Posted on 11/04/2002 7:52:21 AM PST by thinktwice
I read your link and I think Parmenides is wrong ("Parmenides had been forced to the position that there is in reality no change at all").
Carrying (from your provided link) Aristotle's thought ... "From being-in- potency there can come being-in-act," and Michelangelo's comment about statues ... a bit further ...
If a statue is the act of the stone, the fact remains that the statue is material from stone.
And so, for the soul ...
If the soul is the act of the body, logic holds that the soul is material from body.
Sounds to me like Aristotle was approaching some truth regarding the mortality of the soul.
In reality; a rock is always a rock, or it wouldn't be a rock.
In mysticism; a wafer is not always a wafer, so it never was a wafer.
The same bunch that brought us the inquisition brought us ... extant manuscripts.
Yes she does, and you'll find it in her epistemology.
Starting with a baby's view of sense perceptions (total chaos) Rand develops an epistemology based in reality and reason that acknowledges human fallibility in interpreting sense perception -- while at the same time demonstrating human capabilities for immense achievement (Rand's own achievements are a good example) when one remains focused on sensual inputs from reality, and finds sense within reality using reason.
I consider all such questions a symptom. If this is truly a problem for you, you need to be consulting a psychologist, not a philosopher.
What's a mirage? How did you come to know what it is? If you know what it is, you have the answered your question. How could you not know?
There simply is no logical reason why I should trust my senses.
If you mean by "senses" your percepts, that is, seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and feeling, your "senses" are never wrong. You may interpret your senses incorrectly, and thus be mistaken in your reasoning about them, but the senses themselves cannot be doubted.
What you see, you see. You might intepret what you see incorrectly, supposing, for example that the water shimmering in the distance is closer than it really is, or that the moon is larger near the horizon than at its zenith, but what you see you actually see. If you see stars, whether from a blow to the head or when looking at the night sky, you see stars. It is only your interpretation (conceptual reasoning) that can be mistaken about what you are seeing. Interestingly, you cannot make such mistakes until after you have learned to identify most of what you see.
...sensation is ultimately an immanent activity and in the act of understanding, the form of the thing known becomes one with the mind of the knower...
You're kidding. That is shear nonsense. I would not be surprised to find it in the works of Dodgson, however. For one thing it confuses perception (sensation) with conception (understanding). It makes no sense whatsoever, although Alice's queen would no doubt understand it. No wonder you can't tell if your living in a mirage or reality.
Hank
Are we poorly equipped, or do we just think we are?
No need to wonder. Archeology has proven that the bible we have to day is substantially unchanged. Differences are minor (e.g. the dropping of an article), but the information is unchanged.
Thought/intelligence could originate from our Source and just be manifested through us.
and my response ...
Why would an all-knowing God send us out ... so poorly equipped?
About which MEGoody asks ...
Are we poorly equipped, or do we just think we are?
Compared to an al-knowing God, in whose image we were supposedly made, we are indeed, poorly equipped.
References, please.
If a statue is the act of the stone, the fact remains that the statue is material from stone.For Aristotle, a primary substance (such as a particular statue) is a union of matter and form. Aristotle distinguishes between matter as potentiality and form as actuality. For example, a block of stone in abstraction from form is potentially a statue, but when the stone receives the form that constitutes the essence of a statue, it is actually a statue.
Aristotle would not say that "the statue is material from stone"; rather, he would say that the material cause of a statue is stone, but the formal cause is the unifed essence that it receives from the artist.
You ... Aristotle would not say that "the statue is material from stone";
Maybe not, but no one can deny my point -- an analytic truth -- that a stone statue is made from stone.
Kant's Critique of Pure Reason can't be understood by anyone -- it defies intelligence.
I actually suspect that Kant (who was a nice guy, a good teacher, , and the TOP philosopher in Germany at the time) wrote the Critique as a prank, to satirize the German custom of idolizing anything produced by "The Master" in any given field.
In reality, outside of the natural universe, God does what pleases Him. He decided to multiply loaves and fishes, as many witnesses attested. I think all the loaves kept the molecular structures of bread, as they were digested, as did the covenant bread before Christ's nativity and afterward. That, however, did not keep some from calling his followers cannibals.
I forgot to mention that Kant was physically impaired; he had a big bulging head, thin legs, a weak chest, and one shoulder was much higher than the other. He had little to do with women but he did once take a carriage ride with a lady, only to order their return upon learning they were seven miles from home -- that was the longest trip in his lifetime.
The man was a good teacher and his students liked him, but his probable psychological state has me thinking that his Critique of Pure Reason, an unintelligible yet highly praised work, is an insidious satire on a system giving extraordinary -- probably undeserved -- credit to those reaching honored positions in academia.
And now, thank you for your advice in post 358; but ... my training already includes some years dwelling on scripture.
One thing in 358 popped out. You recommended that I ... ... first study Scripture intuitively, especially from the Greek and Hebrew for epistemilogical foundations ...
I've also studied Greece history, literature, drama and philosophy; and I've made several trips to Greece; so your mentioning Scripture written in Greek caused me to realize that Paul of Tarsus is about the only Greek scripture writer; that most Christian scripture did not originate in Greece.
Even Plato's Phaedo, it's spiritually interesting, but it's not scripture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.