Let's Get Metaphysical Baby

As suspected the epistemology thread brought up the issue of metaphysics. I am setting up this thread which can hopefully operate in parallel to the other thread. Instead of laying out a sweeping proof like I attempted last time, this time I will start with a more concise summary of the metaphysical position of objectivism. Since ethics is built on metaphysics and epistemology, and politics is built on ethics - it seems like these issues have value in a Paw-litics forum despite the lower rate of participation on these threads.

Here is the summary of the position:

The base of Objectivism is explicit: "Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists."

Existence and consciousness are facts implicit in every perception. They are the base of all knowledge (and the precondition of proof): knowledge presupposes something to know and someone to know it. They are absolutes which cannot be questioned or escaped: every human utterance, including the denial of these axioms, implies their use and acceptance.

The third axiom at the base of knowledge—an axiom true, in Aristotle's words, of "being qua being"—is the Law of Identity. This law defines the essence of existence: to be is to be something, a thing is what it is; and leads to the fundamental principle of all action, the law of causality. The law of causality states that a thing's actions are determined not by chance, but by its nature, i.e., by what it is.

It is important to observe the interrelation of these three axioms. Existence is the first axiom. The universe exists independent of consciousness. Man is able to adapt his background to his own requirements, but "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" (Francis Bacon). There is no mental process that can change the laws of nature or erase facts. The function of consciousness is not to create reality, but to apprehend it. "Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification."

The philosophic source of this viewpoint and its major advocate in the history of philosophy is Aristotle. Its opponents are all the other major traditions, including Platonism, Christianity, and German idealism. Directly or indirectly, these traditions uphold the notion that consciousness is the creator of reality. The essence of this notion is the denial of the axiom that existence exists.

In the religious version, the deniers advocate a consciousness "above" nature, i.e., superior, and contradictory, to existence; in the social version, they melt nature into an indeterminate blur given transient semi-shape by human desire. The first school denies reality by upholding two of them. The second school dispenses with the concept of reality as such. The first rejects science, law, causality, identity, claiming that anything is possible to the omnipotent, miracle-working will of the Lord. The second states the religionists' rejection in secular terms, claiming that anything is possible to the will of "the people."

Neither school can claim a basis in objective evidence. There is no way to reason from nature to its negation, or from facts to their subversion, or from any premise to the obliteration of argument as such, i.e., of its foundation: the axioms of existence and identity.

Metaphysics and epistemology are closely interrelated; together they form a philosophy's foundation. In the history of philosophy, the rejection of reality and the rejection of reason have been corollaries. Similarly, as Aristotle's example indicates, a pro-reality metaphysics implies and requires a pro-reason epistemology.

bump this baby up... I guess noone wants to talk about existence?

I don't understand why some people believe it is more plausible that SOMEONE created existence (and implicily all of the objects in existence - thus, seemingly violating the law of conservation of mass/energy along with the irreducible axioms) than to accept the fact that existence exists and it COULD NOT have been any other way.

(1) What exactly was it that this consciousness was conscious of prior to creating everything?

(2) Why is creation necessary? How could it not be possible for existence to JUST EXIST without someONE having to create it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

(1) What exactly was it that this consciousness was conscious of prior to creating everything?

---

the popular religious sentiment is that the conscious was conscious of itself, which seemingly violates some major axioms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

(2) Why is creation necessary? How could it not be possible for existence to JUST EXIST without someONE having to create it?

---

plus, you are left with having to make each of these statements:
1) something existed (in the case of religion, consciousness of the creator) at all times
2) the conscious existed in a form that we cannot fathom, had no physical existence to base the consciousness on, yet existed still.
3) the conscious actor created existence as we know it
4) carry on all other metaphysical/epistemological discussion from the human perspective from this starting point.

I think statement 1 and statement 4 can act alone, but steps 2 and 3 still require steps 1 and 4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

the popular religious sentiment is that the conscious was conscious of itself, which seemingly violates some major axioms.

---

To be conscious of being conscious still requires something of being conscious of initally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

To be conscious of being conscious still requires something of being conscious of initally.

---

did you think my statement of the popular religious view meant that I thought it made any sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

1) something existed (in the case of religion, consciousness of the creator) at all times

---

Can you imagine being only conscious of being conscious for nearly and infinite amount of years? Where would knowledge come from (in particular, the knowledge of knowing what to create) assuming you had no reference to any other object of existence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Can you imagine being only conscious of being conscious for nearly and infinite amount of years? Where would knowledge come from (in particular, the knowledge of knowing what to create) assuming you had no reference to any other object of existence?

---

Good point...

For the creator,
1) Consciousness exists
2) Knowledge exists
3) It takes an infinitely long time to realize that a conscious form gets bored if it is introspective the whole time.
4) Consciousness used knowledge and voodoo to create existence
5)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

Good point...

For the creator,
1) Consciousness exists
2) Knowledge exists
3) It takes an infinitely long time to realize that a conscious form gets bored if it is introspective the whole time.
4) Consciousness used knowledge and voodoo to create existence
5)...

---

"God made Man in his likeness."

So knowledge (origin unknown) + voodoo = existence

How about this: God A gives God B innate knowledge. God B creates existence (with who knows what matter and energy). Where does God A get knowledge (obvious question I know)? He gets it from God Z who got it from God Y and so on.

Where is Spinoza? He is usually good for an off-base comment that doesn't make any sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

How about this: God A gives God B innate knowledge. God B creates existence (with who knows what matter and energy). Where does God A get knowledge (obvious question I know)? He gets it from God Z who got it from God Y and so on.

---

Hogwash. Any religion supporting more than one God has no concept of existence.

If there were 26 different Gods, and there was no matter or energy, how would any of them know that they were alone? So how would A give anything to B? :)

^Your faculty of reason is just not superior enough to appreciate God's mysterious ways. That is why you have to have faith in the irrational over the much more rational theory I previously posted.

Ah I feel a disturbance in the force (a post by Spinoza coming).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Where is Spinoza? He is usually good for an off-base comment that doesn't make any sense.

---

That wasn't very kind......
But just for you...... A rare daylight/sober post.:icon_wink:

Always keep your eye on the pitcher when you step off of your base.

You forgot to say "Confuscious says..."

I guess this thread will never see the light of day. I suspect it is because this thread questions that which is most sacred to many people and it is therefore not subject to debate. That is what is most scary about religion, IMO. Religion and faith tend to petrify one's consciousness against the assaults of reason. Relatedly, I suppose that is also why there is no hope for the islamic fundamentalists (and before someone tries to misinterpret this, I am not saying that Christians are terrorists). I just think that REASON is more likely to cure this world of all its ills than religion is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

I just think that REASON is more likely to cure this world of all its ills than religion is.

---

Reason will lead you to the existence of a prime mover...and then you'll start all over again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

I guess this thread will never see the light of day. I suspect it is because this thread questions that which is most sacred to many people and it is therefore not subject to debate. That is what is most scary about religion, IMO. Religion and faith tend to petrify one's consciousness against the assaults of reason. Relatedly, I suppose that is also why there is no hope for the islamic fundamentalists (and before someone tries to misinterpret this, I am not saying that Christians are terrorists). I just think that REASON is more likely to cure this world of all its ills than religion is.

---

There is such a wide disconnect between rational thought and faith in a higher being when it comes to metaphysics. I do think there is a big difficulty in overcoming that, as people will hesitate to use rational thought if they know it will break down every thing that their faith has stood for. Interestingly (and as one would have probably expected), I think these threads on OBJ have tended to galvanize some Christian stalwarts on this into preaching their faith. You see, there is no way around it - talking logic is a mental "punch in the face" to religion.

If consciousness cannot exist without existence, then what exactly is this higher state of being that created existence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

Reason will lead you to the existence of a prime mover...and then you'll start all over again.

---

Nope... see above. Why is it easier to accept the notion of a prime mover (that was conscious BEFORE existence, and that created existence with no mass and energy) than to accept that existence ALWAYS WAS?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

You see, there is no way around it - talking logic is a mental "punch in the face" to religion.

---

That's a sweeping generalization that an objective person wouldn't make (of course, we all know that objectivism is an illusion...or dillusion...can't remember which). Some of the great thinkers of the faith would be sorely disappointed to read that. Just to name a few that would disagree with you...CS Lewis, Al Mohler, Norm Geisler, Charles Spurgeon, John Calvin, DA Carson, and John Piper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

Nope... see above. Why is it easier to accept the notion of a prime mover (that was conscious BEFORE existence, and that created existence with no mass and energy) than to accept that existence ALWAYS WAS?

---

I'll let drumlogic37 handle this as he is more well versed. I've got to go to class, but that belief paints you into a very small box. He'll be able to explain better than I could.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

Reason will lead you to the existence of a prime mover...and then you'll start all over again.

---

Finally, someone bites.

Your argument is not true. There is no reason that things could not JUST exist without being caused to exist. This assumes there was an initial "choice" and there is no basis for that assumption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

That's a sweeping generalization that an objective person wouldn't make (of course, we all know that objectivism is an illusion...or dillusion...can't remember which). Some of the great thinkers of the faith would be sorely disappointed to read that. Just to name a few that would disagree with you...CS Lewis, Al Mohler, Norm Geisler, Charles Spurgeon, John Calvin, DA Carson, and John Piper.

---

No, they are not properly exercising logic at the level of metaphysics. People can exercise logic in specific instances within religion, sure, but only if they accept an illogical thought at the forefront.

As mentioned in another thread (and secularly), Enlightenment thinkers were way off the mark by trying to define "human nature" as good/evil (or moral/immoral). Doesn't mean that enlightenment thinkers weren't logical in some specific circumstances (the economics of capitalism by Smith).

Not sure how objectivism is an illusion. It doesn't rely on consequences to promote an economic or governmental system. It's a defense of REASON, and all other philosophies, economic models, and systems of government fail for that reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

I'll let drumlogic37 handle this as he is more well versed. I've got to go to class, but that belief paints you into a very small box. He'll be able to explain better than I could.

---

True... there's a much larger "box" if you accept the concept of a prime mover, as you've disregarded all logic in leaping to consciousness creating existence. So, maybe it was a gremlin that created existence, or a tree, or a zumaduba, or any of an infinite number of gods. Many choices there, and all are equally arbitrary.

BTW, modern physicists have observed and conceptualized instances of "movement without a mover." As you are probably aware, Newtonian physics do not apply very well to quantum mechanics.

For those of you waiting on pins and needles for drumlogic to appear - here is what I assume the argument looks like:

EITHER

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) Thus the universe had a cause.

OR

(1) Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
(2) Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
(3) A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
(4) Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something which is not an effect.

Both arguments suffer from the same fallacies - the assumption of an INITIAL cause AND that causes cannot be infinitely regressive (the second proof relies on this point explicitly in step 3). There is no proof for these assumptions.

But with that in mind, why is the infiniteness of God easier to accept the infiniteness of existence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Finally, someone bites.

Your argument is not true. There is no reason that things could not JUST exist without being caused to exist. This assumes there was an initial "choice" and there is no basis for that assumption.

---

Your argument proposes that human logic can answer all questions when we've proven incredibly inept at this. What you're proposing is a religion where logic is all powerful.

I'm not as well versed as some on this, but your argument doesn't make any sense to me. There's no reason that existance had a beginning? There's no reason that it didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

I'm not as well versed as some on this, but your argument doesn't make any sense to me. There's no reason that existance had a beginning? There's no reason that it didn't.

---

My first post shows how it is the only RATIONAL explanation. Yes, reason and logic are the only thing a human consciousness can rely on, so in a way I am advocating a religion of reason and logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

My first post shows how it is the only RATIONAL explanation. Yes, reason and logic are the only thing a human consciousness can rely on, so in a way I am advocating a religion of reason and logic.

---

As I've said before, I'm not versed in metaphysics, so I don't want to say anything incorrectly. I'm going to do a little research so that I can intelligently respond to your axioms.

It seems to me that you eventually must identify yourself as a skeptic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

Your argument proposes that human logic can answer all questions when we've proven incredibly inept at this.

---

No one has proven any superior faculty of cognition to that of reason. There is no reason to believe that any other faculty can provide reliable information to whatever hypothetical questions reason supposedly cannot answer. Feel free to visit the "knowledge" thread where we have been discussing this issue in a little more detail.

Human emotion - definitely fallible
Spiritual revelation - this doesn't warrant a new category (see Human emotion)
Someone else's spiritual revelation - even more unreliable than your own spiritual revelation since you don't know for certain you can trust the other person
The magic 8 ball - Nope, has been wrong before (even with its noncomittal responses)
Palm reader/mystic - doesn't warrant a new category (see someone else's spiritual revelation)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

No one has proven any superior faculty of cognition to that of reason. There is no reason to believe that any other faculty can provide reliable information to whatever hypothetical questions reason supposedly cannot answer. Feel free to visit the "knowledge" thread where we have been discussing this issue in a little more detail.

---

I guess where you and I differ is in the falliability of human logic/reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

I guess where you and I differ is in the falliability of human logic/reason.

---

Fallibility is certainly there, see the "knowledge" thread. But practiced properly, our ability to reason puts us at more than a stab in the dark, which is essentially what all others would be the equivalent of.

But that doesn't exactly answer the metaphysics question, does it?

In the end, are you saying that "a reasonable person would agree that there is no reason for there to be a beginning to existence, but reasonable people are wrong all the time, so God exists?"

^To echo Randerizer - the fallibility (sp?) is at the level of one's VOLITION making the choice to FOCUS. Reason and the senses are reliable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

Fallibility is certainly there, see the "knowledge" thread. But practiced properly, our ability to reason puts us at more than a stab in the dark, which is essentially what all others would be the equivalent of.

But that doesn't exactly answer the metaphysics question, does it?

In the end, are you saying that "a reasonable person would agree that there is no reason for there to be a beginning to existence, but reasonable people are wrong all the time, so God exists?"

---

I would ask what are you stabbing at? Do you just want to be right while you are on Earth through reason? Where does the religion of logic and reason leave you in the end? Pounding your head against the wall as you search for the answer to everything because you cannot know everything?

From what I have read from you and Guisslap is that "God is beyond human logic and reason, so he must not be real". I will give you that he is beyond our reason and logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

As I've said before, I'm not versed in metaphysics, so I don't want to say anything incorrectly. I'm going to do a little research so that I can intelligently respond to your axioms.

It seems to me that you eventually must identify yourself as a skeptic.

---

A true skeptic says truth is unknowable. I say that the concept of truth implies knowledge, and implies a concept that conforms to sensory data. Thus all truths are knowable (since truth implicitly requires someONE who is able to ascertain that a concept conforms to reality). But that is epistemology.

Not a bad idea to become a little more well versed on metaphysics before diving in. This thread needs good discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dhussdawg

I would ask what are you stabbing at? Do you just want to be right while you are on Earth through reason? Where does the religion of logic and reason leave you in the end? Pounding your head against the wall as you search for the answer to everything because you cannot know everything?

From what I have read from you and Guisslap is that "God is beyond human logic and reason, so he must not be real". I will give you that he is beyond our reason and logic.

---

If you accept that, then you at-least accept that it is arbitrary to believe in God, 100 Gods, a gremlin, a talking tree, etc.

And to base any further thoughts/decisions on an arbitrary claim that you hold as absolute truth is far worse than arbitrary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

If you accept that, then you at-least accept that it is arbitrary to believe in God, 100 Gods, a gremlin, a talking tree, etc.

And to base any further thoughts/decisions on an arbitrary claim that you hold as absolute truth is far worse than arbitrary.

---

Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dhussdawg

Why?

---

If he is above our reason and logic, how do you distinguish between the Gremlin that created existence, the one God that created existence, the 5000 Gods that jointly created existence, etc.?

If you abandon reason/logic, how are you going to convince me of the difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

If he is above our reason and logic, how do you distinguish between the Gremlin that created existence, the one God that created existence, the 5000 Gods that jointly created existence, etc.?

If you abandon reason/logic, how are you going to convince me of the difference?

---

What is my penalty for rejecting logic and reason? Because let's get honest, it would be as hard to be completely objective as it would be live a perfect Christian life. Who forgives you of your logic/reason shortcomings? Or does it even matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dhussdawg

What is my penalty for rejecting logic and reason? Because let's get honest, it would be as hard to be completely objective as it would be live a perfect Christian life. Who forgives you of your logic/reason shortcomings? Or does it even matter?

---

No need to get forgiveness for your reason (or any of its supposed shortcomings). The penalty of rejecting logic and reason are (1) living a sub-human lifestyle where you denigrate your mind to serving an irrational and whimsical ideal, (2) potential loss of life and enjoyment from self-sacrifice, (3) never really "knowing" anything, and (4) making wrong decisions that cause you lose "value" because your ethics are predicated on the supernatural. These are just for starters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

No need to get forgiveness for your reason (or any of its supposed shortcomings). The penalty of rejecting logic and reason are (1) living a sub-human lifestyle where you denigrate your mind to serving an irrational and whimsical ideal, (2) potential loss of life and enjoyment from self-sacrifice, (3) never really "knowing" anything, and (4) making wrong decisions that cause you lose "value" because your ethics are predicated on the supernatural. These are just for starters.

---

Point 1 is your opinion. My life is way more fulfilling now that I have God in my life, so you can squash point 2. Points 3 and 4 have quotation marks around their main points, so I will just write those off as horse crap and fluff.

So, when you dont reach your ultimate goal of knowing everything through logic and reason, which you wont, there is no punishment or reward? So, why do we care?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dhussdawg

My life is way more fulfilling now that I have God in my life, so you can squash point 2.

---

Are you suggesting you were practicing a REASON before accepting God, or are you just suggesting that it is easier to live when you can package all unknown questions into a single answer?

It's also easier on the mind to live in a commune, or to be supported by others, so you don't really have to think for yourself. In many cases, it leads one to deny cause/effect, so you can think blanketedly in fuzzy terms like "helping others" or "social welfare."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

If you accept that, then you at-least accept that it is arbitrary to believe in God, 100 Gods, a gremlin, a talking tree, etc.

---

If the gremlin revealed himself to you, he would no longer be arbitrary. Christian faith claims that God has revealed himself to mankind, and that is the only reason we recognize him for what he is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Not a bad idea to become a little more well versed on metaphysics before diving in. This thread needs good discussion.

---

Oh, I do beg your pardon...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

Oh, I do beg your pardon...

---

he's not trying to discourage you, just wants you to play the game at the appropriate level. :icon_wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

he's not trying to discourage you, just wants you to play the game at the appropriate level. :icon_wink:

---

Which is defined by HIM. This is the weirdest atheistic evangelism I've ever encountered. I'll wait until I'm "worthy" to post further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

Which is defined by HIM. This is the weirdest atheistic evangelism I've ever encountered. I'll wait until I'm "worthy" to post further.

---

I think you're misunderstanding, but it's up to you to post or not post.

I find it funny that value and knowing are put into quotation marks by Guisslap. It is as if those words are subject to each man's interpretation. Him being as logical and objective as any should be able to give us a concrete definition on them without all of the quotation marks. Dont you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

Oh, I do beg your pardon...

---

Oh the joy of posting on the internet, where no one can appreciate your tone. You said you wanted to research the axioms a little more. I thought that was a good idea (since you represented that you did not know them very well). I was being sincere and not trying to patronize you. I was hoping to get some good discussion on this thread (if you look at its history - it has been pretty much be and Randy tossing softballs back and forth). It is up to you whether you want to post or not. The thread will remain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dhussdawg

I find it funny that value and knowing are put into quotation marks by Guisslap. It is as if those words are subject to each man's interpretation. Him being as logical and objective as any should be able to give us a concrete definition on them without all of the quotation marks. Dont you think?

---

Nope - I put them in quotations because we have already defined them elsewhere on this thread, the knowledge thread, and the ethics thread. The quotes were to show that they referenced something more concrete than they might appear. :shocked2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

Are you suggesting you were practicing a REASON before accepting God, or are you just suggesting that it is easier to live when you can package all unknown questions into a single answer?

It's also easier on the mind to live in a commune, or to be supported by others, so you don't really have to think for yourself. In many cases, it leads one to deny cause/effect, so you can think blanketedly in fuzzy terms like "helping others" or "social welfare."

---

I just dont see the use. I can use logic and reason in every facet of life and believe that the spiritual realm is above that and that there are many things that I dont understand. I live a good life and end up in heaven.

I can use logic and reason in every facet of my life and believe that the spiritual realm is some arbitrage that people use to make themselves feel better (opiate of the masses, if you will), then what? They throw a parade for me when I die because I might have "known" a few more things or lived a life of "value". In the end, it doesnt reall matter because there is no reward or punishment. I can only see the possible conclusion being nihilism. Hey, that guy knew a lot when he was on Earth, but who cares adn why did it matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

If the gremlin revealed himself to you, he would no longer be arbitrary. Christian faith claims that God has revealed himself to mankind, and that is the only reason we recognize him for what he is.

---

Mankind can't recognize - only individual mental faculties can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dhussdawg

I can use logic and reason in every facet of my life and believe that the spiritual realm is some arbitrage that people use to make themselves feel better (opiate of the masses, if you will), then what? They throw a parade for me when I die because I might have "known" a few more things or lived a life of "value". In the end, it doesnt reall matter because there is no reward or punishment. I can only see the possible conclusion being nihilism. Hey, that guy knew a lot when he was on Earth, but who cares adn why did it matter?

---

So you still think that your "value" on earth is tied to what you do for others, or what others think of you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Nope - I put them in quotations because we have already defined them elsewhere on this thread, the knowledge thread, and the ethics thread. The quotes were to show that they referenced something more concrete than they might appear. :shocked2:

---

Well, break those definitions down for the lay man and not some long-winded, pompous-sounding novel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dhussdawg

I just dont see the use. I can use logic and reason in every facet of life and believe that the spiritual realm is above that and that there are many things that I dont understand. I live a good life and end up in heaven.

I can use logic and reason in every facet of my life and believe that the spiritual realm is some arbitrage that people use to make themselves feel better (opiate of the masses, if you will), then what? They throw a parade for me when I die because I might have "known" a few more things or lived a life of "value". In the end, it doesnt reall matter because there is no reward or punishment. I can only see the possible conclusion being nihilism. Hey, that guy knew a lot when he was on Earth, but who cares?

---

Because integrity feels good. In the end there is no reward or punishment whether you believe it or not. The best you can do is to sustain your life while you live. BTW, has anyone seen 2057 on the discovery channel. There may be hope that some of us (the younger ones) will be able to live longer than previously imagined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Mankind can't recognize - only individual mental faculties can.

---

I'd have to see much more than a gremlin to think that consciousness begat existence. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Because integrity feels good. In the end there is no reward or punishment whether you believe it or not. The best you can do is to sustain your life while you live. BTW, has anyone seen 2057 on the discovery channel. There may be hope that some of us (the younger ones) will be able to live longer than previously imagined.

---

I need more "incentive".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dhussdawg

I need more "incentive".

---

Incentives are meaningless if they aren't true. So the ability to gain truth seems more useful, as it lets you judge the validity of the incentives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dhussdawg

Well, break those definitions down for the lay man and not some long-winded, pompous-sounding novel.

---

To reduce it to an appreciable soundbyte would cut off a significant amount of meaning and "context" (which are kind of the same thing). Oh well:

Values = All that which sustains life as a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil.

Knowledge = the grasp of an object through an active, reality-based process chosen by the subject. Has many other implications which are discussed throughout the three referenced threads.

The recognition of self-autonomy is not good enough for some. It is the same reason many choose to be drug addicts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

Incentives are meaningless if they aren't true. So the ability to gain truth seems more useful, as it lets you judge the validity of the incentives.

---

Nice internal link turn. Well executed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Nice internal link turn. Well executed.

---

I've still got it... :glasses2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

Incentives are meaningless if they aren't true. So the ability to gain truth seems more useful, as it lets you judge the validity of the incentives.

---

Incentives are also meaningless if they dont get me anything in the end, which reason and logic obviously don't.

By the way, does it drive you two crazy to just think that existence just exists and always has? That seems beyond the comprehension of our little minds, so it would make it hard for someone who needed reason and logic to explain everything to accept. That seems almost as lazy as believing in the prime mover.

^It doesn't have to do with laziness. It is the only reasonable explanation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

^It doesn't have to do with laziness. It is the only reasonable explanation.

---

I dont find it very reasonable.

^Now we are getting somewhere. Why is a prime mover a more reasonable explanation than the fact that existence just exists?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

^Now we are getting somewhere. Why is a prime mover a more reasonable explanation than the fact that existence just exists?

---

Why the opposite?

By the way, I have already written that God is above my logic and reason. I find it more reasonable that there is a superior being that created everything than to believe that existence just was and is. I cannot actually comprehend either on a reason and logic level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

"Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists."

Existence and consciousness are facts implicit in every perception. They are the base of all knowledge (and the precondition of proof): knowledge presupposes something to know and someone to know it. They are absolutes which cannot be questioned or escaped: every human utterance, including the denial of these axioms, implies their use and acceptance.

The third axiom at the base of knowledge—an axiom true, in Aristotle's words, of "being qua being"—is the Law of Identity. This law defines the essence of existence: to be is to be something, a thing is what it is; and leads to the fundamental principle of all action, the law of causality. The law of causality states that a thing's actions are determined not by chance, but by its nature, i.e., by what it is.

It is important to observe the interrelation of these three axioms. Existence is the first axiom. The universe exists independent of consciousness. Man is able to adapt his background to his own requirements, but "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" (Francis Bacon). There is no mental process that can change the laws of nature or erase facts. The function of consciousness is not to create reality, but to apprehend it. "Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification."

The philosophic source of this viewpoint and its major advocate in the history of philosophy is Aristotle. Its opponents are all the other major traditions, including Platonism, Christianity, and German idealism. Directly or indirectly, these traditions uphold the notion that consciousness is the creator of reality. The essence of this notion is the denial of the axiom that existence exists.

In the religious version, the deniers advocate a consciousness "above" nature, i.e., superior, and contradictory, to existence; in the social version, they melt nature into an indeterminate blur given transient semi-shape by human desire. The first school denies reality by upholding two of them. The second school dispenses with the concept of reality as such. The first rejects science, law, causality, identity, claiming that anything is possible to the omnipotent, miracle-working will of the Lord. The second states the religionists' rejection in secular terms, claiming that anything is possible to the will of "the people."

Neither school can claim a basis in objective evidence. There is no way to reason from nature to its negation, or from facts to their subversion, or from any premise to the obliteration of argument as such, i.e., of its foundation: the axioms of existence and identity.

Metaphysics and epistemology are closely interrelated; together they form a philosophy's foundation. In the history of philosophy, the rejection of reality and the rejection of reason have been corollaries. Similarly, as Aristotle's example indicates, a pro-reality metaphysics implies and requires a pro-reason epistemology.

---

At the risk of sounding repetitive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Can you imagine being only conscious of being conscious for nearly and infinite amount of years? Where would knowledge come from (in particular, the knowledge of knowing what to create) assuming you had no reference to any other object of existence?

---

Also, this is why the other option is irrational.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

At the risk of sounding repetitive.

---

I am still looking for a reasonable explanation as to why existence is and always has been. It seems to me that you must accept that existence just is and always was, just like we accept that God created it. Neither one can be logically explained or have exact proof, they are both leaps of faith, IMO. I guess, in your eyes, we just accept that existence was and is, and that we just randomly received consciousness, reason, etc. because the universe is so big, it was bound to happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Also, this is why the other option is irrational.

---

I believe that God is bigger than what we deem rational or irrational. I dont put as much faith in human competence as you do.

Why must there be a "why?" That presupposes a VOLITION/CHOICE. There doesn't have to be a reason for existence to exist. The fact is - it DOES exist and is therefore a fundamental axiom. We perceive it, therefore we KNOW it exists.

The question of "why does existence exist?" automatically assumes an actor was present to make the decision. You have assumed a god into the equation, when this step is not necessary.

I am the one just recognizing that existence exists. No leap of faith necessary there. You are the one assuming there was an option for it not to exist. This assumption implicitly brings in an act of creation that would violate fundamental scientific principles (such as conservation of mass/energy).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Why must there be a "why?" That presupposes a VOLITION/CHOICE. There doesn't have to be a reason for existence to exist. The fact is - it DOES exist and is therefore a fundamental axiom. We perceive it, therefore we KNOW it exists.

The question of "why does existence exist?" automatically assumes an actor was present to make the decision. You have assumed a god into the equation, when this step is not necessary.

I am the one just recognizing that existence exists. No leap of faith necessary there. You are the one assuming there was an option for it not to exist. This is an assumption implicitly brings in an act of creation that would violate fundamental scientific principles (such as conservation of law/energy).

---

Ironically, then, religion is an attempt to explain something that seems hard to accept (the existence of existence) by introducing a human concept (choice) into the picture.

Only, it only works if we deny fundamental aspects of reality (the axioms of existence and consciousness and the law of identity) to get there. If it's shown that choice requires consciousness and concept formation, which requires existence as a prerequesite, why would one ever consider a situation in which a conscious exists without existence itself and is able to make a choice between nonexistence and existence?

so, when does Drumlogic usually get on here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Why must there be a "why?" That presupposes a VOLITION/CHOICE. There doesn't have to be a reason for existence to exist. The fact is - it DOES exist and is therefore a fundamental axiom. We perceive it, therefore we KNOW it exists.

The question of "why does existence exist?" automatically assumes an actor was present to make the decision. You have assumed a god into the equation, when this step is not necessary.

I am the one just recognizing that existence exists. No leap of faith necessary there. You are the one assuming there was an option for it not to exist. This is an assumption implicitly brings in an act of creation that would violate fundamental scientific principles (such as conservation of law/energy).

---

Congratulations......
Decent "thread action" today...... Finally!
2 may not seem like much, but I suspect you'd agree it beats the hell out of zero for your purpose.

Anyway......
While I await the FULL FLAVOR of the beer you have been so painstakingly brewing...... I have at least two questions.

It will not surprise me if your answer to the 1st question gets you significant response on this particular board.

Your reply to my second question, however, will probably be more of a entre nous thing.

And BTW......
I invite candid replies from BOTH You and Randy.
I do read EVERYTHING Randy writes......
It's just that my hunt and peck BEER lack of computer skills...... Precludes me from even considering any serious BARBAROSSA.
I"ll simply assume You and Randy understand.

I'll employ a separate post for each question and try to keep it more than simple.

Cheers to both You and Randy.

Yes, I am glad this thread is finally getting some traffic. I am hoping we don't run off everyone.

What happened to Spinoza? I thought two questions were coming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

so, when does Drumlogic usually get on here?

---

I believe he'll be on tonight or tomorrow.

Do you believe in ANY God in ANY traditional sense......?
Do you or do you not currently participate in the practice of ANY "RECOGNIZED"RELIGION?
If so...... What religion/sect, and WHY?

IF NOT......
Do you currently and "objectively" refer to yourself as an atheist, an agnostic or "other"...... And why?

While I cannot help but draw what appear to be logical conclusions from the implied nuance of your collective missives to date......
I could not help but notice that you DID NOT initiate ANY DIRECT REPLY regarding any such inference on YOUR "knowledge thread".

And I was also unable to ignore the manner in which Randy so obviously TAP DANCED around this more than basic issue on the "knowledge thread"...... Despite THE FACT that "religion" SERIOUSLY REFLECTS more than the vast majority of human thought, both past and present.

But that was prior to my pesty prodding for the OBVIOUS......
And the subsequent metamorphosis that both You and Randy now so proudly preen with pride and personal perseverance.

And just for the heck of it......
May I inquire if either You or Randy EVER PREVIOUSLY participated in, or adhered to the tenets of ANY religion/religious sect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spinoza

Do you believe in ANY God in ANY traditional sense......?
Do you or do you not currently participate in the practice of ANY "RECOGNIZED"RELIGION?
If so...... What religion/sect, and WHY?

IF NOT......
Do you currently and "objectively" refer to yourself as an atheist, an agnostic or "other"...... And why?

While I cannot help but draw what appear to be logical conclusions from the implied nuance of your collective missives to date......
I could not help but notice that you DID NOT initiate ANY DIRECT REPLY regarding any such inference on YOUR "knowledge thread".

And I was also unable to ignore the manner in which Randy so obviously TAP DANCED around this more than basic issue on the "knowledge thread"...... Despite THE FACT that "religion" SERIOUSLY REFLECTS more than the vast majority of human thought, both past and present.

But that was prior to my pesty prodding for the OBVIOUS......
And the subsequent metamorphosis that both You and Randy now so proudly preen with pride and personal perseverance.

And just for the heck of it......
May I inquire if either You or Randy EVER PREVIOUSLY participated in, or adhered to the tenets of ANY religion/religious sect?

---

I tap-danced because I didn't think it was necessary to go into the subject at the moment, as I didn't want to lose people from the conversation by quickly (and without some fundamental bases) dismissing religion. I recognize that it's difficult to confront until one is ready, and if you try to attack religion too early, the rest of your thought just gets pushed aside. I don't think that the arguments posed in the "knowledge" thread were a direct confrontation with religion, so I chose not to force the issue when I didn't have to.

Further, this is the appropriate thread to discuss religion, because this is the level of thought that makes most people consider religion necessary. Discussing religion first as an epistemological or ethical construct seems to miss the mark.

As for myself, I was at one time Baptist, then non-denominational Christian, and now I don't consider myself anything but myself. Why? I just don't think the subject warrants me defining a term for myself.

Second simple question......

Does your "knowlege" of Aristotle, Locke, Hume, Kant, and so forth, come from a personal reading/academic study of thier TOTAL EFFORTS IN THE FLESH......

Or primarily from a collective "objectivist" interpretation of their respective philosophical writings and meaning.

AND......
In addition to ANY philosopher referred to above......
What OTHER PHILOSOPHERS have you read/academicqally studied in serious detail along your respectives paths to categorical certainty?

No German or Polish beer mystery tonight......
As promised...... Only very easy questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spinoza

Second simple question......

Does your "knowlege" of Aristotle, Locke, Hume, Kant, and so forth, come from a personal reading/academic study of thier TOTAL EFFORTS IN THE FLESH......

Or primarily from a collective "objectivist" interpretation of their respective philosophical writings and meaning.

AND......
In addition to ANY philosopher referred to above......
What OTHER PHILOSOPHERS have you read/academicqally studied in serious detail along your respectives paths to categorical certainty?

No German or Polish beer mystery tonight......
As promised...... Only very easy questions.

---

Among others, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Hobbes, Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Mill, Marx, Nietzsche, William James, Russell, Heidegger, Sartre, Rawls, Foucault, Spanos.

That's not exhaustive, but it represents the a good deal of thought I have investigated. I cannot say that my understanding of ANY represents their ENTIRE body, but I don't think I've missed much in the way of significance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spinoza

Do you believe in ANY God in ANY traditional sense......?
Do you or do you not currently participate in the practice of ANY "RECOGNIZED"RELIGION?
If so...... What religion/sect, and WHY?

IF NOT......
Do you currently and "objectively" refer to yourself as an atheist, an agnostic or "other"...... And why?

While I cannot help but draw what appear to be logical conclusions from the implied nuance of your collective missives to date......
I could not help but notice that you DID NOT initiate ANY DIRECT REPLY regarding any such inference on YOUR "knowledge thread".

And I was also unable to ignore the manner in which Randy so obviously TAP DANCED around this more than basic issue on the "knowledge thread"...... Despite THE FACT that "religion" SERIOUSLY REFLECTS more than the vast majority of human thought, both past and present.

But that was prior to my pesty prodding for the OBVIOUS......
And the subsequent metamorphosis that both You and Randy now so proudly preen with pride and personal perseverance.

And just for the heck of it......
May I inquire if either You or Randy EVER PREVIOUSLY participated in, or adhered to the tenets of ANY religion/religious sect?

---

I try not to speculate on the arbitrary too often, but I have yet to encounter any good reason to believe in a god. The ideas of god that I have been introduced to in my short lifetime pose serious philosophical problems to me. So, No, I do not believe in any traditional god. I do not currently practice any recognized religion. I have "participated" in Southern Baptist, Reformed Baptist, and Presbyterian (PCA) churches. Considering my previous beliefs, I would have to acknowledge that I must not have ever been "saved."

Like Randy, I did not want to put the obvious conclusion of the metaphysics inquiry out too early (particularly when we were discussing epistemology) because it is pretty polarizing. I know this all too well from living most of my life in the Bible belt.

I have never referred to myself as an agnostic, but have referred to myself as an atheist before. But I think the definition is kind of silly - it is kind of like acknowledging that you are "cancer-free" or "HIV-free." It is hard to define yourself in terms of what you are not. Religion is not a significant concern of mine, so I would say my other ideals are a more useful way of explaining who I am.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spinoza

Second simple question......

Does your "knowlege" of Aristotle, Locke, Hume, Kant, and so forth, come from a personal reading/academic study of thier TOTAL EFFORTS IN THE FLESH......

Or primarily from a collective "objectivist" interpretation of their respective philosophical writings and meaning.

AND......
In addition to ANY philosopher referred to above......
What OTHER PHILOSOPHERS have you read/academicqally studied in serious detail along your respectives paths to categorical certainty?

No German or Polish beer mystery tonight......
As promised...... Only very easy questions.

---

From the flesh - although not their entire body of work. I would say that Rand does not always fairly characterize their works, but cites them more to define what objectivism is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

I tap-danced because I didn't think it was necessary to go into the subject at the moment, as I didn't want to lose people from the conversation by quickly (and without some fundamental bases) dismissing religion. I recognize that it's difficult to confront until one is ready, and if you try to attack religion too early, the rest of your thought just gets pushed aside. I don't think that the arguments posed in the "knowledge" thread were a direct confrontation with religion, so I chose not to force the issue when I didn't have to.

Further, this is the appropriate thread to discuss religion, because this is the level of thought that makes most people consider religion necessary. Discussing religion first as an epistemological or ethical construct seems to miss the mark.

As for myself, I was at one time Baptist, then non-denominational Christian, and now I don't consider myself anything but myself. Why? I just don't think the subject warrants me defining a term for myself.

---

PURE POPPYCOCK......
And an instance where one can not even be excused for attempting to FOOL HIMSELF before authoring wordy efforts to FOOL OTHERS.

If you MUST pretend you are philosophically constipated...... Try shitting in someone else's pot. I make every effort to keep my crap hole tidy and clean.

You tap danced previously because you were a philosophical coward.
There's no theological mystery on this board/society.
You have continued to try to buck-and-wing it here tonight because you remain a sorry christian-type with neither calm nor conviction.

If ever YOU accidently manage to stumble in either direction...... You may stick a feather up your hypocritic arse and call it RANDY ONLY!

All that aside......
Would you now care to answer query #2?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

Among others, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Hobbes, Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Mill, Marx, Nietzsche, William James, Russell, Heidegger, Sartre, Rawls, Foucault, Spanos.

That's not exhaustive, but it represents the a good deal of thought I have investigated. I cannot say that my understanding of ANY represents their ENTIRE body, but I don't think I've missed much in the way of significance.

---

I have read something from many of the one's that Randy has listed (not all), but would add:

Derrida
Berkeley
Spinoza

The things I have read that are most relevant to the current thread (aside from Rand and Peikoff) are :
Aquinas's Proofs of the Existence of God (2 of them at least)
Benedict Spinoza's everything is god/pantheism perspective (it was in some anthology)
William James's block universe theory (same anthology)
Kant's skeptical view of metaphysics (same anthology)
Various postmodernist ideas including Heidegger's Being and Time (well, most of it - half of it didn't make much sense)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spinoza

PURE POPPYCOCK......
And an instance where one can not even be excused for attempting to FOOL HIMSELF before authoring wordy efforts to FOOL OTHERS.

If you MUST pretend you are philosophically constipated...... Try shitting in someone else's pot. I make every effort to keep my crap hole tidy and clean.

You tap danced previously because you were a philosophical coward.
There's no theological mystery on this board/society.
You have continued to try to buck-and-wing it here tonight because you remain a sorry christian-type with neither calm nor conviction.

If ever YOU accidently manage to stumble in either direction...... You may stick a feather up your hypocritic arse and call it RANDY ONLY!

All that aside......
Would you now care to answer query #2?

---

You're certainly free to think what you will. I am not uncomfortable with anything that I've said.

Question 2 was already answered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

I have read something from many of the one's that Randy has listed (not all), but would add:

Derrida
Berkeley
Spinoza

The things I have read that are most relevant to the current thread (aside from Rand and Peikoff) are :
Aquinas's Proofs of the Existence of God (2 of them at least)
Benedict Spinoza's everything is god/pantheism perspective (it was in some anthology)
William James's block universe theory (same anthology)
Kant's skeptical view of metaphysics (same anthology)
Various postmodernist ideas including Heidegger's Being and Time (well, most of it - half of it didn't make much sense)

---

Forgot to mention derrida. Might have read Spinoza, but I can't recall his work off-hand. I do not recall reading Berkeley. Another Medieval "philosopher" of note that I do not recall reading is William of Ockham. Also can't recall reading relevant works of Pascal, Paley, etc. Those are at least considered philosphers according to an anthology I'm looking at right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

I try not to speculate on the arbitrary too often, but I have yet to encounter any good reason to believe in a god. The ideas of god that I have been introduced to in my short lifetime pose serious philosophical problems to me. So, No, I do not believe in any traditional god. I do not currently practice any recognized religion. I have "participated" in Southern Baptist, Reformed Baptist, and Presbyterian (PCA) churches. Considering my previous beliefs, I would have to acknowledge that I must not have ever been "saved."

Like Randy, I did not want to put the obvious conclusion of the metaphysics inquiry out too early (particularly when we were discussing epistemology) because it is pretty polarizing. I know this all too well from living most of my life in the Bible belt.

I have never referred to myself as an agnostic, but have referred to myself as an atheist before. But I think the definition is kind of silly - it is kind of like acknowledging that you are "cancer-free" or "HIV-free." It is hard to define yourself in terms of what you are not. Religion is not a significant concern of mine, so I would say my other ideals are a more useful way of explaining who I am.

---

I appreciate your candor/honesty......
And as suggested......
I cannot help but believe that the above post will PROVOKE/EXPAND this extremely interesting thread..... If any of "" the usual suspects" are still bothering to PAY ATTENTION.

SCREW POLORIZING......
"I know this all to well" from reading Emerson's "Self Reliance"...... When I was barely 17 and still content to illegally drink underaged american beer.

It may be difficult to "define yourself in terms of what you are not"....... But it is IMNHO incubent on ANY PHILOSOPHY to never lose sight of what may define any sincere reality in the heart of ANY OTHER MAN.

WHO I AM......
WHO YOU ARE......
WHO OTHERS MAY BE......
Are equally worthy of definition......
Unless you are willing to deny their WORTH and thereby acknowledge thier RIGHT to deny your worth.

To use logic to "prove" that matter has always existed, requires a viable alternative, in this case, nothingness. But, since there is no nothingness, because there is matter. Then logically, logic can not explain the existence of matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

As suspected the epistemology thread brought up the issue of metaphysics. I am setting up this thread which can hopefully operate in parallel to the other thread. Instead of laying out a sweeping proof like I attempted last time, this time I will start with a more concise summary of the metaphysical position of objectivism. Since ethics is built on metaphysics and epistemology, and politics is built on ethics - it seems like these issues have value in a Paw-litics forum despite the lower rate of participation on these threads.

Here is the summary of the position:

The base of Objectivism is explicit: "Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists."

Existence and consciousness are facts implicit in every perception. They are the base of all knowledge (and the precondition of proof): knowledge presupposes something to know and someone to know it. They are absolutes which cannot be questioned or escaped: every human utterance, including the denial of these axioms, implies their use and acceptance.

The third axiom at the base of knowledge—an axiom true, in Aristotle's words, of "being qua being"—is the Law of Identity. This law defines the essence of existence: to be is to be something, a thing is what it is; and leads to the fundamental principle of all action, the law of causality. The law of causality states that a thing's actions are determined not by chance, but by its nature, i.e., by what it is.

It is important to observe the interrelation of these three axioms. Existence is the first axiom. The universe exists independent of consciousness. Man is able to adapt his background to his own requirements, but "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" (Francis Bacon). There is no mental process that can change the laws of nature or erase facts. The function of consciousness is not to create reality, but to apprehend it. "Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification."

The philosophic source of this viewpoint and its major advocate in the history of philosophy is Aristotle. Its opponents are all the other major traditions, including Platonism, Christianity, and German idealism. Directly or indirectly, these traditions uphold the notion that consciousness is the creator of reality. The essence of this notion is the denial of the axiom that existence exists.

In the religious version, the deniers advocate a consciousness "above" nature, i.e., superior, and contradictory, to existence; in the social version, they melt nature into an indeterminate blur given transient semi-shape by human desire. The first school denies reality by upholding two of them. The second school dispenses with the concept of reality as such. The first rejects science, law, causality, identity, claiming that anything is possible to the omnipotent, miracle-working will of the Lord. The second states the religionists' rejection in secular terms, claiming that anything is possible to the will of "the people."

Neither school can claim a basis in objective evidence. There is no way to reason from nature to its negation, or from facts to their subversion, or from any premise to the obliteration of argument as such, i.e., of its foundation: the axioms of existence and identity.

Metaphysics and epistemology are closely interrelated; together they form a philosophy's foundation. In the history of philosophy, the rejection of reality and the rejection of reason have been corollaries. Similarly, as Aristotle's example indicates, a pro-reality metaphysics implies and requires a pro-reason epistemology.

---

I consider myself an Aristotilean/Thomist and agree with most of this post. However, there are a few things that I must disagree with.

First, it is a hasty generalization to claim that all of Christianity is opposed to Aristotle since American Christianity is largely irrational and Fideistic. While much of Christendom has been platonic/existentialist/idealistic/fideistic or something else or even a combination of these, Christianity is not at odds with Aristotilean metaphysics. There have been many prominent Christian thinkers in the past and in the present that are at largely Aristotilean in their views. Such as: Avicenna and Averroes (Muslim, but still theists), Maimonides (Jewish), Thomas Aquinas, Jacques Maritain, Etienne Gilson, G.K. Chesterton, Motimer Adler, Garrigou-Lagrange, Joseph Owens, George Klubertanz, Maurice Holloway, Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Alios Ratzinger), Norman Geisler, R.C. Sproul, Thomas Howe, Eleanor Stump, Brian Davies, Ralph Mcinerny, and many more. While protestants have largely reject Aristotle, a large part Catholic Church (primarily the Jesuits) have remained Aristolilean.

Second, Christianity does hold that God is "above" or transendent, but not that He is contrary to existence. In fact, Thomism claims that God is pure existence (i.e. "Pure Act" from the first 3 of the Five Ways, which are deduced by using Aristotilean first principles 1.Unmoved Mover 2.First Efficient Cause 3. a Necessary existent grounding contingent existents). Aquinas and Maimonides argue that there must exist a Unmoved Mover or Effiecient Cause beyond the universe. I'm not sure how the God of the Five Ways are contrary to anything that you have stated.

Third, Thomas Aquinas held that the we know nothing that doesn't first exist in the senses, so, this view of God starts in the same place that you do, but argues that the first principles apply to all existence not merely material things that exist (a great book on this is An Interpretation of Existence by Joseph Owens). So, Christians have an objective basis in reality to demonstrate the existence of God (e.g. the Five Ways.

I've been busy and will continually be busy with work and and classes (Doing a paper critiqueing Kant's Deontology Ethics. I hate Kant!). So, I won't be able to post as much as I would like. I apologize for taking so long between posts. I will continue to read through the rest of these posts and try to respond to everyone's posts and defend my view when I can. Thanks for the patience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

From the flesh - although not their entire body of work. I would say that Rand does not always fairly characterize their works, but cites them more to define what objectivism is not.

---

''Does not always fairly characterize their works"......

I justs gots to know again......

2 more questions!

Can you suggest any reason I would ever NEED to UNFAIRLY CHARACTERIZE YOUR WORDS...... To adequately DEFINE so much as one of my honest thoughts?

Why would any SEARCHING INDIVIDUAL, who even SUSPECTED anything less than a referred to TRUTH...... Be content to accept ANY subjective slant from another individual, when the "ENTIRE BODY" of evidence was as close as the nearest library?

Imagine a medical examiner doing an autopsy, who was CONTENT to detemine a cause of death after examining only the some subjectively chosen portion of a corpse...... Rather than the "ENTIRE BODY" that was lying there before him at his fingertips.

Good night.

^Rand uses them to contrast with her position because some things she says sounds obvious. I am not saying her works are without fault. But her positions are right on point even if her assessment of others is a little unfair AT TIMES. I would recommend that people read Kant and the rest and not make your mind up on just reading Rand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drumlogic37

I consider myself an Aristotilean/Thomist and agree with most of this post. However, there are a few things that I must disagree with.

First, it is a hasty generalization to claim that all of Christianity is opposed to Aristotle since American Christianity is largely irrational and Fideistic. While much of Christendom has been platonic/existentialist/idealistic/fideistic or something else or even a combination of these, Christianity is not at odds with Aristotilean metaphysics. There have been many prominent Christian thinkers in the past and in the present that are at largely Aristotilean in their views. Such as: Avicenna and Averroes (Muslim, but still theists), Maimonides (Jewish), Thomas Aquinas, Jacques Maritain, Etienne Gilson, G.K. Chesterton, Motimer Adler, Garrigou-Lagrange, Joseph Owens, George Klubertanz, Maurice Holloway, Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Alios Ratzinger), Norman Geisler, R.C. Sproul, Thomas Howe, Eleanor Stump, Brian Davies, Ralph Mcinerny, and many more. While protestants have largely reject Aristotle, a large part Catholic Church (primarily the Jesuits) have remained Aristolilean.

Second, Christianity does hold that God is "above" or transendent, but not that He is contrary to existence. In fact, Thomism claims that God is pure existence (i.e. "Pure Act" from the first 3 of the Five Ways, which are deduced by using Aristotilean first principles 1.Unmoved Mover 2.First Efficient Cause 3. a Necessary existent grounding contingent existents). Aquinas and Maimonides argue that there must exist a Unmoved Mover or Effiecient Cause beyond the universe. I'm not sure how the God of the Five Ways are contrary to anything that you have stated.

Third, Thomas Aquinas held that the we know nothing that doesn't first exist in the senses, so, this view of God starts in the same place that you do, but argues that the first principles apply to all existence not merely material things that exist (a great book on this is An Interpretation of Existence by Joseph Owens). So, Christians have an objective basis in reality to demonstrate the existence of God (e.g. the Five Ways.

I've been busy and will continually be busy with work and and classes (Doing a paper critiqueing Kant's Deontology Ethics. I hate Kant!). So, I won't be able to post as much as I would like. I apologize for taking so long between posts. I will continue to read through the rest of these posts and try to respond to everyone's posts and defend my view when I can. Thanks for the patience.

---

I have read Aquinas's proofs on God's existence (they are not very long). But his five examples (including the unmoved mover - which might have been the first one if memory serves) do not stand the test of reason in my view. Some of this has already been shown in this thread. It may be helpful to begin your argument by responding to some of the later posts in this thread where we discuss the issue of first cause, etc.

Aristotle made some mistakes on metaphysics, BTW. I don't champion him entirely on this branch of philosophy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

To use logic to "prove" that matter has always existed, requires a viable alternative, in this case, nothingness. But, since there is no nothingness, because there is matter. Then logically, logic can not explain the existence of matter.

---

The fact that existence exists is axiomatically valid. More to the point, you cannot logically disprove that existence exists.

The common line of thought (consideration of a prime mover, for example) commits the "fallacy of the reification of the zero."

To reify the zero means to treat non-existence or nothingness (an abstract, nonexisting concept) as if it could be an existant.

A state of nothingness is logically impossible : any state of non-existence would imply that non-existence could in fact exist as a state.

Saying that existence comes from nothingness is nonsensical:
1)nothingness cannot exist
2)the thought is arbitrary