Aquinas gets his comeuppance?

Originally posted by black beetle
For the time being I don't "try to understand the mind of G-d". I am simply asking (you, our pyxelated, our Pink Floyd, any theist regardless of her/ his religion and/or denomination) to define which epistemic instruments did you use in order to conclude that the observer G-d is indeed existent
😵

Actually, to conclude that God exists no "epistemic instruments" are needed for most people. Ordinary life, with all its unexplained coincidences and the little daily miracles that defy rationalistic explanation (of which I have more than one that I have no desire to share in this forum 🙂 ), is usually enough. Not to mention that the Catholic Faith provides the best epistemic/ontological/metaphysical support available on the face of the planet Earth for the true understanding of individual-responsibility-in-a-social-context that I have ever seen or am likely to see, Aquinas or no (though I think he has a good deal to do with the clarity and comprehensiveness of it).

For the tough cases, though, we have Aquinas and Aristotle. The "epistemic instruments" accepted by this pair are generally the senses. These provide, it is true, no direct evidence of the existence of God, but do make indirect evidence available. More on this when I am better able to explain it in words 🙂

Now these two philosophers are not readily understandable to moderns, ill-educated as most of us are. Brought up as we have been on the somewhat-defective metaphysical (and ultimately antimetaphysical) notions of Bacon, Descartes, Hume, Locke, and Hobbes, it's no wonder we buy in to the line that science reveals the "real" world to us, while what we experience every day is relegated to the world of illusion. The color red, for instance, is "only" a mental artifact, not a reality; reality is reserved for the light at 450 mHz (or whatever the actual value is--I'm "paraphrasing" here 🙂 ).

This discussion isn't even possible without reference to the meta-physical (that's only Greek for "[what's] beyond the physical" ). What you, black beetle, consign to the realm of absurdity as "nonexistent" are such concepts as "the future" (which is infinite and thus nonexistent), our discussion (which lacks definitive physical representation--and thus existence), and practically every mental concept (the mind, as an entity indefinable purely physically--and therefore, according to you, lacking existence). Any epistemology that treats concepts, which are decidedly not physical entities, as nonexistent, is absurd on its face.

I'm sorry for the handwaviness and lack of substance of this, but it's all I have time for right now. To properly present Aquinas, on terms he would have accepted, requires an understanding of not only his thought, but that of Aristotle and Plato and others, that I frankly don't possess to any great depth right now. I have reached the point of being able to say where black beetle is wrong, but my explanation of why this is so is, shall we say, incomplete and ill-formed at the moment 🙂 I'm doing my best to remedy this, but it is a slow process, especially for one on the wrong side of half-a-century, with many years of bad mental habits to overcome using only the weak vehicle of conscious thought. But I thought I'd post something, just to keep the pot simmering 🙂

Originally posted by pyxelated
Actually, to conclude that God exists no "epistemic instruments" are needed for most people. Ordinary life, with all its unexplained coincidences and the little daily miracles that defy rationalistic explanation (of which I have more than one that I have no desire to share in this forum 🙂 ), is usually enough. Not to mention that the Catholic Faith provid I thought I'd post something, just to keep the pot simmering 🙂

Any epistemology that treats concepts, which are decidedly not physical entities, as existent outside the mind, is absurd on its face. Because I can conceive it, certainly does not mean that “it” exists—or, for that matter, is even necessarily coherent.

Concepts are mental formations that we form in our engagement with pre-conceptual reality. Such concepts may or may not reflect that reality—unicorns, for example.

The main divide between supernaturalist-dualists (theistic-dualists) and non-dualists is that the latter stop at the pre-conceptual—or at least acknowledge that anything subsequently spoken about it (as opposed to elicitive language that points to it—is just speculative. Even my (or anyone else’s) non-dualist metaphysics, even if it seems a more reasonable conceptual speculation.

What we have here, in a way, may be the distinction (or the confusion) between signifier, signified and referent.

I agree with BB: keep the whole thread continuing here.

_____________________________________________

BTW: Part of the point of the “null hypothesis” is to point up the asymmetry in the arguments here. To put it crassly, the burden of proof—for good reason—is on the “alternative hypothesis”. I really have little need to construct a “proof” against the notion that there is a tiny unicorn in my refrigerator that only becomes observable when the door is closed… Whether there is epistemic warrant for dualistic-theism is another question. I am only a “strong atheist” with regard to certain concepts of “god”; though I am not convinced that there is any epistemic warrant for belief in the supernatural category that seems to underpin theistic dualism.

____________________________________________

EDIT: Frankly, to present Aquinas (or Plato or Aristotle—or Epicurus or the Stoics or Sextus Empiricus, or&hellip😉 in terms that he/they “would have accepted” is quite beside the point, unless you want the discussion to be of the kind that Thomist scholars engage in, debating what the master “really meant”. Brilliant Aristotelian scholars disagree about the Aristotelian corpus (what, for example, is the “proper” translation of eudaimonia?). What Thomas means to you, however, and how that informs your beliefs—and how you think they are epistemically justified—that is what is important. And that is what you’re willing to subject to debate, or not.

Suppose I were to decide to posit the “existentialism” (actually, the “circumstantialism” ) of Jose Ortega y Gassett (one of the few philosophers that I actually know quite well, at least in translation) as the deciding body of argument against Aquinas (and his “essence as existence” for God)? I actually spent a whole, largely sleepless, night pondering that as the best “strategy”—not in terms of “winning” a debate, but in terms of what I see as a strong philosophical alternative. Well, Ortega is not around to present “his” argument. All I can really do is present my argument in terms that are informed by Ortega—and giving proper due and recognition to the source.

Nietzsche once said something to the effect that having the courage mount an attack against one’s own convictions was more important that having the courage to defend one’s own convictions. That, to my mind, is really the only thing that makes these kinds of arguments (in the best sense of that word) on here engaging. I’m not interested in debating points. I am interested in arguments that make me rethink my position—whether it is strengthened or weakened as a result. And I no longer have time or patience for those who so cling to their convictions—for whatever reason—that they cannot take up Nietzsche’s gauntlet.

A final word—with well-wishes all-around.

I don’t think you quite grasp the point from which blackbeetle and I am both coming from. And, for my part, that is my fault: I have been content to pose illustrative (or at least allusive) counters to Aquinas’ conceptual paradigm, per se. But that is peripheral.

Aquinas made a brief statement in response to an inquiry about his famous self-imposed silence before he died: “All that I have written is as straw compared to what I have experienced” (or “seen”, I am going from recall here). Note all that he could have said, but did not—for example:

“I have witnessed the risen Christ, compared to which all that I have written, …” etc., etc. Or, “I have experienced in my soul the living truth of Catholic teaching, compared to which…” etc., etc. Or… Make your own list.

And yet generations of Thomists keep parsing the straw!

My own speculation (which is all there is, since—pointedly—Thomas didn’t say): He experienced, without the mediation of conceptual, idea making thought, the ineffable Real—in which and of which we inescapably and inseparably are. And all the religious or philosophical conceptualizations and doctrines about that became—as straw. And the word “god”, and all the names all the people have ever had for the concept of god, and all the distinctions of divinity/non-divinity, supernatural/non-supernatural, theism/nontheism: straw, straw, chaff and waste, all of it. Because that’s what religion is: doctrinally prescribed or dogmatically mandated conceptualizations, understandings, beliefs “about”. And that is what philosophy is: particular ways of “thinking about”. Some more compelling than others, some more compelling to some minds than to others. And some richly and profoundly aesthetic—which is as much a part of my life as anything, and which I think gets short shrift in religious/spiritual conversations.

And that experience of the ineffable Real—what Buddhists call tathata: “the “just-so-suchness” of it all, prior to and unmediated by concept, thought, belief, etc.—includes us, even in the process of making up concepts to “describe” it, which includes us making up those concepts, in and endless recursion as long as we insist. We are hopelessly entangled in that of which we are, and our very inescapable entanglement means that our attempts at description—as if we were subjects separate from the object of our inquiry—are delusive. And doctrinalizing and dogmatizing our conceptualizations is folly.

And so, the only language we are really left with is poetic, allusive, elicitive. And in that sense, Thomas’ final words are like a Zen koan: pointing beyond all conceptualization, including his own brilliant attempts, as—straw. But people do not look where Thomas finally pointed—instead they keep looking at the pile of straw he left behind. Stirring it, parsing it, interpreting it, arguing their conceptualizations about his conceptualizations… One of his successors, Eckhart, I think understood—and, even including some of what appears to be his more straightforward spiritual direction, his language was deeply allusive and elicitive. (You see, any of us can play the name-dropping game; and we could swap quotes forever, and argue over the “proper interpretation”, or how the filioque may be responsible for all the “god-head” talk in the West that the Greek East never needed, or… .)

And that is where blackbeetle and I are coming from. We are not averse to the joy of play in maya, parsing the straw while giggling at our own folly, which is also of the tathata—but I fear that I am now once again abetting taking it all too seriously.

Ah, but how easy it is,
again and again,
to fall from the lightning
into the cabbage patch!
Ouch!

😳

Originally posted by vistesd
A final word—because then I am leaving this discussion, with well-wishes all around.

I don’t think you quite grasp the point from which blackbeetle and I am both coming from. And, for my part, that is my fault: I have been content to pose illustrative (or at least allusive) counters to Aquinas’ conceptual paradigm, per se. But that is peripheral ...[text shortened]... easy it is,
again and again,
to fall from the lightning
into the cabbage patch!
Ouch!

😳

I would say, what a disappointment. But then, contrary to the etymology, philosophy is the love of unanswerable questions. As soon as a question verges on being answerable, it either becomes science, or adjustments are made because having the question is preferable to having the answer.

Originally posted by pyxelated
Actually, to conclude that God exists no "epistemic instruments" are needed for most people. Ordinary life, with all its unexplained coincidences and the little daily miracles that defy rationalistic explanation (of which I have more than one that I have no desire to share in this forum 🙂 ), is usually enough. Not to mention that the Catholic Faith provid ...[text shortened]... I thought I'd post something, just to keep the pot simmering 🙂

Edit: “Actually… …it).”

I disagree. To conclude that something is existent, this “something” must be an observer. Furthermore, ordinary life with all its “unexplained coincidences” is merely a cause-effect chain; a lack of understanding herenow the causal relations doesn’t mean that we should adopt metaphysical views that are based on unjustified religious beliefs and on baseless assertions, as our Palynka loves to say. When you don’t know herenow, it’s enough to state you don’t know herenow. It’s unjustified to state “I don’t know because G-d did it, and since I cannot know what is going on in G-d’s mind it's clear I wasn't meant to know, so I have to deal with it, along with the myriad other mysteries of the triune G-d etc etc”. You see? To you and to our PinkFloyd and RJHinds G-d is triune, to our robbie is not triune, to our Dasa is something else, anything goes according to one’s evaluation as regards what religious dogma is considered eacy time by each person “right”. But in the beginning, all the Theist have is nothing but a blind belief. This is the case with Aquinas’ theology too.
On the other hand, why don’t you mention the… “best epistemic/ ontological/ metaphysical support” that the Catholic Faith provides, so that we can evaluate them? I have the feeling that the Catholic Faith is based on an ill-considered and thus untenable Aristotlean approach at its best (at its worst, it’s just theology based on untenable beliefs).
Finally, how did you came to conclude that the Catholic Faith is superior than any other “Faith”? How exactly and by what means you concluded that the Catholic Faith is superior than, say, the other two Abrahamic religions, than Bon, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sufism and so on? And how exactly and by what means the Catholic Faith, a product of just another Christian denomination, can be considered superior than any other Christian denomination?


Edit: “For the tough cases… …words”

I will lend you my ears whenever you will be able “to explain it in words”, sure thing, but my evaluation is different. In my opinion, the Christian tradition relying on Plato and Aristotle has not produced a satisfactory schema of the observer Universe and failed to bring up a rational theory of reality. Aristotle offered a sophisticated analytical apparatus that covered in full the Christian theory of reality and the Christian theology, and his remarkable corpus of work, which is a legacy of the Hellenic culture, is still the cultural foundation of the Western civilization. However, Aquinas’ theology and Christianity tried to turn the Human into the passive religionist who has lost his sapienza, reason and reasonableness, as well as the understanding of the Ultimate Purpose/ cause and Ultimate Good the way Aristotle perceived it. The Christian religious personages tried to replace philosophy, free thinking and thought, creative imagination and traditional aestheticism (the core basis of the Aristotlean philosophy, that is) with the idea of salvation, and Aquinas is a part of it all.
This is the reason why during the 4th up to the 12th century AD we monitor a gradual submission of reason and reasonableness to the myth and desire of the religious mind. The perceptive insights of the Greek philosophers were violently displaced by the dark reductionist myth of obedient unthinking slaves of monotheism. The adoption of Christianity, which is nothing but a modified Judaism, by Constantine forced the European civilization to replace the ancient Phoenician-Egyptian-Assyro-Babylonian-Greek-Roman cosmology by a primitive Judeo-Christian myth of creation, and this left no room at all for questioning the Ultimate Cause. This irrational religious approach had been always censoring the impulses of thought, suppressing the production of undesirable signs, scientific discoveries and free cultural expression for centuries, up to the brief period of the European Enlightenment. As a matter of fact, up to the 18th century the forces of intellect and analytical processes and imagined systems of cosmos could not appear freely. Therefore, you cannot claim that “you have Aquinas and Aristotle” in order to back up your theology. You have just Aquinas, a theologian, not a philosopher;


Edit: “Now… …here ).”

Both Aristotle and Aquinas are understandable to me. Well?


Edit: “This… ...its face.”

No. You appear to evaluate as “metaphysical” whatever you do not understand. For one, “future” is an illusion. For two, the “definite physical representation” is not a prerequisite for an observer to exist (electromagnetic fields, gravity, sound etc). For three, every mental concept exists simply because we construed it, and it cannot be evaluated as “absolute truth”.


Edit: “I'm sorry for the handwaviness and lack of substance of this, but it's all I have time for right now.”

No problem🙂


Edit: “To properly present Aquinas, on terms he would have accepted, requires an understanding of not only his thought, but that of Aristotle and Plato and others, that I frankly don't possess to any great depth right now.”

I will wait.
However, although I agree with our vistesd's thesis posted just above as regards this matter, methinks it’s futile to try to compare a theologian like Aquinas with a philosopher like Aristotle. Religion and theology were never actually replaced by common sens and philosophy -in fact, to me the theologian is merely a bad philosopher due to the following reasons amongst else:
1. The philosopher has to produce a clear and reasonable thesis which it has nothing to do with the "faith" or the "non-faith" factor; the theologian stands on his personal “absolute truth”, he builds an irrational system and he then he tries by any means to indoctrinate the other people in full by any means.
2. The philosopher has to take into account the given scientific finds and evidence; the theologian takes into account solely his personal “holy scripture”.
3. A philosophic theory must be fair and based on common sens, intuition, facts and evidence; a religious system is totally metaphysic.
4. The philosopher proceeds through the evaluation of the mind; the theologian surpasses the unsolvable problems of his religious system by means of presenting them as “holy mysteries”.
5. A philosophic theory is not a means of a mental doctrine, which it has to be absorbed "as is" in order to "free" the "people" from their so called "theological and/ or philosophical delusion"; a religious system is the opposite.
6. A philosophic theory must not be seen as a tool that it can be used in order to promote a solution for problems that have arise or that are supposed to arise in the future; a religious system is the opposite.
8. A philosophic theory has to survive severe criticism, therefore it must be well versed; a religious system is based on evidence and conclusions that they are both irrational to the hilt.
9. A philosophic system is looking for the truth herenow, and this is the reason why it goes hand to hand with science: the philosopher is aware of the fact that there is no such a thing as the so called “absolute truth”; on the contrary, religion promotes a stable “absolute truth” and the theologian will do everything in order to indoctrinate the humanity with his personal “absolute truth”.


Edit: “I… …simmering ”

I have the feeling you failed to prove I ‘m wrong. You still see your religion as a divine doctrine (that has to be accepted blindly and that is well backed up by Aquinas) that reveals the so called “Absolute Truth”, whilst I still assume that Aquinas’ theology is at its core just another ill-considered and unjustified metaphysic theory of reality. Aquinas does nothing but building up on a blind belief, and in my opinion you have no argument against it. I will wait for an argument though😵

Originally posted by vistesd
A final word—with well-wishes all-around.

I don’t think you quite grasp the point from which blackbeetle and I am both coming from. And, for my part, that is my fault: I have been content to pose illustrative (or at least allusive) counters to Aquinas’ conceptual paradigm, per se. But that is peripheral.

Aquinas made a brief statement in resp ...[text shortened]... easy it is,
again and again,
to fall from the lightning
into the cabbage patch!
Ouch!

😳

Edit:
"Ah, but how easy it is,
again and again,
to fall from the lightning
into the cabbage patch!
Ouch!"



We fall, we raise again and again; the lamp is heavy, I 'll leave it behind😵

Originally posted by JS357
I would say, what a disappointment. But then, contrary to the etymology, philosophy is the love of unanswerable questions. As soon as a question verges on being answerable, it either becomes science, or adjustments are made because having the question is preferable to having the answer.

True. I just made some late edits, that really add nothing. But I think you are correct. To the extent that philosophy asks about "the Whole" (metaphysics), it must either become science about the particular, or religion attempting to move beyond the realm of in-principle defeasibility (your “adjustments”? ), or rediscover its ineffable root.

That is why, in the aforementioned edits, I tried to say a bit about deconstructing the dichotomies, such as divine/non-divine, etc. And aesthetics: I have said before that religious expressions might be better thought of in terms of “Beethoven” than of “biology”. I am quite comfortable with a broad range of aesthetics in that regard: from Byzantine chant to Sufi Quwalli to ragas by Ravi Shankar to Rastafarian reggae. Such aesthetics can point to and evoke the root, that’s all.

But I am tired now, and probably expressing myself “more badly”!

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit:
"Ah, but how easy it is,
again and again,
to fall from the lightning
into the cabbage patch!
Ouch!"



We fall, we raise again and again; the lamp is heavy, I 'll leave it behind😵

Ah, yes. But I too easily, lately, get lost among those dichotomized cabbages!

By the way, our friend bbarr knows where it’s at too. On here, he just plays in the “habitable role” of philosopher. He hasn’t always—or at least not so strictly (I’ve known him for some years here!)—but I think he came to the conclusion that that is the particular contribution he can make in this forum. Nevertheless, he can—

Lock eyebrows
with the lightning!

Originally posted by vistesd
Ah, yes. But I too easily, lately, get lost among those dichotomized cabbages!

By the way, our friend bbarr knows where it’s at too. On here, he just plays in the “habitable role” of philosopher. He hasn’t always—or at least not so strictly (I’ve known him for some years here!)—but I think he came to the conclusion that that is the particular contribution he can make in this forum. Nevertheless, he can—

Lock eyebrows
with the lightning!

Dichotomized cabbages are empty😵


Yes, I know master bbarr knows; his skilful means are perfect both for the Western and the Eastern Gate😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit:
"Ah, but how easy it is,
again and again,
to fall from the lightning
into the cabbage patch!
Ouch!"



We fall, we raise again and again; the lamp is heavy, I 'll leave it behind😵

Wait, wait!!

Lost among
dichotomized cabbages,

locking eyebrows
with samurai lightning,
trading credos
in temple gardens,
swinging incense
in Byzantine choirs,
dreadlock dancing—Jaaaah!—
to deep, rootical drums—

All the same,
all the same!

Empty, empty!
Full, full!
Lightning in light!

All the same!

Originally posted by vistesd
Wait, wait!!

Lost among
dichotomized cabbages,

locking eyebrows
with samurai lightning,
trading credos
in temple gardens,
swinging incense
in Byzantine choirs,
dreadlock dancing—Jaaaah!—
to deep, rootical drums—

All the same,
all the same!

Empty, empty!
Full, full!
Lightning in light!

All the same!

And why my mind has to wait for?
Is there a reason other
Than dancing with you in Form
That my sixth has to wait for?

Yes, all the same!
Because it's all still Us
these aggregations of our sixth
who dances in Emptiness
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “Actually… …it).”

I disagree. To conclude that something is existent, this “something” must be an observer. Furthermore, ordinary life with all its “unexplained coincidences” is merely a cause-effect chain; a lack of understanding herenow the causal relations doesn’t mean that we should adopt metaphysical views that are based on unjustified rel ...[text shortened]... opinion you have no argument against it. I will wait for an argument though😵

…a lack of understanding herenow the causal relations doesn’t mean that we should adopt metaphysical views that are based on unjustified religious beliefs and on baseless assertions, as our Palynka loves to say. When you don’t know herenow, it’s enough to state you don’t know herenow. It’s unjustified to state “I don’t know because G-d did it, and since I cannot know what is going on in G-d’s mind it's clear I wasn't meant to know, so I have to deal with it, along with the myriad other mysteries of the triune G-d etc etc”. You see? To you and to our PinkFloyd and RJHinds G-d is triune, to our robbie is not triune, to our Dasa is something else, anything goes according to one’s evaluation as regards what religious dogma is considered eacy time by each person “right”.

If nothing else is pointed out to people, who for some reason cannot step back and see, this would be a great contribution.

Dasa, for example, does not get that he sounds exactly like an evangelical/fundamentalist Christian preacher (ordained as such or not), who does not get that he/she sounds—just like Dasa! *

I think we all can use this reminder from time to time. I have no problem, for example, using the “G-word”—but I use it only in a nondualist sense, which as you say “is something else”. So I don’t use it here. You say: “Nothing holy!” I might say: “Everything holy!” We mean the same thing: just as emptiness is fullness, and fullness is emptiness; yet fullness is fullness, and form is…! But someone else may not understand. It is about getting beyond those empty “cabbages”…

_________________________________________________

* I have to give Dasa credit, since I have taken his name in vain here, so to speak: Once he understood where I was coming from, and that we were just at a discernable impasse, he said “Namaste” and quit preaching—at me. He understood that I am a nondualist, and that I was expressing that, at the moment, in terms of our Taoman’s Kashmiri Shaivism, and we could just let go of the fruitless argument. So I just want to be fair to him.

Originally posted by black beetle
And why my mind has to wait for?
Is there a reason other
Than dancing with you in Form
That my sixth has to wait for?

Yes, all the same!
Because it's all still Us
these aggregations of our sixth
who dances in Emptiness
😵

No, no!

It was my own mind I was shouting "wait, wait!" to. 🙂

(But "it" was already dancing on...)

Originally posted by vistesd
No, no!

It was my own mind I was shouting "wait, wait!" to. 🙂

(But "it" was already dancing on...)

I see😵

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]…a lack of understanding herenow the causal relations doesn’t mean that we should adopt metaphysical views that are based on unjustified religious beliefs and on baseless assertions, as our Palynka loves to say. When you don’t know herenow, it’s enough to state you don’t know herenow. It’s unjustified to state “I don’t know because G-d did it, and since I ...[text shortened]... aivism, and we could just let go of the fruitless argument. So I just want to be fair to him.

Yes😵