Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

Theoretical Philosophy » Philosophical Critiques of Evolution » 8/14/2018 3:56 pm

Brian
Replies: 1

Go to post

The classic Platonic argument against evolution is that it is metaphysically incoherent to assert that some instantiation of Form x could produce an instantiation of Form y.  The only time this seems to happen is when rationality is involved (I, a human, created a statue or whatever) but 1) it's uncertain wether artifacts participate in Form the same way natural kinds do and 2) what's involved here is rationality which  has the ability to think any form, so this isn't the same sort of thing.  Along these same lines it is argued that the greater can never proceed from the lesser, so evolution can't occur this way.

I used to be active in a (now baron) forum of Traditionalists who largely thought this way.  There was a long ongoing thread that discussed evolution in detail.  I can post a link if you are interested.

Chit-Chat » ​Who are your three biggest philosophical influences? » 8/02/2018 8:28 am

Brian
Replies: 51

Go to post

Hypatia wrote:

The one problem with Platonism compared to Aristotelianism is it can get a bit too otherworldly--I remember Pierre Hadot having that complaint about Plotinus, that it was like visiting a foreign realm divorced from everyday life. Which I can sympathize with, so I like paying attention to the Thomists because I need a good dose of common sense philosophy every so often. Otherwise the apophaticism and eliminative idealism creep in. Or worse.

Interestingly, Plotinus didn't seem to have that problem if we are to believe Porphyry.  He adopted orphans and stressed the (chronological) priority of the civic virtues over the intellectual/purificatory virtues.  Definitely strange how the emblematic anti-worldly, head in the stars, Platonist was rather practical.

Chit-Chat » Books you want to read » 7/11/2018 8:06 am

Brian
Replies: 5

Go to post

I'm looking forward to Peter Kingsley's forthcoming book on Carl Jung and Henry Corbin, Catafalque. 

https://catafalque.org

Introductions » Hey » 7/02/2018 4:20 pm

Brian
Replies: 3

Go to post

Hello Catherine.  Welcome to the forum.  Feel free to post questions and comments.

Chit-Chat » ​Who are your three biggest philosophical influences? » 7/01/2018 7:40 pm

Brian
Replies: 51

Go to post

I would have to say Plato, Nietzsche,  and Rene Guenon.  Although honorable mentions go to Sextus Empiricus, Zhuangzi, and Schopenhauer.

I honestly don't remember if that's different than the first time I answered the question.

Chit-Chat » Jordan Peterson on Bible stories » 6/25/2018 5:35 pm

Brian
Replies: 2

Go to post

Peterson has become something of a political pop-star as of late.  I don't care about his politics, but a buddy of mine got me watching some of his videos on religion and philosophy and I've really enjoyed them.  Below I've posted the first of (I believe) 17 lectures about Bible stories.  He comes from a very Jungian perspective but has insightful things to say about Freud, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, and religion generally.  Enjoy.

https://youtu.be/f-wWBGo6a2w

Theoretical Philosophy » Is life meaningless without an afterlife? » 5/17/2018 1:49 pm

Brian
Replies: 14

Go to post

RomanJoe wrote:

Perhaps a better way of looking at the threat of non-being is through the lense of ultimate purpose. If there is no ultimate purpose to our lives--and we are merely a transition out of non-being and back to into non-being--can we really say our lives have value beyond that which we subjectively interpret them to? In other words, if mankind never existed in the first place, would it make any real difference in the last analysis, given that mankind is doomed to die along with the universe?

Who would be conducting this "last analysis"?  The question wants to posit an outside observer, like God, from whom value comes.  If God does not exist, this a very peculiar way to think of the question in the first place.  If God does exist, the after life question seems secondary and derivative on the question, "whence value?"

Let's say there is no God or transcendence.  The idea of ultimate purpose would be a fantasy.  At a certain point, one would have to reconcile one's beliefs with reality and stop asking for something which by nature is a chimera.  Just like a man could desire a meal so good he would never be hungry again.  If said desire prevented him from enjoying the actual meals he ate, or worse, made him stop eating, it would be to his benefit to purge that desire from his psyche/mind. 

It's obviously not that simple, given that we don't know God is dead.  So we do have to struggle with the idea of ultimate purpose.

Theoretical Philosophy » Is life meaningless without an afterlife? » 5/17/2018 10:44 am

Brian
Replies: 14

Go to post

Can you define 'meaning'?  If I buy flowers for my fiancee that action is meaningful.  That seems obvious.  Is that action 'ultimately meaningful'?  I don't know, but it sounds like you are asking whether temporal actions have meaning outside the realm of time.  If that's the case then no.  But so what?  Do musical notes have meaning outside of auditory perception? No.  Does that devalue music?  It shouldn't.   

It seems like we are maybe conflating meaning and value.  Meaning is a psychological phenomena so far as I can tell.   Value may be something different and more.

Introductions » Intro » 5/16/2018 8:00 pm

Brian
Replies: 2

Go to post

Welcome, 
Feel free to start some threads and ask questions.

Chit-Chat » How to end atheist provincianism/promote philosophical education? » 5/16/2018 7:53 pm

Brian
Replies: 47

Go to post

John West wrote:

[Redacted by author, 7 - 23 - 2018.]

Haha   Explain what you mean by that jab at rock concerts.

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum