not be fully indiscernible, the jury is out. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The problem I see is with this assumption: that the observation of a particle, at one time, then a particle at another time, is the same particle. So for instance, a photon is emitted, and an equal photon is absorbed at another place, in a way which corresponds. It is assumed that these are the same particle but that is where the problem is. The continuous existence of the particle between t1 and t2 cannot be accounted for, so the claim that the two instances are instances of the same particle, is not really a valid claim.

Now, keep this lack of haecceity in mind and think of how different particles might be seen to function very much like the way letters function in a text (a "T" is always a T; the specific T is meaningless, only its role in a word matters). Words are made up of letters, but words can have properties like "adjective" or "noun." Their traits don't come from their parts. Then, their role as subject or predicate in a sentence is further not derived from their letters, but by their relationship to other words. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The "role" of a thing, like its function, is an attribute of its context, which presumes a larger whole. The problem though is that we cannot entirely remove meaning from the thing by negating or ignoring the context. So meaning is not completely determined by context, resulting in some form of intrinsic meaning inherent within the thing, as the thing which it is according to its form (law of identity). So we might say the meaning of a word is dependent on the context of usage, but this is not entirely true, or absolute, because there must be something intrinsic within the word, or else any combination of words could have any meaning, and we couldn't figure out any meaning. So the word has some built in limitations which restrict the scope of its usage. Likewise, in you example of letters, the symbol "T" has built in limitations as to acceptable usage, as a letter for example, and we cannot accurately say that the generic "T" "is meaningless", and "only its role in a word matters".

But then which letter/concept in a word holds the trait "noun?" Which parts can be summed up into the concept "noun?" This property can't just be attributed to the rules of spelling, the way the rules of geometry denote "triangle" from the slope of a triangle's three lines, because random mixes of letters can be proper nouns in fiction novels and we create new words all the time. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In general, the narrower, more restrictive concept, holds within it, the broader, less restrictive, as explained by Aristotle. So the concept "man" holds within it, as a defining feature, the concept of "animal", which holds within it, "living", etc.. In this way, "living" is an essential part of "animal", which is an essential part of "man". So "sentence" has "noun" within it, as a defining feature, "sentence being the narrower or stricter, while "noun" is the broader concept. Therefore "noun" is a trait of "sentence", like "animal" is a trait of "man".

When we get to the very particular, the individual, what Aristotle calls primary substance, we see that it is not within anything. So "animal" is within "man", and "man" is within "Socrates", but "Socrates" being a name (proper noun) referring to an individual, is not within any further concept. This allows that the proper noun has no restrictions, not being within anything, so a name could be a random mix of letters, or whatever, and the name is valid or true, substantiated, by the individual which it refers to. The individual has an identity, or existence according to the law of identity.

If the individual named is fictitious, and it is claimed that this individual is supposed to be a real individual, then we have a form of sophistry because the named thing is really a specific concept within a conceptual structure. So the named fictitious thing, Santa Clause for example, is really within, and dependent on a conceptual structure, whereas Socrates names a thing outside and independent of conceptual structure. When it comes to "photon" and other fundamental particles, the named thing is within a conceptual structure supported by observation. So it's halfway between fiction and nonfiction, the conceptual structure is supported by some sort of observational data, but the substantial existence of the thing named as "photon X" cannot be validated through temporal continuity, so it is not really a thing with identity, as primary substance is supposed to be.

So, if traits are actually just parts, I'm not sure I see a way for propositions such as "the block Thomas picked up is triangular," can have truth values. Because the block is actually made up of atoms that aren't triangular, and if you say that the triangularity comes from the block's parts, then you are admitting that objects can have traits that their parts lack, and of course "being made of atoms" isn't necissary or sufficient as a cause of being triangular. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't see the problem. The block is an object, and is therefore primary substance. We can name it, and the name becomes the subject, and we predicate. The block is shaped like a pyramid. If we say that the block is really atoms, then we have made the atoms into the objects, or named subjects, and the block is something made from the relations of those atoms. But the atoms are now supposed to be the individual objects we are talking about, the primary substances, not the block. If real substantial existence cannot be given to the atoms, as is the case with photons, then we are back to talking about the block as the objects, and the atoms only exist within the conceptual structure, not referring to any real particles with substantial existence.

A "trait" is not a stand in for a part of an object. For example, traits aren't parts in the sense that a liver is a part of a human body or a retina is part of an eye. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't agree with this. Concepts are composed of parts, and the parts are "traits", only in a slightly different way from the way that physical objects are composed of parts. This is because the parts which are said to make up a physical object are understood as concepts anyway. So an object has different formations of molecules, which might be referred to to separate one part of the eye from another, but this is a conceptual description. And we see this more clearly when we say a molecule consists of atoms, and atom of other parts. It's all theory. conceptual. Unless you take an object, and start physically breaking it apart, there is no basis for your claim of difference. But when you do this, the object doesn't necessarily break at the points indicated. If you cut up the eyeball the retina does not necessarily separate itself out, because this is a theoretical distinction you have made.

A trait - that is a trope (nominalism) or the instantiation of a universal (realism) - applies to the emergent whole of an object. They have to do so to serve their purpose in propositions. For example, the emergent triangularity of a triangle is a trait. The slopes of the lines that compose it are not traits, they are parts (they interact with traits only insomuch as they effect the traits of the whole). The way I wrote that was misleading, but the context is the identity of indiscernibles. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So these assumptions are not true at all. The lines and angles are traits. The line and the angle are concepts which are traits of the concept of triangle, and they are also the parts of the triangle.

So to rephrase it better, the question is "is a thing defined by the sum of all the true propositions that can be made about it, or does it have an essential thisness of being unique to it?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

Each particular thing is unique, in itself, having a thisness all to itself, but it is defined by the true propositions made about it. There is a gap between these two due to the deficiencies of the human capacities.

You have yet to provide the support for this statement. I have seen some commentary regarding this topic in various writings but you have not attempted to do more than claim it to be true. In any case, the argument in De Anima replicates the same view given in Book Lambda. — Paine

I thoroughly demonstrated the inconsistency in that other thread. In De Anima Bk 1 Ch 3 he explains why the soul is not an unmoved mover, it is not an eternal circular motion, nor any type of motion at all, because it is definitively immaterial, and it's incoherent to speak of an immaterial motion. Further, he explains that the thinking on thinking which is thought to be such an eternal circular motion does not describe the true nature of thinking, because thinking consists of conclusions, ends, and never proceeds endlessly without such. Therefore the ideas expressed in Metaphysics Bk 12 are directly refuted here.

Then Appollodorus proceeded to De Caelo in an effort to support that part of Metaphysics. However, a thorough reading of that work will show that it also refutes Metaphysics Bk 12. First, he's very clear to say that an eternal circular motion is theoretically "possible". Then he proceeds to explain how any circular motion must consist of material substance. Then, anything material is generated and corrupted. So he leaves it to us, from these premises, to conclude that although eternal circular motion is logically possible, it is in reality, physically impossible.

We know that "The Metaphysics" is a collection of works put together by Aristotle's school a long time after his death. This part you refer to is clearly inconsistent with the work which we know is his. Instead, it supports a Neo-Platonist tradition which proceeded in a different direction from Aristotle with respect to immaterial substance. The principal point being that Aristotle demonstrated how we cannot appeal to matter based descriptions (circular motions, and the human being thinking about thinking), in any real attempt to understand immaterial substance. He leads us through the rest of his Metaphysics, and De Anima, to understand the logical necessity to assume immaterial forms as prior to, and the cause of, material things being the particular things that they are, by the law of identity. And, he shows us that these classic ideas, circular motion, and thinking on thinking, do not provide us with a true immaterial representation, and therefore ought to be rejected.

On the contrary, there is vast difference between the 'good' as it relates to the whole of the cosmos and the problems of individual beings. But I am not the one claiming there is no 'overarching' good. It seems absurd to assert that Aristotle intended to separate the two goods as a category mistake in the way you seem to be arguing for. — Paine

The point though, is that there is no such thing as "the 'good' as it relates to the whole of the cosmos". That's an idea you've fabricated, or imported from somewhere else, as is not derived from Plato nor Aristotle. The "good" in Plato, is what illuminates individual intelligible objects. Until "the cosmos" becomes intelligible, rather than simply having some sort of aesthetic eloquence, or appeal as a beautiful proposal, there is no "good" in relation to the cosmos. And Aristotle is explicit to refer to the good of man, as happiness, and the highest activity as contemplation, without speaking of any "good of the cosmos'. And he is very careful to dissuade us from the sophistry of eternal circular motions, and a thinking thinking on thinking, which might have been proposed as the good in relation to the whole cosmos.

So it is not that I am trying to separate "the two goods". There is only one true sense of 'good'. Plato and Aristotle each support this, the "good" is relative to the individual, or particular. The idea that there is some sort of universal "the good", as good relative to the cosmos, is what both of them reject as sophistry. People who claim such a "the good", are claiming to know what cannot be known. Obviously "the 'good' as it relates to the whole of the cosmos" is self-contradicting, because the the whole of the cosmos is an absolute, absolutely everything, so to say that there is something such as 'the good' which is relative to this, is blatant contradiction. This why creation myths have a hierarchy of goods in a temporal order, God created this because He saw it was good, then that, then that, etc..

On the basis of this reasoning, you seem to be denying that a relation between beings could ever go beyond the 'good' as the predicate of an individual being. — Paine

I think the issue here is that predication is of a subject. If we want to make a relation into a subject and make a predication of that subject, we lose the substantiation afforded by the primary substance because a relation cannot be primary substance. Then there is no object which exemplifies the subject, only relations, and relations are fundamentally relative, therefore subjective. In other words, a relation cannot be a primary substance, consequently it has no true identity by the law of identity, so there is no possibility of truth.

Accordingly, if we make "good" (by definition) the property of a relation rather than the property of an individual, the concept is not grounded in anything substantial. But there is no problem to make "good" the property of individuals, because it is individuals who act, and acts are what are judged as good. As the action is a property of the individual, so is the good. Therefore we have virtuous, or "good" people. This you'll find is very consistent with Aristotle's ethics, a virtuous person is one who acts as such, and the acts come from strength of character rather than chance. It really makes no sense to define "good" as the property of a relation. And I haven't yet seen any serious attempts to make this sensible.

But I don't have to understand the thesis to notice it does not fit with other things Aristotle said. Aristotle discussed the good as a quality of the cosmic whole in Book Lambda, For the purpose of inquiring into first principles, the whole of creation is a substance that the Mover causes to exist, along with the order that comes into being through his rule. — Paine

This is a pointless paragraph. You know from the other thread that I reject Book Lambda as inconsistent with the rest of Aristotle's writing, and it is debatable whether it was actually written by him. It is more consistent with the Neo-Platonist trend to equate the good with the One. As I said above, I believe Aristotle had a better understanding of Plato then The Neo-Platonists. And, I think Book Lambda to be a Neo-Platonist teaching passed off as Aristotle. because the bulk of Aristotle's writing is extremely consistent but this is not consistent with the rest.

The holistic view that connects the individual (and what is good for them) with the cosmos (the being that includes all beings) can be seen in the introduction of soul into the arguments made by Aristotle. The Categories make no mention of the idea of composite beings:

It is also clear that the soul is the first substance, the body is the matter, and a man or an animal, universally taken, is a composite of the two; and 'Socrates' or 'Coriscus', if each term signifies also the soul of the individual, has two senses (for some say it is the soul that is the individual, others that it is the composite), but if it signifies simply this soul and this body, then such an individual term is like the corresponding universal term.
— Metaphysics,1037a

The concept of soul is said to be central to the process of becoming an individual. With this starting principle it becomes related to the whole of creation:

Now, summing up what has been said about the soul, let us say again that the soul is in a way all existing things; for existing things are either objects of perception or object of thought, and knowledge is in a way the objects of knowledge and perception the objects of perception.
— De Anima, 431b 20, translated by J.L Ackrill

Aristotle bases this claim on linking the inquiry of all nature (fusis) to the existence of the soul:

Since [just as] in the whole of nature, there is something which is matter to each kind of thing (and this is what is potentially all of them), while on the other hand there is something else which is their cause and is productive of all of them---these being related as an art to its material---so there must also be these differences in the soul. And there is an intellect which is of this kind by becoming all things, and there is another which is so by producing all things, as a kind of disposition, like light does; for in a way light too makes colours which are potential in actual colours. And this intellect is distinct, unaffected, and unmixed, being in essence activity.
— ibid, 430a 10

This use of light as an analogy bears a strong resemblance to its use by Plato in Book 6 of the Republic, but reformulated in order to avoid the deficits Aristotle finds there. For the purpose of this present argument, the important point to realize is that the 'function of man' discussed in Nicomachean Ethics is not just a general predicate that can be applied to a set of individuals but relates to how those individuals come into being in a cosmos filled with these other beings. — Paine

I think you are mistaken here Paine. The soul is "in a way" all things, through the potential of the intellect, and its capacity to know all things. Aristotle does not mean that the soul actually is all things, "in a way" is used for a reason. The power of the soul "to know all things" is not necessarily the good, because if the good has to do with intellection, it might simply be the power of the soul to know. Then "all things" is accidental. But you want to make "all things" essential, and conclude therefore that the good is a relation between the individual and the whole cosmos. This is unwarranted because even if I grant to you that "good" ought to be defined as the quality of a relation, rather than the quality of an individual, there is nothing to indicate that it is any more than a quality of the various relations between the individual and the particular things that the individual knows. Where do you derive the need to relate the individual to the whole cosmos from? I see no principles here. So the quotes you've produced do not support your conclusion.

We want to contract it. Most of our inventions have been designed to reduce the time taken for a given task. — Agent Smith

This is not contracting time, it is expanding it. Think about it. If task A normally takes two hours, and you find a way to make task A take two seconds, you have expanded the time around task A. Task A remains the same. But if you take a period of time called "two hours", in the second instance of task A you have a whole lot of free time left over, which you did not have in the first. Therefore time has been expanded around task A.

I've asked for my account to be closed.
My 'resignation' refused for the time being.
Usually, I wouldn't make this public but I'm beyond caring.
Take care all. — Amity

Drastic measures. I sit on the edge of my chair, waiting, what could be next?

From "why is everyone calling me a cheerleader", to "you must all be cheerleaders like me". — StreetlightX

The problem is not with the "cheerleader" portrayal as such. I think the problem is with the portrayal as a cheerleading for the underdog. I don't think this is a matter of cheerleading the underdog, in fact I don't see how it could be. It's very clear that the cheerleaders apprehend the side being cheered for as "us". Now "us" is always the good guys, therefore to be cheered for, because in war if you do not agree that "us" is the good guys, you are excluded from "us".

One might cheer from a third party position, but at first take, that would appear to be utterly ridiculous because war gives nothing to cheer for, unless you're one of the parties. A classic World War really provides no third party position. But if the third party becomes an organized "us", we might have a new form of world war. The third party would be opposed to both sides engaged in battle, and would cheer only for loses, in the battleground, never for gains. That's a very ugly image. But it may be real.

This is all hopeless twisted. — Fooloso4

That's why most people give up on trying to understand Plato, it requires a lifetime of effort to even get close. They cannot read it in a week and fit it all into a simple exegesis, so they give up. not having the ambition required to match the ambition of Plato. Most philosophy appears hopelessly twisted to anyone who requires their education to be in a straight forward format. In the end though, the individual may proceed forward by following the straight forward doctrine, but we move ahead by solving the hopelessly twisted puzzles.

My claim is that thinking or believing something is good is not the same as knowing that it is good. Thinking or believing something is good does not make the thing actually and truly good. — Fooloso4

I've been asking you to justify this claim, because I really cannot understand it. I can't see how anything other than thinking that something is good could make something good. If you can't justify it, perhaps you can give me an example or something, so that I could begin to understand what you mean.

Are you familiar with Plato's Euthyphro? Is pious being loved by the gods, or is piety what the gods love? We can apply the same test here. Is "good" what is deemed by human beings, or is good a quality apprehended by us to be inherent within the thing. I think the answer is obvious. It is not a quality which we apprehend as inhering within the act, but a judgement we make by comparing the act to some principles. Therefore belief in those principles and one's capacity to judge, is what makes the act good.

You make the distinction yourself when you point out:

He rejects pleasure because obviously, some pleasures are bad
— Metaphysician Undercover

If we pursue pleasure and some pleasures are bad then pursuing pleasure does not make it good. — Fooloso4

I don't see that you have a point here. Pleasure comes in a variety of types, the ones pursued are good.

You are now making the argument you rejected! If we willingly do what we believe, and know to be bad then what we are pursuing in such cases cannot, as you previously claimed, be good because we pursue it.

Previously you said:

every act is inherently good.
— Metaphysician Undercover

and:

everything we do is good
— Metaphysician Undercover

but now you admit that we often do what is bad. If every act is inherently good then how can an act that is inherently good be bad? — Fooloso4

You are cherry picking quotes out of context. In the context of "everything we do is good", I clearly stated that bad is not opposed to good. So you really have no point here.

You say:

It is possible because we do not have a true understanding of "the good"
— Metaphysician Undercover

How do you know that every act is good if we do not have a true understanding of the good?


So, what defines something as "good" is the fact that it is pursued,
— Metaphysician Undercover

A true understanding of the good cannot be that the good is whatever we pursue. You now say that we do not have a true understanding of the good: — Fooloso4

Look, we can know that every act is good without having a true understanding of "the good", simply by knowing what it means to act. Once we reject determinism and accept free will, then a freely willed act requires a cause which is not deterministic. "The good" as an overarching Form of knowledge would be deterministic, forcing one to act according to that Form. "The good" as your will to act, in whatever way you want, at any particular moment in time, is not deterministic. Obviously we cannot have a true understanding of "the good", or else our acts would be deterministic, forced by that understanding.

You seem to be confusing the predicate "good" which we might attribute to an act, or a type of act, with the supposed Form called "the good". The point demonstrated is that we attribute the property "good" without knowing the Form, "the good". As Paine explained, Aristotle took the further step to completely reject "the good" as a Form altogether. And, I've been explaining that this is consistent with Plato, because "the good" is what makes the Forms intelligible by illuminating them, and is therefore not a Form itself. In the terms of free will, in the preceding paragraph, it is the will to understand. So it is very common for people to say such and such are good, without having any understanding whatsoever of "the good".

And, when you consider what I say above, that when we judge an act as good, this is "a judgement we make by comparing the act to some principles", you'll see that there is no single principle by which we judge "good". Each time we judge an act as good, we employ principles specific to the situation. Therefore it is impossible that there could be one principle called "the good", by which we could judge acts as good.

If it is not by knowledge that we can truly determine whether a particular act is good then in what way can we determine that it is good? Certainly not by the fact it is done. — Fooloso4

Why not? I see no justification for your claim that good is something other than this, and a very convincing argument from Plato that this is exactly what makes an act good, that it has been carried out as an intentional act.

Thinking something is good is not the same as grasping the good. Believing something is good is not the same as knowing it is good. — Fooloso4

I keep asking you to justify this claim, but you do not. If there is some simple, clear and distinct principle, other than "thinking something is good", which makes the thing actually and truly good, then please produce it.

Let's see what Plato's Socrates has to say about this:

No one goes willingly toward the bad or what he believes to be bad; neither is it in human nature, so it seems, to want to go toward what one believes to be bad instead of to the good.
— Protagoras 358c

As the quote from the dialogue Protagoras makes clear, it is what one believes to be good that one pursues and what one believes to be bad that one avoids. — Fooloso4

Notice in your quote that it says "so it seems". There is a reason for this. That idea (what seems to be the case) is the very idea which Plato ends up refuting. We often willingly do what we believe, and know to be bad. How is this possible?

It is possible because we do not have a true understanding of "the good", as explained in The Republic. What we claim to know as "good" might be false. Your understanding of "the good" produces a situation where we can knowingly do what is bad; when a person lies, steals, or cheats for example. We truly believe that such things are bad, we even claim to know that they are bad, yet we do them any way.

How is this possible, when it is completely contrary to what "seems" to be the case? It is possible because what seems to be, is not really what is the case. What is the case is that we really and truly do not know what "the good" is, yet we assume to know what it is, as you exemplify, and from this faulty assumption we assume to know what "bad" is as well. Then we proceed to do what we believe to be bad, because our believe as to what is good and bad, is faulty.

So, it cannot be what defines something as good is that it is pursued since we do pursue pleasure. — Fooloso4

As I said, some pleasures we do not pursue. because we cannot engage in all at once, so we need to prioritize. Therefore you have no argument here.

A false opinion and being deceived about what is good leads one to pursue what is bad. Here we see the connection between knowledge and virtue. — Fooloso4

Ah, you're catching on, but not drawing the proper conclusion yet. The proper conclusion is that the belief that virtue is a knowledge is the deception. The claim "I know the good" might incline one to act in a way accordingly. However, as Plato points out in The Republic, the good is not something that anyone knows, not even the highest philosophers. The good is something completely outside the realm of human knowledge as that which illuminates the things known. It is the cause of intellection, and therefore not knowledge, which is the product of it. So we must conclude that the real relationship between knowledge and virtue is not as you assume. Virtue is the cause of knowledge, not the effect of it. Therefore it must be something other than knowledge. And, any person who says "I know the good", and acts accordingly, is the one who is deceived, because no one can know the good.

Agreed; there is a body between. I was objecting to “we’re a body”, which I take to be a misconception. A categorical error of equating the mere representation of a metaphysical object of pure reason, with a concrete spacetime reality. — Mww

The temporal analogy holds quite well for this idea of "we're a body", or more precisely "I'm a body" ("we're a body" contains a further problem of unity). If the body, in its existence, is like the present in time, we still have to account for the reality of the future and the past. Future and past are somehow external to the present, outside it, but are still a very real part of it as defining features. Likewise, there are very real parts (defining features) of a living being, which are somehow outside the living body.

The explanatory gap? — Mww

I believe it's a failing in our understanding of what constitutes a "boundary". Peirce had some interesting ideas on this issue, but I do not agree with his proposed resolution. Suppose there are two distinct substances in contiguity. What keeps them separate? Either we propose a third substance which acts as the boundary to separate the two, or we assume a zone of mixing. If I remember correctly, Peirce chooses the latter, a mixing, and the boundary becomes vague, because that's how such situations appear empirically, through our senses. However, I believe that removing the need for a third substance introduces an unwarranted principle of unintelligibility into the explanation. Now we have no reason why the two are separated in the first place, they are simply not completely mixed. So I think, that to provide a true explanation we must always appeal to a "third substance" as the boundary, because it is only by understanding a third thing, that the reason why the two are separated will be grasped.

This is very evident in the nature of time. as well as the human experience of internal/external. If we propose that the human experience is just a mixing of internal/external, or that the present in time is just a mixing of future and past, without assuming a third thing which is the actual reason why the two sides of these apparently dichotomous divisions exist, then these two (human experience, and the present in time) become unintelligible. Therefore we must apprehend the reality that these are not true dichotomies, because in each case there is a third thing, which acts as the boundary separating the two which only appear to our senses to be dichotomous.

I’d agree there’s an inside and an outside, but not that “we’re a body between” them. — Mww

The body is between the inside and the outside, just like the present is between the future and the past. We can claim directions "toward the inside", "toward the outside", just like we claim "toward the future" and "toward the past". But we cannot produce a dividing line, because there is a massive body where we think there should be a divisor.

That is not the assertion. The assertion is the one you quote from Plato. The point is, the fact that you pursue something does not make it good. It is pursued because it is thought to be good, but pursuing something because you think it is good does not make it good. — Fooloso4

You obviously haven't read Plato. It is clear that things are not pursued because they are thought to be good, as "the good" escapes the grasp of reasonable thinking, We do not grasp "the good", we do not think "X is good therefore I'll pursue it", we simply pursue things for various reasons. This is important to understand, because it is central to the idea that virtue is not a type of knowledge. "The good" does not guide us as a form of knowledge, such that it enters into our thinking about our activities, and we conclude "I must do X because X is good". It guides us by influencing our thinking from a position which is external to our knowledge. It guides us without us knowing that it guides us.

So, what defines something as "good" is the fact that it is pursued, because the good is what guides our pursuits. When he is talking about understanding "the good" in that section of "The Republic", he issues the disputed statement. "Every soul pursues the good and does its utmost for its sake." 505e trans. Grube.

Before stating this, he mentions the problems with defining "good'" and that people talk about the good as if they know what it means when they do not. Then he suggests that some define "good" as "pleasure", and some as "knowledge". He rejects pleasure because obviously, some pleasures are bad, and some are good.

Instead of moving toward a more specific definition, such as a certain type of pleasure, he moves to a more general description, what every soul pursues is the good. This allows that pleasures which are not pursued are not good. And, that things pursued other than pleasure might be good as well. Also, in not giving a clear definition, it allows that "the good" is not a form of knowledge. He excludes "the good" from knowledge.

So he rejects "knowledge" because the soul "is perplexed and cannot adequately grasp what it is". When asked again, whether he considers the good "to be knowledge or pleasure or something else altogether", Socrates move along to the analogy with beauty.

By this analogy, beauty is related to the senses in the same way that good is related to the intellect. He says that in the case of visible beauty, there is, other than the beautiful thing and the perceiver, a third thing required, this is light. And in the case of visible beauty, light is what turns out to be the "valuable" thing, as the overall "cause" of sight. In an analogous way, the good is described as the cause of intellection. The good illuminates the intelligible objects, making them intelligible to us, just like the sun illuminates visible objects, making them visible to us.

We can conclude therefore, that intellection, and understanding, are guided by the good, and that whichever intelligible objects (ideas) become intelligible to us, this is caused by the good illuminating them. The good shines its light on the idea, making it intelligible to us.. Furthermore, the good is something which is pursued. Therefore we can make the further conclusion that our pursuits determine in a causal way, the intelligible objects (ideas) which are intelligible to us.

The good therefore is not a type of knowledge, but a guiding principle of knowledge. It is external to, and independent from, the objects of knowledge, like the sun is independent from the objects of sight.

Aristotle relates the telos of individuals to the fulfillment of their kind of being, as noted in the quote given above. I will add the passage that prefaces it for clarity: — Paine

Well, obviously there are many different kinds. So this "good" must be specific to the kind. Now how do you make this compatible with what you said earlier "the good as a quality of creation as a whole", when the whole consists of many different kinds each with its own sort of good?

On the contrary. Chapter 10 of Book Lamba of Metaphysics presents the good of the whole world as the relations between beings through the order imposed by the Mover. — Paine

Again, you state "relations" here in the plural. There is a number of different relations therefore there must be a number of different goods. By what principle do you attribute these relations, which are the goods, to the whole, rather than to the individuals. A relationship between you and I has aspects specific to me, and aspects specific to you, but nothing proper to "the whole".

Take Socrates' description of "just" for example. The just state is the one in which each individual does one's own thing, minds one's own business, without interfering in the affairs of others. Clearly, each individual has one's own goods, making each individual privy to one's own particular affairs. But what "good" has the state? The state is said to be just, because it provides for each individual to have one's own particular goods. We cannot assign "good" also to the state, without changing the meaning of "good", because a state is a different kind of thing from an individual. And if you insist that the good of the state is the same as the good of the individual then we have a vicious circle of logic which provides us with no headway in trying to understand "good".

However, the term "good" is used in the categories of substance, of quality, and of relatedness alike; but a thing-as-such, i.e., a substance is by nature prior to a relation into which it can enter; relatedness is, as it were, an offshoot or logical accident of substance. Consequentially, there cannot be a Form common to the good-as-such and the good as a relation. — 1096a, 16

Primary substance for Aristotle, as defined in his Categories, is the individual. So if the good is a quality of substance, it is attributed to the individual. This is why there cannot be a Form of the good.

A Venn diagram — Fooloso4

It was a simple statement, not a Venn diagram. You're trying to alter the premise.

A Venn diagram with one circle being the things you pursue and the other circle being the things that are good shows that there is an area of overlap but also an area that does not overlap. They are not the same. — Fooloso4

There's a big problem with this assumption. Plato said "the good" is what every soul pursues. It is you who wants to define "the good" as something other than this, in some way which would allow your Venn diagram of overlap. So I asked you, how are you going to define "the good" then. It's easy to make a bold assertions like "every soul pursues the good some of the time, but not all of the time", but by what principles are you going to distinguish between when the soul is pursuing the good, and when the soul is not pursuing the good? And what kind of randomness within the soul would make it be pursuing the good at one moment, but not pursuing the good at the next moment? We do not experience such random shifts in our pursuits.

Suppose for example a person is working on a good project and is therefore pursuing the good. But something comes up and the person perceives a need to steal, to keep the project going. The person is still working on the good project, therefore pursuing the good. But since the person is actively stealing, is the person pursuing the not good at the very same time that the person is pursuing the good? How could the person be pursuing the good and pursuing the not-good at the same time, in relation to the same project?

Formal systems can be supported by acts of measurement. That makes them useful as models of the world. — apokrisis

Sure, but the point is that the standards as to what constitutes "support" for a formal system cannot itself be a formal system. So it's wrong to characterize something which is not understood as a formal system as "frantic hand waving", or else formal systems would just be totally useless fictions or fantasies.

The word 'matter' is etymologically related to 'mother': — Wayfarer

That's right, Plato's description of "matter" as the female receptacle, in the Timaeus is very sexual in nature. Plato plays with word meanings like that a lot. You'll see Socrates described as a midwife when "conception" is discussed, in the Theatetus for example.

In the passage from Book Lambda I cite above, the element of causality of what Aristotle finds to missing from Plato's good: " And those who posit the Forms also need a more authoritative principle; for why did things participate in the Forms or do so now? " — Paine

What I argued with Apollodorus in the other thread, is that "the good" itself is not properly a Form. The key to understanding this is that the good enlightens the intelligible objects, like the sun enlightens the visible object, as described in The Republic. This puts the good into a separate category from the Forms which are intelligible objects. It is by making the good into a Form, that Apollo equated the good with the One, and insisted that the One is the first principle for Plato, claiming the Neo-Platonists to have a better interpretation of Plato than Aristotelians.

The One is definitely a Form, but Apollo and I discussed Aristotle's mentions of a difference between mathematical objects and Forms, because the One can be seen to be both. I argued that mathematical objects are just a special type of Form which are derived from the One, which crosses the boundary between types. However, the good escapes mathematics altogether, and as I argued, even if we make a hierarchy of type of Forms, the good must be something completely different, by the sun analogy. And the good belongs in the category of many, not of one.

Pursuit of the good in this context is not an object or a goal in the way one says that the telos of making a chair is made actual when the plan for it has come into being. Learning what is real versus what is opinion is the activity being sought after. Aristotle speaks of telos as becoming what one was made to be, as quoted above: — Paine

I would say that thinking in this sense is in the pursuit of a goal. The goal might be truth. But then the goal might be some other pragmatic thing based on application, or prediction, or whatever. It is this feature, that the action is carried out for a purpose, a goal, but the goal is unclear even to the person thinking, which creates the problem. And if we look directly at the action, as Aristotle did, in his ethics, in an attempt to determine the end, we see that whatever end is intended, becomes the means to a further end, and then a further end, which appears as if it might extend indefinitely, unless we posit an ultimate end, as he did, happiness.

In speaking of the good as a quality of creation as a whole, this language of telos for individual beings is exchanged for the outcome of the activity of the unmoved mover: — Paine

I don't understand this at all. You seem to be making "the good" into "the One", like Apollo was, saying it's "a quality of creation as a whole". And this appears completely inconsistent with Aristotle. For Aristotle, perfection, or good, is a feature of the individual, in its fulfilment of its own particular form, which is unique to it, and only it, by the law of identity.

What are you talking about? There is no unstated premise in the distinction between seeing what you eat and eating what you see. Either you eat everything you see or you don't. — Fooloso4

I can't believe you don't see this. The statement says I eat what I see, and it says I see what I eat. There is no difference between these unless it is specified either I see more than I eat, or I do not see more than I eat. That further premise is not provided. So your claim "either you eat everything you see or you don't" is not relevant to any conclusion drawn. The information has not been provided. Allowing such information to affect your conclusion is invalid logic. You are producing a conclusion drawn from a premise which is not part of the argument.

It's a sophistic trick, a form which is very commonly exemplified with equivocation. A common word will be used in a premise, and the premise will give that word a very strict meaning. However, since it's a common word, the interpreter will assign a much wider meaning to the word then is given to it by the premise. Then the interpreter will allow a conclusion based on the wider meaning, rather than adhering to the strict meaning given in the premise. This is equivocation, and its very similar to what you re doing here. You are giving a wider meaning to "see" than what is provided by the premise "I see what I eat". The premise allows only what I am eating to be what I see, but you are assuming some further meaning of "see", not stated.

For whatever that’s worth..... — Mww

When I'm getting attacked mostly on the basis of ad hominem

Well, consider the source. Enough said. — Fooloso4

It means a lot.

Thermodynamics is the ground for time. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is not really true. Time is a constraint in thermodynamics, but thermodynamics is clearly not the ground for time, because time is an unknown feature. We cannot even adequately determine whether time is variable or constant. I think it's important to understand that the principles of thermodynamics are applicable to systems, and systems are human constructs. Attempts to apply thermodynamic principles to assumed natural systems are fraught with problems involving the definition of "system", along with attributes like "open", "closed", etc..

Definition requires difference. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is a mistaken notion which I commonly see on this forum. Definition really does not require difference. Definition is a form of description, and description is based in similarity, difference is not a requirement, but a detriment because it puts uncertainty into the comparison. So claiming that definition requires difference, only enforces my argument that this is proceeding in the wrong direction, putting emphasis on the uncertainty of difference rather than the certainty of sameness. A definition which is based solely in opposition (difference), like negative is opposed to positive for example, would be completely inapplicable without qualification. But then the qualification is what is really defining the thing that the definition is being applied to.

Logically, it would make more sense to start down at the very smallest differences that can be discriminated. If you wanted to define visible colors, you work your way around something analogous to a digital color wheel, and tweak the various shades in small increments until you've laid out a map of all the discernable colors. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Notice what you say, you look for something "analogous". Analogy informs us through similarity, not through the differences. The differences are what we must work to exclude, to make the analogy work.

If you look at theories of parts and wholes in metaphysics, generally it is proposed that things are just the sum of their traits, and so traits are the logical unit of analysis. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is not true at all. It is generally proposed in metaphysics, and supported by evidence, that a whole is greater than the sum of its parts. There is a logical fallacy, the composition fallacy, which results from what you propose.

The primary opposing theories to this view hold that objects possess an essential haeccity, a substratum of "thisness." This substratum of bare being/identity makes a thing different from just its traits, and so neatly solves many problems of identity that come up when you posit that a thing is just the tropes/universals it possesses/instantiates. — Count Timothy von Icarus

And this is nothing but nonsense. What could a "substratum of 'thisness'" possibly refer to? "Thisness" is what we assign in predication. It is a feature of human description. It is impossible that the human description is the substratum of the thing itself. This is the same sort of problem which you demonstrate with thermodynamics and "system" above. You attempt to make the description, or the model, into the thing itself. But then all the various problems with the description, or model, where the model has inadequacies, are seen as issues within the thing itself, rather than issue with the description.

Mysterious tendencies don’t lend themselves to formal treatment, just frantic hand waving. — apokrisis

Nothing in the real world submits itself to "formal treatment". Formal systems are pure theory. And, there is a very real divide between theory and practice, which produces the necessity for standards of application. The standards for applying formal systems in practice, cannot themselves be formal systems. So those who dismiss such standards as "frantic hand waving", choosing to apply formal systems willy-nilly, produce nothing but fictious nonsense.

But the problem with that view is, it doesn't allow for the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences, nor for the fact that mathematics is governed by rules. So I'm firmly part of the 'mathematics is discovered' camp. — Wayfarer

This problem goes both ways. There is the "unreasonable effectiveness" to deal with, but also there is mistaken axioms to deal with. How do you account for the reality of mistaken discoveries? What is it that is discovered, when the discovery is a mistake?

So, how does your acknowledgement that the pursuit of the good is difficult relate to your previous claims that there is no 'overarching' good? — Paine

Pursuit of "the good" as one individual object, the One, is a mistaken venture, and that is the obvious reason why pursuit of the good is extremely difficult. I covered this with Apollodorus, who insistently reduces "the good" to the One, in another thread. Incidentally, this is one reason why Aristotle rejects "the form of the good", because "the good" turns out to be a multitude of particulars, rather than one specific form.

but everyone wants the things that really are good — The Republic 505d

Understanding "the good" is how Plato came to the revelation (in his middle period) that the Pythagorean theory of participation was inadequate. If you look closely you'll see that he actually rejects "participation" in his later work, such as "The Sophist", and this rejection is what Aristotle provides us with a continuation of.

The principal issue is the relationship between passive and active, which Aristotle did an excellent job of exposing. In the theory of participation, the Idea is passive, and the objects which partake in the Idea are active, in the sense that they partake. This passivity denies the Idea any active causality in the real world. But what we see in the evidence of artefacts, is that ideas are somehow very causally active. So Plato sees "the good" as what gives causality to ideas, and this is final cause in Aristotle.

This is the reversal of "representation" which is required to truly understand the nature of knowledge. Commonly, knowledge is described as a representation, a modeling, or a map of the real world. But this totally misses the principal function of knowledge, which is to bring about change in the world. So we need to reverse things, to see the real world as a representation (or reflection) of the ideas. This is the significance of the cave allegory. The shadows on the wall are the material artefacts, the fire is the good, and the human beings are using the ideas to create the shadows. The shadows are a reflection of the ideas, but they can only be apprehended as such through a grasping of "the good", as the fire. Once the philosopher apprehends this, then he ascends beyond the cave (the artificial world) to an understanding of the whole world in this way. The material existence is a reflection of the ideas, but we cannot neglect the fact that it is only such if we appeal to a higher "good" beyond the human good. The human good is the fire, the higher good is the sun.

Do you eat everything you see? — Fooloso4

This is the unstated premise, (that you do not eat everything you see), which makes your example an example of sophistry. In logic the premises must be stated, and if you appeal to subliminal implications it's not valid logic but sophistry.

This is another example of the philosophical problem with our materialistic (matter-based) language. Aristotle defined "substance" from two different perspectives (the "qualifications" I mentioned before). When he was trying to distinguish his pragmatic philosophy from Plato's idealistic ideology, he took matter as the primary. But when he was trying to define his notion of "hylomorphism", he had to distinguish the Actual material (hyle=stuff) from the Potential design (morph=pattern). Hence you have a which-came-first dilemma : the mental idea or the material actualization of the design? — Gnomon

I think you have things a little backward here. Substance in the primary sense, is the most basic, common, and truest sense of the word. This is what Aristotle says at the beginning of "Categories" Ch 5.

"Substance in the truest and primary and most definite sense of the word, is that which is neither predicable of a subject nor present in a subject; for instance the individual man or horse. But in a secondary sense those things are called substances within which, as species, the primary substances are included; also those which, as genera, include the species. For instance, the individual man is included in the species 'man', and the general to which the species belongs is 'animal'; these therefore --- that is to say, the species 'man', and the genus 'animal' --- are termed secondary substances. — Aristotle Categories 2a 10-15

Now, when we turn to his "Physics" we see that the primary substances. particulars, necessarily consist of both matter and form. The form of the particular (primary substance) is very different from the form of the of the species or genera (secondary substance), the primary "form" includes accidentals which are unique to the individual, and the secondary "form" is an abstraction, a formula or essence.

Under the principles outlined in his physics, the "form" of the particular individual is what accounts for its actual existence, what it actually is, and the matter accounts for the potential for change, the fact that it could be other than it is. Therefore, contrary to what you say the actual existence of a thing is attributed to its form, while potential is assigned to the matter.

Since I'm an Architect, I tend to think that the mental image (imaginary structure) is prior to the physical building (material structure), hence primary. And morph/form is what I mean by Aristotelian "substance" as the immaterial essence of a thing. I realize Ari's ambiguous reference is potentially confusing. My Enformationism worldview is plagued by many similar dual-meaning words : such as physical "Shape" vs mental "Form". Do you know of another philosopher who found a non-ambiguous term to distinguish between Substance and Essence? — Gnomon

This "which came first" dilemma is resolved in Aristotle's "Metaphysics". He poses the problem of why is a thing what it is, rather than something else. Why is it the very unique and particular individual which it is, and not something other than this. He refers to his "law of identity", that a thing is necessarily the same as itself, and it cannot be other than itself. And, since when a thing comes into being (becomes, or is generated), it is necessarily an ordered whole rather than parts randomly scattered without order, it is necessary that the form of the individual is prior in time to the material existence of the individual.

He supports this conclusion that form is prior to matter, in the absolute sense, with his so-called cosmological argument. It is impossible that potential is prior to actual because this would mean a time when there was only potential, and nothing actual. But potential cannot actualize itself, as any potential needs an actuality to actualize it. Therefore if there ever was a time with pure, absolute potential (what some call "prime matter"), there would always be pure absolute potential because it could never actualize itself. What we observe is actuality, therefore pure absolute potential is impossible. And, we must conclude that form, as actual, is prior to matter as potential in the absolute sense.

Notice that this leads to a duality of "form". There is "form" in the sense of secondary substance, formula, which is the species, or genera, and there is also "form" in the sense of primary substance, which is the form of the particular. The two are distinct because the form of secondary substance is an abstraction which is universal, an essence, and this does not include the accidentals. In the primary sense, "form" is a particular and unique individual, including accidentals. This "form", in the sense of primary substance is necessarily prior to the material object to account for the truth of the law of identity. So "form" in the sense of primary substance may exist independently of that substance, but we cannot assign "substance" to that sense of "form", because "substance" requires the duality of matter and form.

Talk of "mysterious tendencies" need to be replaced by talk of entropic gradients, — apokrisis

Why? How would replacing "mysterious tendencies" with "entropic gradients" improve one's understanding? I think this would be a step backward, because "mysterious tendencies" is the more general, and "entropic gradients" is the more specific. Real understanding assigns logical priority to the more general. So for instance, we understand "human being" through an understanding of "animal", and we understand "animal" through reference to "mammal", etc..

So, we should start by defining "mysterious tendencies" as aspects of reality which are not properly understood, or something like that, instead of proceeding to talk about "entropic gradients" in the pretense of understanding.

It does not follow from the claim that we pursue the good that the good is whatever it is we pursue. — Fooloso4

Yes it does, unless one states that we pursue something other than the good as well as pursuing the good, the inverse holds. No qualification is stated at this point. We pursue the good, therefore whatever it is that we are pursuing is the good. The end.

We may see what we eat but that does not mean we eat what we see. — Fooloso4

Yes it does mean that. I see what I eat means very exactly, that I eat what I see. That I may be seeing other things, or that I might eat other things, needs to be mentioned to be made relevant. If you tell me, "I see what I eat", then ask me "what do I see?", so I name what you are eating, and you say I am wrong, because you were looking at something else as well, you are only practicing sophistic deception by using unstated premises.

If the good is whatever we pursue then the destruction of the rain forests to build luxury housing is good. To kill everyone you do not like is good. To enslave people in order to obtain cheap labor is good. — Fooloso4

Actually you need to distinguish the means from the end here. The luxury housing is the good which is pursued, the destruction of the rainforest is "just", or justified by this end. So it is beneficial. That's what I described above, concerning Plato's statement that the just and beneficial exist in relation to the good, as the means to the end.

The problem you disclose here (i.e. that what is sought as "the good" to some might not be thought to be good to others), is dealt with by Aristotle in his classic distinction between the apparent good, and the real good. But we can find the seed to this distinction in Plato, at the part I referenced above for example:

And isn't this also clear? In the case of just and beautiful things, many people are content with what are believe to be so, even if they aren't really so, and they act, acquire, and form their own beliefs on that basis. Nobody is satisfied to acquire things that are merely believed to be good, however, but everyone wants the things that really are good and disdains mere belief here. — The Republic 505d

Thanks for the quote, it puts what I've quoted in context. Notice that after he says that the good is what every soul pursues, he proceeds to say that we are unable to get an adequate grasp of it. Our actions are brought about by our pursuit of the good, but we are not even able to properly grasp the good which we pursue. This is why Plato argues that virtue is not knowledge. Aristotle assigns "happiness" as the ultimate good, attempting to bring the good into the fold of intelligibility.

I think you'll find the best discussions about whether virtue is knowledge, and teachable, in Protagoras and also Gorgias. This I think is where he does the most work to separate good from pleasure.

But only one is realistic. — Wayfarer

Incidentally, I believe what I described is why the observations of quantum mechanics are so difficult to interpret. Because relativity principles are so deeply entrenched in modern physical theories, the consequence is that any interpretation is correct, but no interpretation is the true interpretation. As it turns out, Many Worlds becomes the best interpretation, but that's just a reflection of the logical consequences of staying true to the principles employed. The conclusions reflect the premises. And so it is a nonsense interpretation which denies the possibility of a real world, thrown out to us, because the principles plugged in, deny the possibility of a real world.

One answer I got on Stack Exchange was:

There is no causation in logic. Some formulas are equivalent to others, and common language confuses the issue with formulations like "this circle has circumference Pi because its diameter is 1", when in fact saying one proposition is the same as saying the other. It is not analogous to physical causation (I.e. The observation that some events often happen in succession).

I see the point, but I can't help but think there's something wrong with it. I mean, it seems to me science relies heavily on the application of logic to the analysis of causal relationships. And that 'natural law' is where these meet. You conjecture that if [x] then [y], and then carry out an experiment or make an observation that confirms or disconfirms it. So I'm considering the idea that scientific law is where logical necessity and physical causation intersect, but I've never heard anyone else say that. — Wayfarer

Actually there is causation at work in logical necessity, it is final cause. This is a very important philosophical principle to understand. It is Plato's "the good", described in "The Republic" as that which makes intelligible objects intelligible, like the sun makes visible objects visible. Why do we adhere to logic, and say that conclusions are necessary? Because it is good and useful to do that. Why do we understand "2+2=4"? Because it is good and useful to understand this. That is final cause at work.

We're sorrounded by the products of applied maths and physics. — Wayfarer

The "products" you mention here are "the goods" which the intelligible objects help to bring into existence as final causation. Notice that the intelligible objects themselves are not the actual cause. The desire for the good, what we call "intention" is the actual cause, and the intelligible objects are the means to that end. They become intelligible to the individual, because the individual has the desire for the end. That is why the good, as final cause or intention, is not the intelligible object itself, but that which makes the intelligible object intelligible, like the sun makes visible objects visible.

Plato exposed this principle, and it has a long history in theology. The revelation of the true nature of the good as a cause, final cause, is called "seeing the light" because of Plato's analogy. Why is there a world? Because God saw that it was good, final cause. Under this principle all human knowledge falls to pragmaticism. But then a higher form of knowledge is revealed to us, that which knows the truth, divine knowledge. And when we make "the truth" the good which is sought, we allow ourselves to be ruled by divinity, making human knowledge compatible with divine knowledge.

But only one is realistic. — Wayfarer

Yes, that's the way we look at it, as the laity, but it's not the way that the principles of relativity theory dictate that we look at it. By relativity theory we do not judge a model of moving bodies on the basis of which model is more realistic, the judgement is made on other principles such as which model is more useful for the purpose at hand, which is usually some sort of prediction.

Are you familiar with model-dependent realism?

Both models are useful. So if usefulness is the basis for judgement of correctness, then both are correct. But the point is, what this example provided. If there is no true way of modeling motions, i.e. different ways of modeling the same moving bodies are useful for different purposes, then the judgement of theories is based in usefulness rather than truth. Following from this, relativity will become the prevailing theory, because it is naturally versatile by allowing the same moving bodies to be modeled in whatever way proves to be the most useful. If you are one to believe in "truth" you will see that relativity theory is a forfeiture of truth.

The laws are such that living beings have evolved. They might have been otherwise, but we would never have been around to discuss it. — Wayfarer

If living beings have evolved, and the universe has evolved, then why not believe that the laws have evolved as well?

So I think the Copernican revolution was more radical than Einstein's in that sense, as Einstein didn't invalidate the basic tenets of Newtonian physics in the way that Copernicus did Ptolemy. — Wayfarer

The Copernican revolution did a very odd and sort of paradoxical thing, and that is that it gave birth to modern relativity theory. If the motions of the planets could be represented equally through the Ptolemaic model as through the Copernican model, then both models are actually "correct", when correctness is determined by usefulness. They are both useful in their own way. But if both models are actually correct, then there is no true or absolute perspective, from which to judge motion, and motion is best represented as relative, and relativity theory is derived.

If we take the position, that one of these models is the correct, or the true perspective, then we deny the relativity of motion, and assume an absolute, or true perspective for motion. But when we take the perspective of relativity theory, we deny that any model of motion is the true model.

The paradox is that the lay person will see the Copernican revolution as giving us the true model of the solar system, while the physicist will see the Copernican revolution as demonstrating the utility of relativity theory. So we, as the laity, come away from the Copernican revolution thinking that it has been demonstrated that there is an absolute truth to motions, while the physicists come away thinking that it has been demonstrated that the best way to model motions is as relative. So the Copernican revolution has demonstrated to some of us, the truth of absolute motion, while it has demonstrated to others, the validity of relative motion, i.e. relativity theory.

Somehow it escapes MU's notice that there is the problem of unjust actors and unjust actions in the Republic. — Fooloso4

How is this a problem? We ere talking about "the good", not "just" or "unjust". You never moved to establish a relation between these. And I still do not believe you could if you tried, because it's not at all straight forward.

Declaring they are identical, and that that fact is obvious to anyone who has done enough reading is an odd abandonment of a thesis. It is a kind of solipsism. — Paine

And I suspect the latter, for you often heard it said that the form of the good is the most important thing to learn about and it's by their relation to it that just things and others become useful and beneficial — The Republic 504e

Notice above, that what is described as being in relation to the good, is what Aristotle calls the means to the end. The good is the end, and things are deemed as just or beneficial when they are apprehended as the means to the end. Now consider the line below, and take it for exactly what it says. "Every soul pursues the good". Therefore what every person pursues is the good. In Aristotle this is final cause, as in his example, health is the reason why the man is walking. Health is what the man pursues, and is therefore the (final) cause of him walking. It is the good, in this instance, what the person pursues.

Every soul pursues the good and does its utmost for its sake.[/quote} — The Republic 505e

Ζ.3 begins with a list of four possible candidates for being the substance of something: essence, universal, genus, and subject. . . . Aristotle’s preliminary answer (Ζ.4) to the question “What is substance?” is that substance is essence, but there are important qualifications. — Gnomon

Essence is "substance" in the secondary sense, notice "universal", "genus", "subject". That is how secondary substance is defined. In the primary sense, substance is defined as the individual.

Aristotle used this to forward the conclusion that the universe is eternal. — Kuro

The conclusion is not so simple, because the argument you presented must be taken within the proper context. Notice that the paragraph closes with a conditional statement: "But if this is true of time, it is evident that it must also be true of motion, time being a kind of affection of motion." So he then proceeds to question the idea of eternal motion. He concludes that there must be a first mover which is not itself moved, and this denies the possibility of eternal motion. The unmoved mover implies that there is something outside of motion and time, so "eternal" is given that meaning, outside of time, and infinite motion, as well as infinite time, are rendered as incoherent.

Is your intent to demonstrate your sophistic skills? — Fooloso4

No, I am demonstrating Plato's use of "the good". You use "good" in a way which demonstrates that you do not understand Plato, so I am trying to help you. If you have no desire to understand, insisting that my demonstration of what Plato wrote is just sophistry, then this discussion is pointless.

Republic 509b:

Therefore, say that not only being known is present in the the known as a consequence of the good, but also existence and being are in them besides as a result of it ...
(Bloom translation) — Fooloso4

Exactly as I described above, "consequence of the good" refers to what Aristotle named as final cause, purpose. "Being known" is subsequent to (the consequence of) the purpose or intent of the knower, and purpose and intent are necessarily relative to a good. So for instance, I'll learn how to change a tire for the purpose of repairing a flat. Repairing the flat is the good. That knowledge within me (how to change a tire), that instance of "being known", is a consequence of the good I intend, which is to repair a flat.

You have a desire to take another step, to make a judgement as to whether what I intend (as the good), is a true good or is perhaps not good. But you have given me no principles for making such a judgement, nor have you given me reference to where Plato describes such principles. As I've told you this sense of "good", which has an opposite, "not good", is not consistent with Plato. "Pleasure" has its opposite, "pain", but "good" has no such opposite, and this is why "good" cannot be equated with "pleasure".

Therefore I assume that this is just your own subjective opinion, a feature of your imagination, this sense of "good", which you are trying to insert into the discussion. Thus it is you who is practicing sophistry, trying to slip in a meaning of "good" which is not consistent with the one which is the subject of our discussion, in an attempt to equivocate.

Aristotle made a distinction between two kinds of "substance". : 1. Primary Substance -- Being qua Being, or 2. Secondary Substances -- species & genera (i.e. specific instances of Being). As I interpret those categories, Primary Substance is Essence (massless potential), but Secondary Substance is Matter (massy existence). The earthy "ground" I take for granted is Secondary & sensory, hence no mystery. But, the "substance" that "miraculously" gives mass to matter is Primary & abstract. Actually, Mass is merely a different form of Energy : energy transforms into mass, which is the property of matter that is mysteriously attracted to other masses via gravity (L. heaviness). — Gnomon

Primary substance, as defined by Aristotle is the individual, the particular, such as the individual man, or individual horse. Secondary substance is the species such as "man" or "horse". Since the category of "primary substance" consists of particular items, we cannot say that these are massless potentials. Each object has a form unique to itself, as well as its matter. This is the basis for Aristotle's law of identity, and his hylomorphism. What provides the "substance" to the particular, has been debated. Some would argue that it is the matter of the object, some would argue that it is the form, which constitutes the substance. I would argue that "primary substance" requires both. But if "form" is argued as prior, and responsible for the identity of the particular, this leaves matter as unnecessary (demonstrated by Berkeley), which is consistent with the true to the definition of matter, as potential, and this means that primary substance, as particular individuals, is not necessary, particulars are contingent.

So I think that you conflate the categories here. Matter is defined as potential, and matter is what is said commonly, to have mass. However, when we assign a property to "matter", we are assigning a form to it, properties are formal. So this is the first mistake which a physicist, (Newton for example) might make, to assign mass directly to matter as a necessary property. This negates the true definition of matter as pure potential by restricting that potential to the characteristics of mass, saying that all matter must have this specific formal attribute, mass.

If we say that all individual particulars have matter, and all matter has mass, then we lose the capacity to speak of massless potential in the form of primary substance. Primary substance is necessarily a combination of matter and form, so when we say that matter necessarily has mass, we lose the capacity to speak of massless matter, and therefore we lose the capacity to speak of massless primary substance as well because primary substance must have matter. And since matter represents the potential of primary substance, we can have no primary substance in the case of massless potential. Massless potential cannot have matter and therefore cannot be primary substance

So physicists fall back on secondary substance, a specified form, to speak of massless individuals, particles. However, then these particles escape Aristotle's law of identity, not being identified as matter and form (having no matter, because the true potential of matter has been lost by assigning matter the property of mass); consequently these particles can only be understood as generic forms (secondary substance), and cannot be given the status of true identifiable individuals (primary substance).

In my thesis terminology, Primary Substance is the Power to Enform, to give form to the formless. In Einstein's equation, that mysterious ability to create Mass from the massless is "magical" Energy. And according to current Information theories, Energy (potential) is merely one form of generic Information -- the same non-stuff that creates Meaning in a brain. So, shape-shifting Information does seem to be magical -- but it's also material, and that's what brings massless ideas back down to earth. — Gnomon

I don't think this is really consistent with Aristotle's "primary substance", because under Aristotle's definitions, primary substance is an individual object, and an object is a unity of matter and form. However, if we assign the identity of the particular, to the formal aspect, as I described above, then the form of the particular is necessarily prior to its material existence, as what determines the particular's existence as the unique individual which it is. This enables the concept of independent Forms. But the union between matter and form must remain a mystery because "matter", by definition refers to the aspect of the particular which is unintelligible to us. If we assign a property to matter, like "mass", in the attempt to bring matter into the realm of intelligibility, then we defeat the purpose of the concept, to refer to the unintelligible aspect of reality, and we delude ourselves by thinking that the unintelligible has become intelligible.

Relations that are "resistant to change" are eternal & infinite, like Primary Substance : — Gnomon

This is not realistic. As we know, an object is resistant to change only until the necessary force required to change it, is applied to it. So we cannot represent "resistant to change" as eternal and infinite, that would be a mistake. Each object has its own temporal duration, as a property of its own internal resistance to change, and external forces applied to it, and never do we find an eternal and infinite object. This is what is meant when we talk about objects as being contingent, they are generated and corrupted.

The problem is to distinguish the one from the other. If your relationship with Marilyn Monroe is only to see her on the screen, then this relationship is exactly the same whether she's presently dead or alive. In this situation there is no difference to you between sophistry and philosophy.

Apparently, MU, I'm not as 'smart' or 'full of gnosis' as you — 180 Proof

And:

I'm in good company — 180 Proof

While I'm at it, I'll add this:

the human tendency toward self-flattering delusions is well known. — lll

So traditional metaphysics is comparable with physics, biology, and mathematics ? Why not mention astrology, phrenology, and numerology ? Why not theology, an especially obvious choice? Could not the theologian insist on the same point? — lll

Yes, sure why not? These are all fields of study along with physics, mathematics, biology and metaphysics, requiring effort and learning of principles. And, I would expect the ones who made the effort to study them to have a better understanding, and be more capable of discussing those principles. Do you have difficulty with this?

Any more questions? :smile: — Gnomon

I understand primary and secondary substance in a way slightly different from you. Maybe I'll get to that tomorrow.

But that does not mean that everything we do is good. — Fooloso4

Yes it does mean that everything we do is good, unless you move to judge "good" by some other principle. What principle would you propose?

Sin is fundamental to Christianity, although that problem was supposed to have been fixed, Christianity does not claim that people no longer sin. — Fooloso4

"Sin" is a completely different concept. We were talking about "good". This is the point, it is a mistake to oppose "sin": with "good". A sinner is still fundamentally good, therefore we forgive.

Knowledge of the good itself is not knowledge of what motivates one's own actions but rather what distinguishes between those actions that are good and those that are not. — Fooloso4

Again, if "good" is not defined in the way I described, a definition which is consistent with both Plato and Aristotle, as that for the sake of which an action is carried out, then what principle do you propose? You talk about some phantom sense of "good" which is supposed to have an opposite, "not good", and you claim that knowing this "good" will provide you with a basis for judgement between "good" and "not good". But obviously this is just your phantasy, there is no such sense of "good".

Suppose we define "good" as the opposite of "not good". How is this supposed to help us distinguish actions that are good from actions which are not good? That is why we don't define "good" in this way, we define it in relation to a specific purpose. Then we have a principle to judge whether an act is conducive to the specified good.

It is clear that you have not read or perhaps just not understood what Plato says about the good itslef in the Republic. — Fooloso4

In The Republic, the good is what makes an intelligible object intelligible, just like the sun is what makes a visible object visible. This is exactly what I've been describing, an intelligible object becomes intelligible to a person, as it is required for a purpose. The purpose, or good, lights up the intelligible object, making it intelligible, just like the sun lights up the visible object, making it visible.

Those who are not inclined toward making the effort to understand criticisms of traditional metaphysics tend to try and dismiss criticisms of traditional metaphysics with faulty principles. — lll

This is actually untrue. Those who are well educated in traditional metaphysics have very little, if any problem understanding such criticisms, and tend to address them adequately, with sound metaphysical principles. But those not educated in traditional metaphysics, being unwilling to make the effort, do not have such an understanding, and tend to dismiss traditional metaphysics with faulty principles. Therefore the knife really just cuts one way. What is the case generally, is that what makes a subject difficult to understand is that special instruction about abstruse things is necessary to understand it. This is no different from mathematics, physics, chemistry, or biology for example.

My point is only that doubt requires grounds just as belief and disbelief do. — 180 Proof

And my point is that this is manifestly untrue. "Doubt" is an uncertainty, and as such it is fundamentally different from belief, which is a form of certainty. The mental state of being uncertain does not require grounds, and it especially does not require "compelling grounds" as you stated earlier. Compelling grounds is what produces certainty, and certainty is fundamentally distinct from uncertainty.

To clarity, epistemic attitudes contrary to the status quo – positing new doubts, new dis/beliefs – require grounds and lacking those grounds the status quo remains (i.e. certainty). — 180 Proof

Again, this is fundamentally incorrect. There is no need to posit alternatives in order to be uncertain of the status quo. In reality, the "status quo" needs to be justified. It is fundamentally illogical to accept "the status quo" simply on the basis of authority. This is why so many people reject religion, because we are often asked to accept the principles on faith without being offered any justification of those principles.

there are no grounds for "doubting everything that can be doubted" — 180 Proof

And this is also incorrect. There is very good grounds to doubt everything which can be doubted. Any principle which has not been adequately justified may prove to be unacceptable if doubted. And, since we cannot know prior to doubting them, which ones are unacceptable, we must doubt everything which can be doubted, in order to determine which ones are unacceptable. Even if it turns out to be only a sparse few principles, out of a vast lot, we cannot know which ones until we doubt them all.

One doesn't begin uncertain and then becomes certain or begin certain and become uncertain; one is always both but in different respects and striving to discern which is which or when it's the case and when it's not the case. Epistemic attitudes or perspectives are much for fluid and nonlinear than you seem to assume, MU. No wonder you don't understand Witty et al. — 180 Proof

Finally, I think that this is obviously false as well. We do begin uncertain, as little babies. Schooling teaches us how to become certain. It is true though that a grown adult is usually certain in some respects and uncertain in others. Retaining an open mind (uncertainty) in the face of an education system which attempts to rid us of this, is something which requires significant philosophical training. But the fact that most adults are certain in some respects and uncertain in others, does not negate the fact that we begin as uncertain.

There is a distinction between the intent of or motivation for an act and the evaluation of that act. Not everything we do is good. — Fooloso4

But everything we do is for a good.

Being directed toward an end is not the same as attaining that end. Not every act is good. — Fooloso4

As I explained in a post above, every act is inherently good. I don't know if you read that post, but this is fundamental to Christianity, and why love and forgiveness are the chief principles of Christianity.

When Plato talks about "the good" he does not mean some quality that is good but the good itself. The good itself cannot be opposite of itself. The good itself is not some thing or act that is good. Knowledge of the good itself is that by which we can truly determine whether a particular act is good. — Fooloso4

The good itself is what motivates the act, what Aristotle calls "that for the sake of which". Knowledge of the good itself, is knowing what motivates one's own actions. Since every act is particular, there is a specific good unique to each and every individual act. Accordingly, your phrase "Knowledge of the good itself is that by which we can truly determine whether a particular act is good" makes no sense at all. There is no such thing as an overarching "the good", relative to which, particular acts might be judged as good or not.

Yes, Wittgenstein can be very misleading. He ought to be discussed in the thread on sophistry.

Read the thread on hinge propositions. There I argued that Wittgenstein is fundamentally wrong on this issue. That he is wrong on this issue ought not surprise anyone, given his attitude toward metaphysics. Those who are not inclined toward making the effort to understand metaphysics tend to try and dismiss metaphysics with faulty principles.

How do you think that the present situation of human beings with knowledge, evolved from the prior situation of beings without knowledge, if uncertainty is not prior to certainty?

It matters tho if one switches from 'mind' to 'language,' especially if one is supposed to be engaged upon a super-seance of that aforesaid mind. Nothing blinds as reliably and effectively as the so-called obvious. — lll

Mind is logically prior to language. So such a "switch" is a move in the wrong direction. and will only mislead you, as 180 Proof is obviously mislead into thinking that certainty is prior to skepticism. Language is a product of minds, just like certainty is a product of skepticism, and any attempt to reverse this logical order, is a mistake. This is why semiosis, which reduces fundamental biological processes to a form of language, results in panpsychism.

Only where there are compelling grounds am I "skeptical". — 180 Proof

I see you take the unreasonable approach 180. The rational human being says "only where there are compelling grounds am I certain". In other words, compelling grounds are what removes skepticism, not what induces it.

For pragmatic l purposes -- such as walking on solid ground -- I take matter for granted. — Gnomon

But the point is that you do not need to take matter for granted to be walking on solid ground. You just need to walk, and not think about what the ground is made of. And, it could turn out that the substance of the ground is something completely different from what is described by the concept "matter", just like it turned out that the earth orbits the sun instead of the ancient idea that the sun was going around the earth.

But for philosophical speculations, I have followed the findings of Quantum & Information sciences, to the conclusion that ultimate reality is in-substantial & immaterial. So, it seems possible that our massy world is constructed of weightless-but-meaningful relationships, such as mathematics & logic. — Gnomon

The problem with this is that you are lacking substance here. Meaningful relations between weightless things does not magically create a "massy world". Substance is what gives mass its inertia, its resistance to change, the ability to support you when you walk. So for example, if the ground was composed of meaningful relations of weightless things, we need to know why these relations are resistant to change. It is this resistance to change which produces the appearance of weight, and the massy world. But telling me that this is the result of meaningful relations doesn't tell me anything, unless you can say why some relations are more resistant to change than others. Does this mean that some are more meaningful than others? Why are some relations more meaningful than others?

Can you direct me to a more accessible source of information on the "annihilation of matter" concept? :smile: — Gnomon

Have you seen Berkeley's "Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous"?

It could be that taking 'mind' for granted is the end of philosophy and not its beginning. If you make this or that concept sacred, you're just scribbling a creed for a cult. — lll

It's not a matter of making any particular concept sacred, it's just a matter of recognizing that any philosophizing you are doing is done through your mind. You might call it something other than "mind" if you like, but it's still the same thing by a different name.

Perhaps 'logic' is largely a ghost story. — lll

That's always a possibility, but logic has already proven itself, so it's very unlikely. That's why the example of the demise of geocentric cosmology is so powerful. It demonstrates the power of logic to overthrow the assumed reality given to us through sensation. Empirical observation will mislead us immensely until we use proper logic to overturn the faulty empirical principles.

What you've presented seems to support precisely what I've said. Notice, that when we are discussing the good of an act, we are discussing something attributed to or directly related to the act. We are talking about opposing qualities, like pleasure and pain, we are not not talking about opposites themselves, as independent ideals.. You seem to be trying to separate "good" from the act, as if it were something independent from the act.