tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post7874041586275691044..comments2024-03-18T15:57:33.286-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Two, four, six, eight! Who do you reincarnate?Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger170125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1516770610626749482012-08-07T04:41:07.912-07:002012-08-07T04:41:07.912-07:00I don't remember much of what happened before ...I don't remember much of what happened before I was 5 yrs old. And what I do remember is fuzzy, some of which may be true some not. If I (as consciousness) had suffered the shock of losing a mass i always associated with being me and I then assumed a different identity it's not surprising the confusion would affect my memory (it's common for ECT patients to lose memories from the 'shock' , which may be the reason it can provide relief). Also if mind is bound up to some degree with the body, my new body takes time to mature and at the same time I'm surrounded by a culture that implies I am only a body and memories of before i was born are a delusion so it seems unsurprising that i might write off any foggy recollections of past life moments as invalid. Also if we could recall all our misdeeds from potentially thousands of past lives and be affected by the shame, blame regret it would likely overwhelm us. The incidence of addictions has much to do with ones actions this life..if one had to live with many lives worth..one, well, might become a new atheist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41880732230830504202011-10-15T04:55:30.354-07:002011-10-15T04:55:30.354-07:00I have some ideas to discuss.
First, you are maki...I have some ideas to discuss.<br /><br />First, you are making a mistake very common in some philosophers, namely, first discuss the metaphysical positions and then discuss empirical phenomena. No, you must do the reverse: to investigate the empirical phenomena and then discuss what metaphysical position to lead such phenomena.<br /><br />Second, children who seem to remember past lives begin to talk about their memories any more learn to speak, so that it points to the hypothesis of the filter: the mind is filtered by the body, not produced by him, so that the reencarned mind can only express their capacities when the body has developed enough. So I think that substancial dualism predicts that the mind reborn necessary might be able to display all his skills at birth is a mistake.<br /><br />And third, I think the cases of children who remember past lives seem to favor the hypothesis of an ethereal body that would be the vehicle of our personality and memories that emerges from the biological body at death, besides that we have evidence that converge on the same as for example, out of body experiences and apparitions of the living and the dead. This ethereal body is surely material, but is made of a material unknown to modern science, so that the dichotomy between material body and material body/immaterial soul is false, whether we are Aristotelian, materialist or Thomists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66356263014260933672011-06-06T19:00:43.871-07:002011-06-06T19:00:43.871-07:00>you just called me a heretic and threw dogmati...>you just called me a heretic and threw dogmatic statements at me, <br /><br /><b>That is a lie! I never once called you a heretic!</b><br /><br />I called monophysite Christology a heresy because it is a heresy. You OTOH said <b>"I am saying that this idea that you can have incarnation without intermingling and mixing of the natures is not incarnation at all."</b><br /><br />You also said (in spite of past claims on your part you would drop it) <b>"Because then God did not become a human being at all. He kept a distance from the human nature in order to avoid mixing his divine nature with human nature."</b><br /><br />It was you who refused to learn the Chacedonian view which I and every faithful Catholic believes.<br /><br />It was you who insisted on redefining & reinterpreting all explanations of Chalcedonian doctrine in monophysite terms.<br /><br />How is that rational or honest?<br /><br />It isn't!<br /><br />>Second, you never showed that they were coherent.<br /><br />The burden of proof is on the accuser. That's you! You have to learn what your opponent teaches and means then make a case they are not coherent.<br /><br />You instead wasted time arguing against a Monophysite Christology that I already rejected. Thus you wasted your time not only beating a dead horse but the wrong dead horse!<br /><br />>You kept hiding behind the fact that the two contradictory natures were united in a Person,<br /><br /><b>That is I gave the actual Catholic doctrine which you ignored</b> & refused to deal with & your only response was to reflexively reinterpret it in Monophysite terms or bitch you could not understand it.<br /><br />>but still kept totally separate and unmixed<br /><br />Catholics don't believe Jesus' Two Natures mix! Get over it shithead!<br /><br />>It does not matter. The point is that the structure and form of your argument is fallacious.<br /><br />How do you know that? By you own admission you can't understand the incarnation in anything but monophysite terms and you could not understand the Catholic Encylopedia's article on the Incarnation.<br /><br />By that logic if I read a Paper by Hawking on Quantum Cosmology if I can't understand it then it must be because he is arguing it incoherently? I think not! Talk about fallacious!<br /><br />>Okay. You can have the last word.<br /><br />Whatever!BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74818789913426795682011-06-06T17:20:07.284-07:002011-06-06T17:20:07.284-07:00Ben:
>> Excuse me liar! I never set out to ...Ben:<br /><br />>> Excuse me liar! I never set out to prove the doctrine true. Only that it was coherent. You where trying to show that it was incoherent. You failed! The authorities where cited to get you to learn the actual doctrine as opposed to what you wished the doctrine was!<br /><br />First, I know that you cited the authorities, and their dogmatic formulations. I just told you that their formulation made absolutely no sense to me. You can’t fault me if your doctrines are incoherent.<br /><br />Second, you never showed that they were coherent. You kept hiding behind the fact that the two contradictory natures were united in a Person, but still kept totally separate and unmixed. I said that this just doesn’t help at all, and you just called me a heretic and threw dogmatic statements at me, supported by authoritative Christian counsels.<br /><br />>> Where is the council of Plantanimalius online? Nowhere you made it up!<br /><br />It does not matter. The point is that the structure and form of your argument is fallacious. It is irrelevant if an authoritative council, real or fictional, utters doctrinal statements. All that matters is if the statements can be justified. You did not. When I tried to explain how your doctrines resulted in incoherence, you just said that the doctrines said otherwise. That is not enough. You can tell me all you want that a square triangle is possible, and cite multiple councils that have agreed with pious consensus that a square triangle is the holiest entity in the universe. It doesn’t change the fact that a square triangle is impossible, and saying that the square and triangle natures are kept separate, but still fully expressed, in a squarangular entity does not help.<br /><br />>> Now get lost! YOU DON"T GET THE LAST WORD LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />Okay. You can have the last word. Oh wait. Oops. ;)dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57082784141548442142011-06-06T13:14:04.997-07:002011-06-06T13:14:04.997-07:00I would like to apologize to Dr. Feser for my use ...I would like to apologize to Dr. Feser for my use of language in the unlikely even he is reading this nonsense.<br /><br />Sorry sir.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84286148286538050722011-06-06T13:11:26.241-07:002011-06-06T13:11:26.241-07:00>No, you agreed to the bedrock principle that a...>No, you agreed to the bedrock principle that a single entity cannot have a nature that contains a contradiction, and having a nature that has both the divine and the human within it does contain a contradiction.<br /><br />Only if you are an idiot who ADMITS he can't/won't conceive of a Christology that is anything other than Monophysite!<br /><br />Now get lost! YOU DON"T GET THE LAST WORD LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56216962803684168832011-06-06T13:07:40.597-07:002011-06-06T13:07:40.597-07:00You are a bold face pathological liar dguller!
&g...You are a bold face pathological liar dguller!<br /><br />>Yes, you never mentioned councils and synods agreeing upon some interpretation of a theological controversy, and labeling an alternative viewpoint a heresy. Oh wait. You JUST DID.<br /><br />Excuse me liar! I never set out to prove the doctrine true. <br /> Only that it was coherent. You where trying to show that it was incoherent. You failed! The authorities where cited to get you to learn the actual doctrine as opposed to what you wished the doctrine was!<br /><br />You can look up the Council of Chalcedon online!<br /><br />Where is the council of Plantanimalius online? Nowhere you made it up!<br /><br />Typical Gnu'Atheist!<br /><br />PZ Myers would love you!<br /><br />Now get lost!<br /><br />I will never trust you again!BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22353735409685070742011-06-06T12:57:20.167-07:002011-06-06T12:57:20.167-07:00Ben:
>> I tried to get you to address the C...Ben:<br /><br />>> I tried to get you to address the Catholic view of the incarnation. You refused & kept bitching because the Catholic view was not the monophysite view & refused to learn the Chacedonian view.<br /><br />Yes, you never mentioned councils and synods agreeing upon some interpretation of a theological controversy, and labeling an alternative viewpoint a heresy. Oh wait. You JUST DID.<br /><br />>> You are just being sad and bitter.<br /><br />I’m actually quite happy and outgoing. :)<br /><br />>> You where the one who tried to paint the incarnation as "incoherent". But the only way you could do that was to kneejerk redefine the doctrine in a manner Catholics reject.<br /><br />No, you agreed to the bedrock principle that a single entity cannot have a nature that contains a contradiction, and having a nature that has both the divine and the human within it does contain a contradiction. You can say that the fact that it is contained within a single “Person” makes it all okay, but this does not change anything, no more than saying that a single entity can fully express a plant and animal nature does not result in a contradiction, because it all happens under the rubric of a “Planimal”. And just as I did not become a dog just because I am standing beside a dog and pulling the leash in whatever direction I choose, so God did not become a man just because he manifests his will through the human Jesus Christ. <br /><br />>> Fuck off you brain dead Gnu!<br /><br />Classy to the end, Ben. Nice.dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17720662621427970352011-06-06T12:39:44.648-07:002011-06-06T12:39:44.648-07:00>I am using the same statements that you have u...>I am using the same statements that you have used against me. You keep citing authority figures as if that resolves a contradiction.<br /><br />You are such a liar dguller!<br /><br />I tried to get you to address the Catholic view of the incarnation. You refused & kept bitching because the Catholic view was not the monophysite view & refused to learn the Chacedonian view.<br /><br />Not my problem asshole!<br /><br />>And none of this addresses the fact that the Planimal is a possible entity despite your obvious heretical misunderstandings of the revered conclusions of holy councils.<br /><br />You are just being sad and bitter.<br /><br />You where the one who tried to paint the incarnation as "incoherent". But the only way you could do that was to kneejerk redefine the doctrine in a manner Catholics reject.<br /><br />I've had it with you! I was even civil to you.<br /><br />I've had it!<br /><br />Fuck off you brain dead Gnu!BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-499776130577329212011-06-06T12:19:46.602-07:002011-06-06T12:19:46.602-07:00Ben:
>> Now you are just mocking because yo...Ben:<br /><br />>> Now you are just mocking because you ran out of arguments.<br /><br />I am using the same statements that you have used against me. You keep citing authority figures as if that resolves a contradiction. It does not matter if some group of people has agreed that a contradiction is not a contradiction if the contradiction is real. And it helps even less when they just repeat “person” again and again, as if it genuinely reconciled anything. It helps as much as me citing the Council of Plantanimalius and saying “planimal” again and again. You see how utterly unconvincing it is when I do it to you? Hopefully, you have a sense of how unpersuasive it is for me, as well.<br /><br />>> Also my theory of why you cast everything in monophysite terms is because of your materialism.<br /><br />This has nothing to do with materialism. Where has materialism ever come into this equation? It is about a bedrock principle, which you articulated very well, i.e. that a single entity cannot have natures that contain contradictory properties. This has nothing to do with materialism at all, and everything to do with whether a single entity can have multiple natures, some of which require actualizing contradictory properties. My planimal is one, and your Son of God is another. Just saying that some council somewhere agreed that this is all okay does not make it okay. <br /><br />>> Which is fine but have you ever questioned materialism? Ever read the case against materialism? Or the contradictions inherent in materialism(unlike Hylomorphism)?<br /><br />I have. I actually have a book called “the Waning of Materialism”, and a “Philosophy of Mind” book that trumpets hylomorphism as a viable alternative. <br /><br />And none of this addresses the fact that the Planimal is a possible entity despite your obvious heretical misunderstandings of the revered conclusions of holy councils.dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23429695798623849882011-06-06T10:49:32.422-07:002011-06-06T10:49:32.422-07:00>But you don’t understand. According to the cou...>But you don’t understand. According to the council of Plantanimalius, <br /><br />Now you are just mocking because you ran out of arguments.<br /><br />Also my theory of why you cast everything in monophysite terms is because of your materialism.<br /><br />When I think of God I think of a non-material thing that is purely actual.<br /><br />I think you imagine God must be some type of material thing that has this magical property called "pure actuality".<br /><br />So your problem is you think in materialistic terms only.<br /><br />Which is fine but have you ever questioned materialism? Ever read the case against materialism? Or the contradictions inherent in materialism(unlike Hylomorphism)?<br /><br />Maybe rather than mock my beliefs you need to develop a philosophical apologetic for materialism?<br /><br />That would go over better here. I wouldn't be pissed off by it. I would merely disagree with it.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84561964312886506902011-06-06T10:44:07.396-07:002011-06-06T10:44:07.396-07:00Ben:
>> Anyway that is not possible with tw...Ben:<br /><br />>> Anyway that is not possible with two material things and if it where possible(which it isn't) then one nature could have property X and the other could not have property X.<br /><br />But you don’t understand. According to the council of Plantanimalius, it was decreed by unanimous consent that your anti-Plantanimalian heresy held no sway and that these contradictory natures can both be fully expressed without any deficiency and in their fullest capacity in the same Planimal without any difficulty. The apparent contradiction is resolved by virtue of the fact that they are kept separate from one another without any mixture, and that they are both fully expressed in the same individual Planimal. <br /><br />Can’t you see how your heretical understanding is blinding you to the truth of the miracle of the Planimal?dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56162443783102249192011-06-06T10:22:14.829-07:002011-06-06T10:22:14.829-07:00Even with your mock Plant-Animal pseudo-incarnatio...Even with your mock Plant-Animal pseudo-incarnation you can't decide if it's Monophysite or Chalcedonian?<br /><br />You really need to study.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30140190698700723812011-06-06T10:15:42.778-07:002011-06-06T10:15:42.778-07:00>But you don’t understand. The planimal keeps i...>But you don’t understand. The planimal keeps its animal nature and plant nature completely separate.<br /><br />You keep changing the rules and making contradictory statements.<br /><br />Anyway that is not possible with two material things and if it where possible(which it isn't) then one nature could have property X and the other could not have property X.<br /><br />Your single-minded devotion to monophysite heresy is strange for an Atheist.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14949758354124322102011-06-06T09:53:21.810-07:002011-06-06T09:53:21.810-07:00Ben:
>> Rather no creature that has propert...Ben:<br /><br />>> Rather no creature that has property x and does not have property x at the same time in the same relationship is impossible.<br /><br />But you don’t understand. The planimal keeps its animal nature and plant nature completely separate, and so there is no contradiction at all. It fully expresses its animal nature without any deficiency, and it fully expresses its plant nature without any deficiency. It does not hold back at all in its expression of its two natures. They are fully expressed at the same time, but are kept separate so that there is no mixture. I mean, if there was mixture, then the planimal would be impossible, but since there is no mixture, it is possible for there to be a single entity that fully expresses all of its animal nature (including its appetitive nature) and its plant nature (including the utter absence of an appetitive nature). And even though this appears contradictory and impossible, the fact that it happens through the expression of Planimal makes all the contradictions go away.dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57156807927398592592011-06-06T09:48:16.914-07:002011-06-06T09:48:16.914-07:00edit : "is impossible" should read "...edit : "is impossible" should read "is possible".BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59436714858264330632011-06-06T09:47:23.169-07:002011-06-06T09:47:23.169-07:00>Okay. So, then a planimal is impossible, as pe...>Okay. So, then a planimal is impossible, as per Thomism, right?<br /><br />Rather no creature that has property x and does not have property x at the same time in the same relationship is impossible.<br /><br />It doesn't matter what you name it.<br /><br />You can gene splice a Tiger and a Gerber but you can make it very very big and very very small (relative to the size of a man) at the same time.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56577586816324966052011-06-06T09:41:47.680-07:002011-06-06T09:41:47.680-07:00Ben:
>> Let me make this simple. No enityt ...Ben:<br /><br />>> Let me make this simple. No enityt that has property X and does not have property X at the same time in the same relationship can exist(like a monophysite christology but unlike either Nestorian heresy or Chacedonian Christology).<br /><br />Okay. So, then a planimal is impossible, as per Thomism, right?dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2709470955550342632011-06-06T09:40:47.923-07:002011-06-06T09:40:47.923-07:00Ben:
>> The Human nature doesn't become...Ben:<br /><br />>> The Human nature doesn't become Divine Nature and the Divine doesn't become human either. Pope St Leo Christology 101!<br /><br />I know! The square nature didn’t become a triangular nature, either! They are both fully present in the individual substance of the “tri-squar-angle”. It all makes perfect sense, because the tri-squar-angle makes all the contradictions go away.<br /><br />And it does no good to say that one can have a triangle on a square sheet of paper. We are not talking parts and wholes here, but rather about a single entity, i.e. the square sheet of paper. It does not matter what is on the sheet of paper, it is still square. To say that a triangle is upon the square paper does not imply that the square has assumed the form of the triangle in some mysterious union. No, it just means that there is a picture of a triangle on a square sheet of paper. Neither one has assumed the former of the other in any coherent sense.<br /><br />Again, I have no problem with there being a human Jesus Christ and a divine Son of God (or whatever), that the latter is separate from the former without any mixture, and that the divine is intimately influencing the human Jesus Christ in his actions. That’s pretty standard divine influence, as far as I can tell. Nothing consistent with incarnation there at all.<br /><br />Where I think things become incoherent is when the further claim is made that due to this arrangement, God became a man. He did not become a man. He remained God and is closely influencing a human being, and there is an ontological gap between them, as there should be between the divine infinite and the human finite. If God became Jesus, according to this criteria, then God has become many human beings throughout history, especially when they are moved by his will.dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91281217193387546072011-06-06T09:37:41.404-07:002011-06-06T09:37:41.404-07:00>How is it possible, because this entity would ...>How is it possible, because this entity would both have and not have an appetitive nature.<br /><br />Let me make this simple. No enityt that has property X and does not have property X at the same time in the same relationship can exist(like a monophysite christology but unlike either Nestorian heresy or Chacedonian Christology).<br /><br />The Law of non-Contradiction applies.<br /><br />So that is my answer.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4718875839907797482011-06-06T09:34:01.385-07:002011-06-06T09:34:01.385-07:00Besides you always have hidden unstated assumption...Besides you always have hidden unstated assumptions that I don't know about till I pull our my hair(like monophysite dogmatism).<br /><br />So I won't answer the question without study.<br /><br />Ready Shoot Aim is not my style.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-308197015245275412011-06-06T09:32:26.633-07:002011-06-06T09:32:26.633-07:00Ben:
>> This is an interesting thought expe...Ben:<br /><br />>> This is an interesting thought experiment but it has nothing to do with the incarnation.<br /><br />Then why not just answer the question. According to Thomism, is it possible for an entity to have ALL the properties of plant nature and ALL the properties of animal nature, because these natures are kept separate without mixture, but are unified in their being expressed by a “planimal”? Seriously, does Thomism allow such an entity, or is it impossible, given Thomistic principles?<br /><br />>> I don't envision material entities can be united in anyway that is similar to how the Divine Person unites the Human and Divine Natures.<br /><br />They don’t have to be similar, only ANALOGOUS. Natures are expressed through individual entities. Human nature and divine nature is expressed in the individual entity of “person”, for example. Animal nature is expressed in an individual “animal”. Plant nature is expressed in an individual “plant”. It does not matter what you call them, the point is that the essential nature of a thing is actually expressed in the existence of the individual entity that has the essential nature. <br /><br />>> You can mix the two since material natures are mutable unlike the Divine Nature.<br /><br />So, you are saying that a planimal is possible, given Thomism? How is it possible, because this entity would both have and not have an appetitive nature. How can this be? After all, it would be like saying that a single square entity is also a triangle, because the square nature and triangular nature are kept separate somehow, but still fully expressed in a single entity, a “tri-squar-angle”, for example. And what does immaterial nature have to do with anything? Why is that relevant?dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12707983267048610202011-06-06T09:30:43.006-07:002011-06-06T09:30:43.006-07:00>But the square sheet of paper does not become ...>But the square sheet of paper does not become a triangle.<br /><br />The Human nature doesn't become Divine Nature and the Divine doesn't become human either. Pope St Leo Christology 101!<br /><br />We settled this.<br /><br />>Is this possible? It’s a simple question.<br /><br />No it's not a simple question. Therefore it would be imprudent to give an answer without study.<br /><br />So I refuse to answer it. But it naturally has nothing to do with the incarnation.<br /><br />Gotta work. Bye!BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67944529298218362392011-06-06T09:24:34.793-07:002011-06-06T09:24:34.793-07:00If you mixed an Animal with a Plant you would get ...If you mixed an Animal with a Plant you would get an animal that can do photosynthesis. <br /><br />It would be an animal that have additional properties in common with plants. <br /><br />>Let us say that there is the nature of a plant and the nature of an animal, and I say that there is an entity that has both the nature of a plant and the nature of an animal, but that they are kept separate from each other and utterly distinct, and yet both fully present in this entity. <br /><br />This is an interesting thought experiment but it has nothing to do with the incarnation.<br /><br />>Now, this may appear impossible to you, but it’s okay, because these separate natures are united in the sheer individuality of this entity.<br /><br />I don't envision material entities can be united in anyway that is similar to how the Divine Person unites the Human and Divine Natures.<br /><br />Apples and Oranges.<br /><br />You can mix the two since material natures are mutable unlike the Divine Nature.<br /><br />Here your monophysite concepts work because of the nature of material things.<br /><br />>According to your arguments, this is fully possible. <br /><br />My arguments involve by necessity an individual rational substance.<br />This one does not.<br /><br />You can't have an incarnation without a Person.<br /><br />You are speculating on something that is not an incarnation. So I have no answer for you. It's off topic.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-92197444276769734382011-06-06T09:15:51.822-07:002011-06-06T09:15:51.822-07:00Ben:
>> I can draw a Triangle on a Square s...Ben:<br /><br />>> I can draw a Triangle on a Square sheet of Paper. The Square Paper does not become "not a Square" and the Triangle drawn on it doesn't become square.<br /><br />But the square sheet of paper does not become a triangle. The triangle is upon the square paper. They are different entities. I am asking you if a square paper can also be a triangular piece of paper. That is what I mean by the same entity being unable to have contradictory properties. You are saying that the parts can have different properties than the whole, and that is not the issue. I am saying that the parts are entities, and the whole is an entity. I am talking about the individual entity, and not what is on its T-shirt.<br /><br />>> Nobody has ever asked that question since a planimal is not defined.<br /><br />I just defined it.<br /><br />>> Can you genetically engineer an Animal to grow leaves and do photosynthesis?<br /><br />But then it would still be an animal, because it has an appetitive nature. The fact that it has vegetative features is irrelevant, because all animals have such features, but we do not consider them plants. They are animals. I am asking you if an entity can have a full-throated plant nature and animal nature, but they are kept separate, do not mix, and are united in a “planimal”. <br /><br />Is this possible? It’s a simple question.dgullernoreply@blogger.com