If there is a God, why is there evil?

[GaryLouisSmith]

I don't think "super-/trans-mereological composition" means anything.

I think it does. What I mean to say is that objects/substances and properties or relations are parts of facts/states of affairs, but their mode of composition therein isn't mere summation, because it also involves attribution or exemplification/instantiation. So facts/states of affairs aren't mere sums of their parts but relation-including complexes.

I think you can build a philosophy out of that and if you do, I will read it. It is far from mine, however. No problem.

[Consul]

I think it does. What I mean to say is that objects/substances and properties or relations are parts of facts/states of affairs, but their mode of composition therein isn't mere summation, because it also involves attribution or exemplification/instantiation. So facts/states of affairs aren't mere sums of their parts but relation-including complexes.

Note that, as I already said, I don't think the relation functioning as a "nexus" between objects and properties/relations is an extra, a third entity in facts, because properties/relations are connectors in themselves. There needn't be any extra "glue" connecting objects and properties/relations, because the latter are "gluey" in themselves.

[Consul]

Note that, as I already said, I don't think the relation functioning as a "nexus" between objects and properties/relations is an extra, a third entity in facts, because properties/relations are connectors in themselves. There needn't be any extra "glue" connecting objects and properties/relations, because the latter are "gluey" in themselves.

It's part of their esssence to adhere to objects, and that's why uninstantiated or unpossessed properties or relations are ontologically impossible.

[Consul]

It's part of their essence to adhere to objects, and that's why uninstantiated or unpossessed properties or relations are ontologically impossible.

A property is essentially a property of something, and a relation is essentially a relation between things; so a property of nothing or a relation between nothing is nothing.

[GaryLouisSmith]

It's part of their essence to adhere to objects, and that's why uninstantiated or unpossessed properties or relations are ontologically impossible.

A property is essentially a property of something, and a relation is essentially a relation between things; so a property of nothing or a relation between nothing is nothing.

Yes, I know you believe that. I see it as similar to Frege's idea of the unsaturated. It's also similar to much in Hindu philosophy.

[Consul]

Yes, I know you believe that. I see it as similar to Frege's idea of the unsaturated. It's also similar to much in Hindu philosophy.

"Unpropertied particulars and uninstantiated universals are false abstractions, meaning that they are incapable of independent existence."

(Armstrong, D. M. Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. p. 27)

[GaryLouisSmith]

Yes, I know you believe that. I see it as similar to Frege's idea of the unsaturated. It's also similar to much in Hindu philosophy.

"Unpropertied particulars and uninstantiated universals are false abstractions, meaning that they are incapable of independent existence."

(Armstrong, D. M. Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. p. 27)

I'm not surprised Armstrong would say that. But he's dead and I can't argue with him. But if I could, I would ... probably just ignore him.

[GaryLouisSmith]

Yes, I know you believe that. I see it as similar to Frege's idea of the unsaturated. It's also similar to much in Hindu philosophy.

"Unpropertied particulars and uninstantiated universals are false abstractions, meaning that they are incapable of independent existence."

(Armstrong, D. M. Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. p. 27)

Btw, I have no doubt but that Bergmann would agree with you and Armstrong. It's takes a certain kind of mystical streak in a person to think they do exist and Bergmann ain't got that. I do overwhelmingly.

[Belindi]

GaryLouisSmith wrote:

After analysis and universals and bare particulars and the various connectors and quantifiers are grasped "outside" facts, then they are "outside" the world. The world consists of facts. Ontological things are separate from the world. The world is not all there is.

Ontological things , or in other words, things that are separate from the world exist in their uniqueness whether or not some analyser analyses them and sorts them into kinds of things.

Does your coffee cup on your desk necessarily attain its uniquenes just as it is, or might it have been something else? Might what occupies that place have been your pet parrot, or your shoe? Might Gary and his desk have been floating in the air high above Kathmandu? If not, why not?

No, because the the ontological things are not all there is, there is also the world.The world and the ontological things are not mutually exclusive.You spend all your time alive in that liminal space psychological space between the ontological things and the world and you have to constantly choose which to attend to.

[GaryLouisSmith]

GaryLouisSmith wrote:

After analysis and universals and bare particulars and the various connectors and quantifiers are grasped "outside" facts, then they are "outside" the world. The world consists of facts. Ontological things are separate from the world. The world is not all there is.

Ontological things , or in other words, things that are separate from the world exist in their uniqueness whether or not some analyser analyses them and sorts them into kinds of things.

Does your coffee cup on your desk necessarily attain its uniquenes just as it is, or might it have been something else? Might what occupies that place have been your pet parrot, or your shoe? Might Gary and his desk have been floating in the air high above Kathmandu? If not, why not?

No, because the the ontological things are not all there is, there is also the world.The world and the ontological things are not mutually exclusive.You spend all your time alive in that liminal space psychological space between the ontological things and the world and you have to constantly choose which to attend to.

If universals cannot exist alone without being tied to some particular then when I do philosophy and speak of universals and the bare particulars that they are tied to, I speak of literally nothing. Of course those who don’t believe in universals and bare particulars will smile and say “I told you so”. I, undaunted, will go on into that nothing/something beyond existence and begin to speak the unspeakable and think the unthinkable. It is fantastically easy. If you are mystically inclined you will jump on my chariot and we’ll head out. The world divides into those who know and those who don’t. Each side thinks they know, even if it is an unknowing.

[Pattern-chaser]

If there is a God, why is there evil?

I as stunned that this old saw still merits discussion on forums like this one. The question doesn't even make sense! Evil and good are relative. Relative to who or what they refer to. What is good for me, say the extermination of tuberculosis, is evil for Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacteria.

Or did you think God created the entire universe as a plaything for humanity, and has no care for, or duty to, the myriad of other living things that exist?

[Pattern-chaser]

If there is a God, why is there evil?

I as stunned that this old saw still merits discussion on forums like this one. The question doesn't even make sense! Evil and good are relative. Relative to who or what they refer to. What is good for me, say the extermination of tuberculosis, is evil for Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacteria.

Or did you think God created the entire universe as a plaything for humanity, and has no care for, or duty to, the myriad of other living things that exist?

[GaryLouisSmith]

It's part of their essence to adhere to objects, and that's why uninstantiated or unpossessed properties or relations are ontologically impossible.

A property is essentially a property of something, and a relation is essentially a relation between things; so a property of nothing or a relation between nothing is nothing.

If universals cannot exist alone without being tied to some particular then when I do philosophy and speak of universals and the bare particulars that they are tied to, I speak of literally nothing. Of course those who don’t believe in universals and bare particulars will smile and say “I told you so”. I, undaunted, will go on into that nothing/something beyond existence and begin to speak the unspeakable and think the unthinkable. It is fantastically easy. If you are mystically inclined you will jump on my chariot and we’ll head out. The world divides into those who know and those who don’t. Each side thinks they know, even if it is an unknowing.

I didn’t write that. The sentences just came and I wrote them down. I was possessed by my coffee and a hard cookie.


Dostoyevsky – I grant you two plus two equals four is an excellent thing, but to tell the truth two plus two equals five is a charming thing.

Lately I have been thinking a lot about conceptual art. In that kind of art the concept or the program or instructions for making the art work are the important element. The actual, physical or textual product is not important at all. In fact it not only may never be realized, but it is more that likely impossible as something realizable. The buildings of conceptual architecture are almost never built because no attention was paid to the practicality of building it.

So, in my conceptual philosophy, I set out a program for building an ontological system, but that system actually cannot be done in the everyday, practical world.

For example, in that above I talked about building a philosophy out of impossible things. I was going to speak the unspeakable and think the unthinkable. I talked about things that were beyond existence. And I talked about an unknowing knowing. It is all an unrealizable set of instructions. Such is purely conceptual art. It is more charming, than useful.

[Belindi]

GaryLouisSmith wrote in a reply to Consul:

A property is essentially a property of something, and a relation is essentially a relation between things; so a property of nothing or a relation between nothing is nothing.

If universals cannot exist alone without being tied to some particular then when I do philosophy and speak of universals and the bare particulars that they are tied to, I speak of literally nothing. Of course those who don’t believe in universals and bare particulars will smile and say “I told you so”. I, undaunted, will go on into that nothing/something beyond existence and begin to speak the unspeakable and think the unthinkable. It is fantastically easy. If you are mystically inclined you will jump on my chariot and we’ll head out. The world divides into those who know and those who don’t. Each side thinks they know, even if it is an unknowing.

" that nothing something beyond existence " (GLS) is what you get when you meditate and the mantra you use to get you there is as near as you can attain to a universal not tied to some particulars.

[GaryLouisSmith]

GaryLouisSmith wrote in a reply to Consul:

If universals cannot exist alone without being tied to some particular then when I do philosophy and speak of universals and the bare particulars that they are tied to, I speak of literally nothing. Of course those who don’t believe in universals and bare particulars will smile and say “I told you so”. I, undaunted, will go on into that nothing/something beyond existence and begin to speak the unspeakable and think the unthinkable. It is fantastically easy. If you are mystically inclined you will jump on my chariot and we’ll head out. The world divides into those who know and those who don’t. Each side thinks they know, even if it is an unknowing.

" that nothing something beyond existence " (GLS) is what you get when you meditate and the mantra you use to get you there is as near as you can attain to a universal not tied to some particulars.

Oh my god, you used the word "mantra". That's a loaded word, especially here where mantras are such a big part of the religious culture. I have thought a lot about them and I will have to continue because I still quite grasp what they are. If some human being has one or more mantras and that person dies, then those mantras he had will have to be cleared away, because they will still be hanging around his house and from there they can cause all kinds of trouble. Most people who have gotten a hold of some mantras are trouble-makers. Not all, though. Some people use them for good. You should know that vamachara here is much more common than dakshinachara. I myself take precautions against all that.