tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post5048504710585095235..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Anaximander and natural theologyEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger107125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78920273600796575912021-08-13T02:38:24.715-07:002021-08-13T02:38:24.715-07:00No. It is the distinct Individual that provides a...No. It is the distinct Individual that provides a name to us, whereas the distinction They enjoy amongst Themselves is previous to any name so given.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09167476244719554755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39012279552407390822021-08-12T21:44:46.714-07:002021-08-12T21:44:46.714-07:00YupYupTonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67488139363616971692021-08-11T14:09:14.036-07:002021-08-11T14:09:14.036-07:00So far as it goes for "telling the Gods apart...<i>So far as it goes for "telling the Gods apart", that's easy and I can do it now. Zeus. Hades. Aphrodite. Tyr. Odin. Bes.</i> <br /><br />Oh, I get it: Zeus, who is different from Jupiter, because one has 4 letters in his name, and the other has 7. <br /><br />But they have one letter of overlap, so they are only <i>mostly</i> distinct. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1911470232160962682021-08-11T08:44:18.754-07:002021-08-11T08:44:18.754-07:00Tony,
Richard says, "So far as it goes for &...Tony,<br /><br />Richard says, "So far as it goes for 'telling the Gods apart', that's easy and I can do it now. Zeus. Hades. [...] Odin. Bes. See how simple that is, referencing Who They are? Easy peasy."<br /><br />Tony, as human beings, neither Richard nor anyone else, including Plato, etc, has or ever had the power to know that these are not a single lying power with more than one name, or whether they are various agents of some single God hating force.<br /><br />*That alone* is sufficient to demonstrate that Richard is irrational - that he cannot know this.<br /><br />He therefore cannot follow reason and that by itself is sufficient cause to not try to reason with him. You cannot defeat delusion with logic. If he doesn't want to give it to you, you will not be able to settle it with a last word, either directly with Richard or indirectly through me.<br /><br />Therefore, stop talking to him and let him have his last, unsound, word. Its raving nature will not escape anyone.<br /><br />Tom Cohoe<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51377867418546336922021-08-10T19:39:09.254-07:002021-08-10T19:39:09.254-07:00"The Texts of Early Greek Philosophy: The Com... "The Texts of Early Greek Philosophy: The Complete Fragments and Selected Testimonies of the Major Presocratics" by Daniel Graham is a nice compilation (its pretty pricey tho, most translations are). Another good resource to look up potential sources would be to examine the bibliography of the "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" page on Presocratics. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41980373715477547012021-08-10T16:12:09.572-07:002021-08-10T16:12:09.572-07:00If someone came along and claimed "no, God is...If someone came along and claimed "no, God is 'whatever is absolutely good' ", and another came along and said "no, God is 'whatever is absolutely love' " and a third person came along and said "no, God is 'whatever is absolutely porcupine' ", and a final person said "no, God is 'whatever is absolutely fanderplitz' ", all four of these could assert the same comments you have about such a "God".<br /><br />My reply: "Due to the principle of non-extension, each supra-essential God would "be" with each other God. Each would "know" each other God in a way completely beyond any discursive understanding, and from there comes Their omniscience, for that mutual sharing of non-extension provides the very condition for it. It should also be clear that omnipresence follows from this, as each God is present to each God. So too omnipotence, since each God could do any thing any other God could do, thanks to Their omnipresence and omniscience. This is what Plato is pointing to in the Symposium when he has the Demiurge beholding another God and creating as a result of Their mutual company." Since each God is simply Themselves and not an instance of a kind, then each God is utterly simple and an absolute unity. As it is completely good to be simple and without parts, each God is wholly Good. As each God is with each God, in a way previous to extension, then we can see what divine love precedes from. It's incredibly easy to unpack the same divine attributes from Platonic polytheism that we supposedly see in Thomism, and the added bonus is that it doesn't require contingency to ground out it's intelligibility as Thomism does. <br /><br />So far as it goes for "telling the Gods apart", that's easy and I can do it now. Zeus. Hades. Aphrodite. Tyr. Odin. Bes. And on and on. See how simple that is, referencing Who They are? Easy peasy.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09167476244719554755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55153447901133656382021-08-10T14:28:25.136-07:002021-08-10T14:28:25.136-07:00Richard, for some reason you seem enamored of this...Richard, for some reason you seem enamored of this "God = absolute Identity" business, but have given us <b>absolutely</b> no <i>argument</i> for it. And (at least some of is) are not equally enamored of it. Why should we consider it? No reason. <br /><br />If someone came along and claimed "no, God is 'whatever is absolutely good' ", and another came along and said "no, God is 'whatever is absolutely love' " and a third person came along and said "no, God is 'whatever is absolutely porcupine' ", and a final person said "no, God is 'whatever is absolutely fanderplitz' ", all four of these could assert the same comments you have about such a "God". The insertion of "absolutely" takes care of all the difficulties, for it allows (each of them) to divorce their "God" from anything that they don't like: "you forget, "absolutely" means this God isn't just a <b>contingent</b> porcupine, he is <i>necessary</i>. <br /><br />Perhaps Dr. Feser can gin up a reprise of the scene in "What's Up Doc" where the villain keeps saying "I am [H]you" and convert it to: God A says "I am ME!". God B says "no, I am ME!" Little devotee asks, plaintively, "How do I tell you two apart, to know which one I am to worship?" Both of them answer simultaneously: "you can't, only we can tell us apart, because we are identical in all respects EXCEPT that of being ME! Only I am ME!." A third God speaks up and mentions "God is 'whatever is absolutely diverse'. I and I are diverse." Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74172982936948572112021-08-10T00:51:54.367-07:002021-08-10T00:51:54.367-07:00Every reply you've had to the notion could be ...Every reply you've had to the notion could be steel-manned in an effort to deny that the Incarnation would even be possible. Fascinating.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09167476244719554755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13538368634631996082021-08-09T21:41:31.591-07:002021-08-09T21:41:31.591-07:00I am using the term "God" as whatever is...<i>I am using the term "God" as whatever is absolutely Itself. </i> <br /><br /><i>Where a God may choose any relation They so please, and so in a sense choose Their essence, which is always a relational category of Being, any given thing other than a Deity has it's essence chosen for it, and so cannot be strictly identified with any God AS that God per se. It's not that having an identity deifies each thing, but that existing as a pure Identity, an absolute Individual, is the hallmark of what we call a God.</i> <br /><br />This "pure Identity, an absolute Individual" that can "choose its own essence" is Pure Twaddle, absolute Oxymoron. I define God to be "the Pure Twaddle, an absolute Moron" would be a slightly more direct of getting to the same place. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37711789625644084992021-08-09T09:20:52.504-07:002021-08-09T09:20:52.504-07:00Richard, under the polytheism nonsense nothing any...Richard, under the polytheism nonsense nothing anyone can say enlightens anyone - including you.<br /><br />Tom CohoeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7581922614765137852021-08-08T23:00:37.268-07:002021-08-08T23:00:37.268-07:00Tom, did you choose your essence or did your God d...Tom, did you choose your essence or did your God do so for you? Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09167476244719554755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11587315415926606732021-08-08T21:24:11.867-07:002021-08-08T21:24:11.867-07:00Richard,
Nothing you have said tells us why a bla...Richard,<br /><br />Nothing you have said tells us why a blade of grass does not have an absolute identity except that you assert that it cannot be so under your incoherent multiple God projection. You cannot sense anything of God except as composite and so could not distinguish a blade of grass god from its effects - which would be everything else you sense. This is indeed ridiculous and so nothing identifies your multiple gods which are only one God under different aspects or something less. You cannot know otherwise and no polytheistic tradition can provide illumination.<br /><br />Tom CohoeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13080529342897828902021-08-08T19:56:01.008-07:002021-08-08T19:56:01.008-07:00"When you say "divinize identification&q..."When you say "divinize identification" am I correct that you take there to be no possible difference in a finite image of God (ie, an image that can be comprehensively beheld by a human mind) that would distinguish between so called "absolute divination" and "relative divination" of identification?"<br /><br />No, not really. Where a God may choose any relation They so please, and so in a sense choose Their essence, which is always a relational category of Being, any given thing other than a Deity has it's essence chosen for it, and so cannot be strictly identified with any God AS that God per se. It's not that having an identity deifies each thing, but that existing as a pure Identity, an absolute Individual, is the hallmark of what we call a God. So I'm not suggesting that I, or this or that blade of grass, or any other contingent thing, just really is a deity because it has an identity. None of those things are, because each of them is a composite of identity and essence, and to be a God is not to be a composite but instead to simply exist as Oneself.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09167476244719554755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11896542988412341002021-08-08T14:17:52.912-07:002021-08-08T14:17:52.912-07:00Tony,
When you say "divinize identification&...Tony,<br /><br />When you say "divinize identification" am I correct that you take there to be no possible difference in a finite image of God (ie, an image that can be comprehensively beheld by a human mind) that would distinguish between so called "absolute divination" and "relative divination" of identification? <br /><br />For if we take as an image of God an unbiased (not bound or limited by bias) and infinite random number there is no finite number that is not a subsequence of the unbiased infinite number, and therefore there is no distinction that can be comprehensively understood in a finite mind although it could be incoherently imagined that such a distinction is understood. Thus distinction between "absolute" and "relative" cannot be meaningful to us as anything more than aspects of God as we inadequately imagine them which are not coherent with God as He is in himself (which is why we call it a mystery).<br /><br />Therefore there is little sense in participating in dialog with someone who speaks as if he has divine understanding himself.<br /><br />Tom CohoeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31093538642746229602021-08-08T11:35:53.606-07:002021-08-08T11:35:53.606-07:00No, because no other thing than a God is simply an...No, because no other thing than a God is simply an individual, an absolute Self, and anyone who would bother with a charitable interpretation would know that. Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09167476244719554755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41175380817480497142021-08-08T08:09:53.446-07:002021-08-08T08:09:53.446-07:00I am using the term "God" as whatever is...<i>I am using the term "God" as whatever is absolutely Itself. </i> <br /><br />Once you divinize identification, <b>everything</b> with an identity is a god. You have made yourself, and each other with identity, gods. <br /><br /><i>I don't want to spend my time in argumentation with you over such an obvious farrago of complex and inconsistent nonsense.</i> <br /><br />Precisely so. Thanks for saying it. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73842986721280925062021-08-07T22:08:46.220-07:002021-08-07T22:08:46.220-07:00Richard,
God is not an example of individuation s...Richard,<br /><br />God is not an example of individuation such that he can be considered a unity. He is a unity because of simplicity. You can't get rid of contradictions by waving your arms and glibly specifying what that which is without limit must have as its limits. Do you know what specify means? Calling God by different names doesn't make him into multiple "gods" indistinguishable in effect from God who effects everything any more than calling you by more than one name makes you into several people distinguishable by your acts.<br /><br />There's more.<br /><br />I don't want to spend my time in argumentation with you over such an obvious farrago of complex and inconsistent nonsense.<br /><br />Sorry.<br /><br />Be interesting, not arbitrary.<br /><br />Bye bye.<br /><br />Tom CohoeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41251506576547106122021-08-07T20:40:46.649-07:002021-08-07T20:40:46.649-07:00That is a discussion way above my level. Being chr...That is a discussion way above my level. Being christian or not, Dionysius was a pretty big help to us. Anyway, thanks to his platonic background he did mention that terms like "exist" do not make sense when afirmed of God, so he probably would not agree with God being a individual or not being a individual.<br /><br /> Aquinas would agree until here but he disagree in how to say what Dionysius was saying. Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1169529712441795222021-08-07T20:26:47.569-07:002021-08-07T20:26:47.569-07:00I agree completely that it is a bit dangerous to s...I agree completely that it is a bit dangerous to say they are atheists, at least if you do not make the term pretty clear before. <br /><br />But i also don't know if the nontheist label would be very good because to me it sounds like they are more indiferent to the question, which they sure where not. I guess that any term will have some dificults thanks to the jain belief being so diferent from the common here on the west, but some clear definition of the terms might help. Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35638600165791984922021-08-07T19:47:43.971-07:002021-08-07T19:47:43.971-07:00"Richard, are you using "god" in th..."Richard, are you using "god" in the sense of, say, "something greater than man, and worthy of being worshiped"? Or in the sense of "the ultimate"? If in the latter, it would seem odd to consider both Zeus and Mithras "the ultimate", for the term seems to have room for only one."<br /><br />I am using the term "God" as whatever is absolutely Itself. It's not a question of what is greater-than, since without contingency there can be no claim to what is greater or lesser, and contingency cannot be NECESSARY to determine what is greater-than, since contingency is not NECESSARY. <br /><br />When it comes to the question of what God "has" that determines his greatness for the monotheist, it's a question of His essence, which is fully cashed out in the terms of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. These terms are further understood by the monotheist to really be all the same, such that God fully knows and is present to any contingent thing that He causes to come into being via that essence. The problem is that this formulation requires the contingent effect to make sense of it's necessary cause. Without contingency, there is no way to make sense of God's essence.<br /><br />The situation is different for the Platonic polytheist. Due to the principle of non-extension, each supra-essential God would "be" with each other God. Each would "know" each other God in a way completely beyond any discursive understanding, and from there comes Their omniscience, for that mutual sharing of non-extension provides the very condition for it. It should also be clear that omnipresence follows from this, as each God is present to each God. So too omnipotence, since each God could do any thing any other God could do, thanks to Their omnipresence and omniscience. This is what Plato is pointing to in the Symposium when he has the Demiurge beholding another God and creating as a result of Their mutual company. <br /><br />If matter is the principle of individuation for Christians, then God is not an individual, and is therefore not a unity. And I won't worship something that doesn't exist, but will instead worship and pray to those who are actually beyond Being.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09167476244719554755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56711834875321477872021-08-07T17:28:37.173-07:002021-08-07T17:28:37.173-07:00Richard, are you using "god" in the sens...Richard, are you using "god" in the sense of, say, "something greater than man, and worthy of being worshiped"? Or in the sense of "the ultimate"? If in the latter, it would seem odd to consider both Zeus and Mithras "the ultimate", for the term seems to have room for only one. <br /><br />If you mean the former, i.e. "greater than us", it remains to be asked "what differentiates Zeus from Mithras". You seem to be offering, as that which differentiates, "Zeusness" and "Mithras-ness", which obviously they don't share. Let us ask, instead, "what makes them 'greater than us' and "what makes them fitting to be worshiped' "? Whatever it is, though, they seem to SHARE, for they both are greater than us, and to be worshiped. It would seem NOT to be, merely, the <b>identity</b>, i.e. of Zeusness or Mithras-ness, because if being DISTINGUISHED as an individual is it, then we too have it, for each of us have identities. I have Tony-ness. You have Richardness. So it is some OTHER thing than mere identity. Whatever X it is, then the question is: "who has X in the ultimate way"? <br /><br />If there is someone who has X in the ultimate way, he would presumably have the "greater than" and "to be worshiped" in the ultimate way also, and then even Zeus and Mithras would own him worship. <br /><br /><i>because for monotheists God must be the principle of individuation and also an example of individuation</i> <br /><br />ummmm, no? That's not what Christians, at least, believe. Or, at least not what Thomists believe. God is not the "principle of individuation". It's matter. And God is not matter, nor material being. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49846144616323127382021-08-07T15:39:31.911-07:002021-08-07T15:39:31.911-07:00That's true. I certainly wouldn't claim th...That's true. I certainly wouldn't claim that Jains are theists. But I also don't think they fit the normal contemporary use of the word atheist. Jains belief in a sacred reality and divine attributes of souls who attain it. I would say that nontheist is a better label than atheist, to make it clear we aren't talking about anything like the Western materialism or naturalism that is usually meant by the term atheist. Mahāvīranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62774068956944922682021-08-06T22:18:38.239-07:002021-08-06T22:18:38.239-07:00There has been some tentative suggestions that pse...There has been some tentative suggestions that pseudo-Dionysius might have actually been Proclus, putting his philosophy down in such a way that it could survive and be unpacked from it's monotheist wrapper, as it were.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09167476244719554755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1350248742830726102021-08-06T21:11:07.847-07:002021-08-06T21:11:07.847-07:00@Richard
Some monotheists like Pseudo-Dionysius w...@Richard<br /><br />Some monotheists like Pseudo-Dionysius would defend actually that God is beyond being or non-being because of their knowledge of the puzzles that guys like Plato saw. Even between thomists i saw sometimes the idea that God transcends the particular/universal distinction. A monotheist can defend that God is a individual in the sense that there are not two gods, but that not on our sense of being a instance of a kind, language is not very helpful here. Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51932064914239152102021-08-06T21:00:17.998-07:002021-08-06T21:00:17.998-07:00@Mahāvīra
It does depend on one defines theism. I...@Mahāvīra<br /><br />It does depend on one defines theism. I'am defining it as something like "the idea that there is something worth of worship" because it can fit pantheists or similar thinkers. As i understand it, the jains do not find the liberted souls as literaly worshipable but use the rituals as a mean to think about their virtues. I could be wrong, of course, for i do not know they much.<br /><br />@Walter<br /><br />I agree that atheists can believe in necessary beings. I guess that the diference between they and someone like Plotinus is that they would not call the necessary being divine. Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.com