To all: Actualizing potential potentialities of actualizations.
Posted Jan 13, 2012, 6:18 PM UTC · edited
3163
But dVnt, that just sounds like a bunch of nonsense. It's just a bunch of vague musings centered around muddy and poorly-defined terms. Over the course of hundreds of years, hasn't this sort of stuff been supplanted by the much more rigorous methods and definitions of science (he asked, in a respectful yet cluelessly subservient tone)?
6
Allow me to actualize some potentials for you:
You can't prove that this philosophy and metaphysics has been supplanted by science. Maybe all of science is just an illusion? I bet you've never thought of that before. You're welcome, and thanks for the question.
6
You're right, I had never thought of that before! After all, what if we're just brains in vats? How do we know we can use observation to determine what's real unless we sit around all day constructing elaborate cathedrals of convoluted logic and ambiguous semantics in our minds? Good thing the priests of a blood-sacrifice cult figured all this stuff out hundreds of years ago, or I wouldn't know which way was up!
6
I'm not going to appease behavior like this and I would appreciate it if you would stop disrespecting me. I specifically stated that there would be no follow up questions. Stop being unreasonable and vitriolic.
4
Over the course of hundreds of years, hasn't this sort of stuff been supplanted by the much more rigorous methods and definitions of science...
I realize that this is the equivalent of "well how do you explain why so many people believe in a god," but I am genuinely curious: why did we move away from teleological metaphysics? I've never heard the Aristotelian response to this jab.
5
I didn't expect to be challenged in a parody thread...
To be honest, I don't know what you mean by either "teleological metaphysics" or "Aristotelian response". Am I the Aristotelian in this scenario? Am I the one delivering the jab, or the one receiving it? I need to be sure of what you're asking before I answer.
3
No, not a challenge! I agree with you, I just think it's interesting that the Aristotelian thinks he has the proper metaphysical system, despite knowing that said system has been completely replaced with new and improved methods. Seems a little... conspiratorial, no?
3
Coincidentally, I asked a question along those lines a few hours ago, and got a reply. Notice that I don't say "an answer."
A full defense of Aristotle, and why he might have provided a better metaphysic than the atomists, is beyond the scope of this argument.
Suffice it to say that modern science is possible partly because Aristotle was dropped, but that a full explanation and understanding of the world cannot make sense without bringing him back.
-- Hammiesink
7
Oh, okay. Well I think it's pretty clear that hammiesink doesn't think that metaphysics can ever be in any way affected (much less replaced) by any discoveries in physics, because they're two completely different sorts of things (and metaphysics is more fundamental and therefore inescapable, natch). Of course, for the life of me I can't distinguish "Motion is the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality" and "F=ma" except that the latter is what happens to the former when it's studied for hundreds of years to the point that it becomes rigorously formalized and testable.
This is why it's impossible for me to debate hammiesink; there's not much to say beyond "I reject your entire system of categories as semantic question-begging".
3
New doesn't equal improved. You might as well say that the high and low traveling justicar system of England in 1200 AD was the "new and improved" version of the highly refined Roman legal system. Just because one thing happens after another doesn't mean the second thing is better.
Hammiesink's objection to post-Cartesian/post-Enlightenment metaphysics (by which I mean the denial of teleology and formal and final causes) is precisely that he thinks it is not new and improved, because it lacks explanative power for macroscopic events and for minds.
He is in fact very similar to a lot of atheists on here who despise philosophy and think it's a bunch of useless hand-wringing by people who couldn't quite make it as French literature critics. Hammiesink (in this case following Professor Edward Feser) just thinks that of modern philosophers, but still respects the Greeks.
1
/parody -off
...Because language is not reality. I don't think teleology is specifically the problem. I think metaphysics in general suffers a deficiency. Metaphysical assertions are based on the efficacy of words we use in metaphysics to describe reality, and talking is no substitute for doing. The difference between metaphysics and physics/science is the difference between math and English.
What do you mean by Artistotelian? (Obviously you're referencing Aristotle, but what specifically would qualify a response as such?)
/parody -on
2
But dVnt, that statement is a metaphysical assertion!
3
Your mom is a metaphysical assertion!
2
/parody -off
It doesn't have to be, this can be demonstrated easily.
/parody -on
I wonder when Michael Jackson's potential to become a Caucasian female was actualized, and by what potential, non-existing, actual being?
2
Descartes did it.
2
While I do find this post hilarious, I do need to point out that Hammie says repeatedly he doesn't think any of the 5 ways is true, just that everyone else doesn't understand it well enough to dismiss it like he has. He's attempting to explain it thoroughly so that we can dismiss it properly.
I guess he gets points for caring?
6
nod His flair says agnostic. If he thought Thomism was a decisive victory for theism, then, presumably, he'd be a theist. What can we learn from hammiesink and others like ghjm? Could we all be better off for trying to understand rather than simply sarcastically laughing off arguments as preposterous?
Meh, whatever. We're all responsible for our own attitude towards life.
4
Well, I maintain that if no one property understands the 5 ways - Even Richard Dawkins and Hitchens get it wrong, according to some - then it's more likely that the 5 ways is unintelligible or those explaining it aren't doing a good enough job.
If a teacher tries to make a point and 99% of the class doesn't get it - is it the fault of the class for not understanding, or is it a problem with the point being made?
More specifically, most people look into the 5 ways just enough to realize that it doesn't make much sense at all and then move on to something more intelligent.
3
What do you mean "even" Dawkins and Hitchens? That's like saying no one properly understands evolutionary biology because "even" Stephen Meyer and William Lane Craig get it wrong.
I hear a lot of people asserting that Thomism is wrong. I see very few people showing why or how it is wrong. Dawkins and Hitchens, or at least what I've read of their work, certainly don't pose any new or particularly challenging arguments.
3
I was simply saying that arguably brilliant minds who dedicate themselves to talking about topic at hand "got it wrong", in addition to most of the public.
As far as the how and the why? I've gone over this again and again with you and Hammie, but the tl;dr is it makes fundamental assumptions about the nature of the universe that have not been shown to be true.
2
I hear a lot of people asserting that Thomism is wrong. I see very few people showing why or how it is wrong.
There is a simple, logical, transcendentally dismissing explanation for this:
It's easier to make up bullshit than it is disprove it.
If you're allowed to set the precedent of argumentation then you win by default.
QED.
/parody -on
1
Well, I maintain that if no one property understands the 5 ways - Even Richard Dawkins and Hitchens get it wrong, according to some - then it's more likely that the 5 ways is unintelligible or those explaining it aren't doing a good enough job.
I'd like to think there are those who do understand them and have devised convincing arguments against them. Though, I'm not aware of any (because I'm just starting my investigation into all of this). If you've got anyone in mind, I'm happy to read up on them.
If a teacher tries to make a point and 99% of the class doesn't get it - is it the fault of the class for not understanding, or is it a problem with the point being made?
It seems hammiesink is taking responsibility for the lack of understanding in here and is attempting to correct it.
More specifically, most people look into the 5 ways just enough to realize that it doesn't make much sense at all and then move on to something more intelligent.
Or they think they understand it and dismiss it without good reason. I'd rather have a deep investigation into these ideas than to simply dismiss them out of hand. But that's just me maybe.
1
I'd like to think there are those who do understand them and have devised convincing arguments against them.
I suspect that the "meat" of Thomism isn't being addressed because most people seem to have substantial objections with the premises. Attacking the argument itself isn't likely to happen when the foundation seems to be unstable.
One issue I see with the premises of Thomism is that, perhaps due to a lack of ingenuity on my part, does not seem to agree with various aspects of quantum mechanics.
For example, radioactivity is presently understood to be purely random; there's no causal link between the decay and any preceding event. Perhaps science is wrong, or perhaps a probabilistic form of causality would allow Thomism to happily co-exist with QM.
Either way, our best empirical knowledge suggests that the "series of gears" metaphor has no basis in reality, to which Thomists simply re-assert a definition from intuition. There's not much to do when the debate can't progress past such a fundamental disagreement.
3
/parody -off
nod His flair says agnostic.
I addressed this in the text of this submission, as SkippyDeluxe aptly quoted.
Furthermore, his flare is representative of his attitude problem. He thinks anyone who has any degree of confidence, from a decidedly intellectual standpoint or just even in the context of discourse, is an idiot who is making the same mistakes as the opposition. His feels as if the fence that's stuck up his ass makes him smarter than everyone else by default -- AND IT'S ANNOYING AS FUCK. He's an intellectual hipster and it's more annoying than the typical theist.
What can we learn from hammiesink and others like ghjm?
I've learned that people will take egotism to new heights in an attempt to combat what they see as egotistical.
Could we all be better off for trying to understand rather than simply sarcastically laughing off arguments as preposterous?
This is the same bullshit begging that Hammie, et all, do. Who says that I don't understand the arguments, and upon what authority?
Hammiesink has obviously spent a lot of time with this material (traditional philosophy, ect...), that was his choice, not the the choice of the members of this forum. I don't see why we have to suffer this stuff time and time again. It's the same baseless sophistry as all other religious arguments. Are you arguing that it is not possible to take the same argument and dress it up with different terms and different contexts? Or even, perhaps more honestly, arrive at the same logical fallacies through different avenues of thought? If not, then I can't see how you can rebut my criticism of Hammiesink and his intellectual hipsterism.
As I have stated time and time again. If you allow someone enough words and enough semantic leeway, the totality of the number of words and trhe degree of semantic leeway of each term can add up to "validly argue" anything, this does not make it meritorious. To me, this is the whole point of atheism as any kind of movement or goal-oriented direction -- to recognize logical sophistry. It's not like we actually know god doesn't exist or something.
/parody -on
3
Furthermore, his flare is representative of his attitude problem. He thinks anyone who has any degree of confidence, from a decidedly intellectual standpoint or just even in the context of discourse, is an idiot who is making the same mistakes as the opposition.
Bullshit. He links to and quotes atheist philosophers. His point often times seems to be that much (most?) of the atheist arguments aren't nearly as strong as people believe them to be. You just sound butt hurt and it's pretty pathetic.
I've learned that people will take egotism to new heights in an attempt to combat what they see as egotistical.
His ego in here seems justified to me. I, for one, would be convinced that his ego is misplaced if I were to come across well argued refutations of the arguments he presents rather than childish nonsense.
This is the same bullshit begging that Hammie, et all, do. Who says that I don't understand the arguments, and upon what authority?
If you understand them and think they're wrong, then make the argument or do the opposite of what hammiesink is doing. Create a thoughtful, detailed philosophical argument that explains the opposition to thomism. I'd love to hear it, I've yet to hear it myself. I suspect that aquinas was and is wrong, but I've not yet seen a philosophical argument that supports my suspicions.
Hammiesink has obviously spent a lot of time with this material (traditional philosophy, ect...), that was his choice, not the the choice of the members of this forum. I don't see why we have to suffer this stuff time and time again.
Who says you do? Just ignore it if you think it is without merit.
As I have stated time and time again. If you allow someone enough words and enough semantic leeway, the totality of the number of words and trhe degree of semantic leeway of each term can add up to "validly argue" anything, this does not make it meritorious.
I'll call Dan Dennett and let him know to pack up his office and resign.
To me, this is the whole point of atheism as any kind of movement or goal-oriented direction -- to recognize logical sophistry. It's not like we actually know god doesn't exist or something.
To me, the point of philosophy is to help us justify saying things like "God probably doesn't exist" or "there is nothing more to the mind than matter." But, you know, hey, given enough words, I could make arguments that come to those conclusions, therefore, those conclusions are invalid, amirite?? ಠ_ಠ
4
His ego in here seems justified to me. I, for one, would be convinced that his ego is misplaced if I were to come across well argued refutations of the arguments he presents rather than childish nonsense.
Just out of abject horror, are you talking about me here or Hammie?
What I mean is - is it the case that both you and dVnt think I'm a raging egomaniac, with the only difference being that you give me some grudging justification and dVnt doesn't?
Note: I don't care if you think Hammie is a raging egomaniac. This is all about me.
5
/parody -off
His point often times seems to be that much (most?) of the atheist arguments aren't nearly as strong as people believe them to be.
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!! WHAT ARGUMENTS?!?!?!?!?!
This is a complete misappropriation of logical context. Atheism needs but one argument, "Nice try, theist, but that doesn't jive." Theism is the positive assertion for which neither a logical nor empirical substantiation has been provided -- that's it, that's all there is to it!
This is the most infuriating nonsense in this whole submission -- and it explains the rest of it.
If you understand them and think they're wrong, then make the argument or do the opposite of what hammiesink is doing. Create a thoughtful, detailed philosophical argument that explains the opposition to thomism. I'd love to hear it, I've yet to hear it myself. I suspect that aquinas was and is wrong, but I've not yet seen a philosophical argument that supports my suspicions.
The premises are incontrovertibly wrong and the terms disingenuously, conceitedly vague.
Regarding P2 of Aqunias' First Way: we know that the Big Bang was an expansion of time and space, not in time and space. In this sense, there are no logical grounds by which one can insist that something "began" to exist? In what chronology did the universe begin to exist when the birth of the universe and time are essentially the same thing? Obviously this needs to be explained by science, but our ignorance in this regard does not give way to this premise.
I've never seen this objection dealt with. How many more do I need?
To me, the point of philosophy is to help us justify saying things like "God probably doesn't exist" or "there is nothing more to the mind than matter."
Why do null hypotheses need justification? They are null hypotheses. You don't need justify a LACK of substantiation for an idea. This is an irrational precedent to set.
But, you know, hey, given enough words, I could make arguments that come to those conclusions, therefore, those conclusions are invalid, amirite?? ಠ_ಠ
Yes... what do you find so profound about your obvious attempt at sarcasm? The point I make by saying what you are mocking is that terms have to be clearly defined in order for them to be worked with. There is supreme pragmatic distinction between solving the two following sets of equations:
x+4=y; y=10
and
x+(a value between zero and three million)=y; y=10
The latter formulation is not capable of an answer worthy any length of time spent on it, even though it is ostensibly true.
/parody -on
1
Hey, somebody said my name, not in a reply to me! *sniff* I ... I've got something in my eye...
2
Who is cutting onions.
so^brave
bro hug
2
Also, just because I m saying this stuff does not mean I lend it any credulity, I'm just so cool and hip that I have to think about all the stuff that lazy atheists think they're too smart to bother with.
The parody has anticipated your objection!
2
He doesn't say he's dismissed it. He says he's agnostic on its truth or falsity, and is looking for a good reason to dismiss it. Supposedly, that's his reason for being here and talking about it - on the off chance that one of us hoi polloi will one day come up with a new idea.
The fact that we have entirely failed to do so does sort of confirm his thesis...
2
Too bad this is a straw-man. I appreciate it immensely. :) At any rate, I don't think I'm going to get into this argument. Too many video games to play...
3
It is not a straw-man.
You're welcome.
3
[deleted]
1
Flare: Intelligent Human.
This represents the same fallacy that all religion has. Which is assuming humanity is at all intelligent.
The voyager 1 probe has only made it 1/2225th of the distance to the next star (Proxima Centauri). So despite the fact that direct human knowledge is limited to a very small fraction of the distance even to the next star, billions of people still claim they know not just the creator of the entire universe, but also that creators motives?
If this doesn't seem ignorant and conceded to you, as a species as a whole, I don't know how else to explain it.
3
/parody -off
My flare is a subtle, admittedly ineffective, protest of the feature. I'm glad you get it to some degree.
/parody -on
We have direct human knowledge all the way back to the big bang essentially. Existence, or as I like to call it God, was kind enough to send us a steady stream of probes in the form of photons, encoded with a great deal of discernible information. God's probes tell me that he exists, all one has to do is look for the right information. I mean think about it, there must be a potential actuality which explains why this infinite steam of celestial probes was put there specifically for us.
(...Shit, now I can't tell if I'm satirizing anymore or not, this is actually somewhat true without the religious/supernatural stigma/association.)
3
We have direct human knowledge all the way back to the big bang essentially.
I'm sorry, we have hypotheses that are supported by scientific evidence, but we do not have any ACTUAL knowledge about ANYTHING before our lifespans.
What we might have is a "keyhole" idea of what exists beyond our general knowledge. (as a species).
But I am not wiling to base my whole existence on what humanity as a whole has seen through a "keyhole" (telescope).
To summarize, we have done science to discover what the atmosphere of say Saturn is, and I don't directly defy that science. What I do posit, is that until we, as a species go there, we cannot KNOW the atmosphere of Saturn. And as far as direct exploration goes, we have only made the moon a few times, and have not even extended our direct knowledge as of yet to the nearest solar body. (mars)
In short, my personal opinion, is that spectrolysis of our keyhole telescope images gives us an impression, not a fact. And there is no relation between, "mars exists", and "we know the makeup of mars". Point being, human knowledge is ever expanding, ever changing. And while I lend it more faith than I would any religion, we do not "know" anything until we actually go experience it. Basically, who is to say that our current knowledge of the universe does not equate to the old "the world is flat" point of veiw.
I'm not discounting science at all, but I am pointing out that there is a VAST gap between what humanity actually knows, and what it thinks it knows.
3
This is not a forum for debate. You are lucky to be graced with the time and attention I gave you. Please stop your disrespectful rebutt.
You're welcome.
1
This is not a forum for debate.
THIS IS /R/DEBATERELIGION,.. UH, DEBATE IS IN THE NAME OF THIS SUB... WTF?
My apologies for intelligent debate, I would have thought an "intelligent human" would have welcomed the opportunity. But, as is my experience with humanity, we will only allow that with which we agree or that which we can oppress. (sounds like you're choosing the latter)
Go ahead and delete this now, there is no justice here or anywhere else,... just those in power. If it makes you feel power to delete my posts, more power to you.
And since nobody else will read this, just know, that you are no better than the people you suppose to give a voice. You are just the same. As soon as your interests are threatened you will resort to whatever means necessary to quiet these voices.
You can delete me a million times, but you only have 4k followers. I can tell you that no less than a dozen of those followers are me. And no matter what you do with this post, no less than a dozen will follow. I suppose you could filter by IP, but your boss (and I) won't allow it. So for now, you can put up with my opinion on this user, or my 11 others.
The only power you have, is that which you grant yourself, which amounts to nothing.
3
To be fair, I think the history of philosophy is still interesting. I've never seen someone present Aquinas' argument in any sort of context, so props for that. I know the argument can be cut off at the root, but as I say, it's still interesting, even though it's a history lesson in error.
3
/parody -off (FWIW, these tags annoy me too, but I feel they are necessary)
I don't disagree with any aspect of what you just said, and I even appreciate religion in this same sense, but I wouldn't be making this post if Hammiesink were not ceaselessly condescending and holier-than-thou about this nonsense. You, by simply saying that these arguments can be cut off at the root, qualify as the same category of atheist as I am. "One of the stupid ones that doesn't know why they're atheist"
/parody -on
2
If you think you can respond to hammiesink's arguments in a way that makes him look like a fool, why aren't you off doing it instead of posting this here?
3
/parody -off
1: Who says I haven't?
2: I've seen it done with far more eloquence and tact than I can muster, and those people are dismissed as readily as I am.
/parody -on
1
[deleted]
1
Potentially my mind was blown. How do I actually convert to dVntianism?
2
Like most beliefs, converting to dVntianism is very hard to do. You need to study the works of every obscure philosopher to ever exist, either actually or potentially, because you need the potential of their ideas need to be actualized. There is also a specific order in which this needs to be accomplished. But that order is a secret of the intellectual hipster society and I'm not telling you how to get in!
It is not until you have invested a great deal of time and commitment to dVntianism that you will see it's merits.
Good luck, and you're welcome!
3
If you want to convert your potentiality to actuality, I imagine you'd have to find a prime mover of some sort. They seem to be in short supply nowadays...
1
Whoa... I'm terribly confused.
Perhaps you could help get me started by providing four examples of: an actual thing, a potential thing, actual stuff, and potential stuff.
Thanks!
1
/parody -off
The fact that several people can't tell this a parody is quite indicative...
/parody -on
2
indicative of the fact that I haven't been keeping up with hammiesinks posts eh? I guess I have some reading to do.
1
dVnt, as a gnostic atheist myself, I'd like to ask you to stop trolling hammiesink.
He's actually thinking and I have very much respect for him for his use of logic. If you actually care about being intellectually honest, you'll find out that he's not going around spewing bullshit and there's aspects of what he says which atheists need to consider. In fact, there's a good amount of what he says which is downright true.
1
/parody -off
I'm not trolling any more than Hammiesink is.
you'll find out that he's not going around spewing bullshit and there's aspects of what he says which atheists need to consider.
At what point do I find this out? What do I need to consider? Is this like Scientology or something. Do I have to reach a certain level before the truth is revealed?
In fact, there's a good amount of what he says which is downright true.
Yes, that's my problem with him. He's very good at making statements true, but incapable of making them relevant in any sense -- this is not an accomplishment. Anyone can use logic to make an internally consistent argument about essentially ANYTHING. The question is, what bearing does it have on reality?
/parody -on
1
[deleted]
1
:/ You feel good about what you said there? C'mon--stop it. Play nice.
1
ಠ_ಠ
ಠ_ಠ!
What don't you approve of? You need to understand my argument before you can dismiss it!
My opinion is that this argument by mockery is overvalued and overdone by atheists in here.
/parody -off
Then you wouldn't be upset if I took Hammiesink's approach and insisted that you don't understand my argumentative mockery enough to dismiss it, would you?
The point of this submission is that Hammiesink brings his arguments here because of his ego, not because of any sense of truth, rigor, or intellectual honesty. As much is evident from the fact that, fleetingly, he will admit that Thomism is not ultimately sound. This egotism is a very close relative of the egotism that could cause one to be theist or make theistic assertions. "You don't know what you should think, let me tell you."
If Hammiesink actually answered questions and stood accountable for the lack of coherence throughout this whole Thomism nonsense then I would have no problem. But he steadfastly refuses to cede any point, and the reason is evident and already elaborated upon... he's only here to be smarter than everyone else. I probably would too if I wasted as much time becoming intimately familiar and attached to logical fallacies as he has.
I don't think it is just for you do dismiss the argument I bring with this parody. It is relevant, and it is formidable.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have no problem admitting that I am as arrogant and egotistical as Hammiesink can be, that's what makes me an authority on the matter. Hammiesink is the opposite of me though, he thinks everyone should tirelessly debate the same arguments dressed in different terms until we are blue in the face because it is the only way to come to consensus, either of ideology or, more likely, of tolerance. Alternatively, my contribution to /r/debatereligion is the argument that there is actually nothing worth debating about religion. It's all the same invalid, unsound algorithm of religion, over and over again. I don't think you have any grounds to discriminate against my position even if this is r/debatereligion; this is my argument.
/parody -on
If it was just for the sake of his ego, however, you would think that he would also take great pleasure in pulling back the curtain and demonstrating for us exactly how and why the Thomistic arguments fail. But I've never seen him do this, even though presumably he thinks they do fail. I guess maybe he's mentioned it somewhere, but if he has then it's been so drowned out by his multitude of posts on potentiality and actuality that I must have missed it.
Similarly, you'd think that he would also love to go after theists with his favorite atheistic arguments and then berate them for being too stupid to know how to refute them. But he doesn't seem to care about atheistic arguments at all... or at least not about explaining and promoting them, just defeating them. I wonder why that is.
I've seriously learned more on these debates from hammiesink than anyone else on here. The fact that you'd have to resort to personal attacks to me means you didn't understand the argument and you're frustrated by that. I don't come here often so if you can and don't mind show me where he's clearly wrong and didn't cede the point or his egotism or whatever else you're accusing him of doing on here.
Since I've spent the past four years of my life studying Thomas, I'm somewhat qualified (though by no means an expert) to speak to this point.
Hammiesink has demonstrated a reasonable understanding of the concepts of actuality and potentiality, but I don't think that he communicates it well to the uninitiated.
It isn't easy stuff, I only know that he gets it because I already know it. If I didn't know it I'd probably be as flabbergasted as you are.
I feel that's unfair - it's clear Hammiesink understands the arguments he's talking about, he just seems to be very unclear in his communication when pressed for details.
I agree this can be frustrating, but this whole post and topic seems like a very needless personal attack.
I disagree that it's overvalued. I think it points out their positions precisely, and until it stops being an accurate portrayal it still holds plenty of value.
It's only overvalued when it's targeted at theists. When argument by mockery targets atheists, then it's undervalued and overdone.