Again, polyadic universals are a big problem here, because relations can hardly be considered as parts of their relata, being "adherences" rather than "inherences".
If there is a God, why is there evil?
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
As opposed to Armstrong, Jonathan Lowe believes (believed–he's dead too) in substantial universals or kind-universals as a kind of universals sui generis that are irrreducible to attributes, i.e. properties or relations. He believes that kinds cannot exist uninstantiated, but he rejects the hylomorphistic view that kinds are parts of their instances, with particulars being matter-form/kind compounds. According to him, particulars are instances of kinds without being partly composed of kind-universals. So kinds are not spatially in their instances.GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 17th, 2019, 7:48 pmI think you are not alone on this forum in not knowing what Platonism is. Most, like you, probably think it is a kind of naturalism, which believes that universals, if they do exist, are somehow “in” the matter of the object. For example all bears are bears because the Form of Bear is in the matter of a bear.
-
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann
- Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
- Contact:
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
I suppose that is why I am not a fan of any of those guys. They leave no room for enchantment. Nor does Bergmann, but I fiddle with his ideas to make them something I can deal with. Do you know of any philosopher who has unexemplified, separate universals such as I have?Consul wrote: ↑September 17th, 2019, 10:54 pmAs opposed to Armstrong, Jonathan Lowe believes (believed–he's dead too) in substantial universals or kind-universals as a kind of universals sui generis that are irrreducible to attributes, i.e. properties or relations. He believes that kinds cannot exist uninstantiated, but he rejects the hylomorphistic view that kinds are parts of their instances, with particulars being matter-form/kind compounds. According to him, particulars are instances of kinds without being partly composed of kind-universals. So kinds are not spatially in their instances.GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 17th, 2019, 7:48 pmI think you are not alone on this forum in not knowing what Platonism is. Most, like you, probably think it is a kind of naturalism, which believes that universals, if they do exist, are somehow “in” the matter of the object. For example all bears are bears because the Form of Bear is in the matter of a bear.
- Consul
- Posts: 6036
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
Van Inwagen & Chisholm:GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 17th, 2019, 11:12 pmDo you know of any philosopher who has unexemplified, separate universals such as I have?
"A transcendent realist is a metaphysician who believes that universals exist, that these universals exist ante res (independently of their instances), that universals are necessarily existent things, that universals are in no sense constituents of particulars, that the only constituents of particulars are their proper parts (other 'smaller' particulars; for example, electrons, submicroscopic particulars, are 'constituents' of macroscopic particulars like cats and canaries), that universals are abstract objects and thus do not and cannot enter into causal relations 'from either end': they can be neither agents nor patients."
(Van Inwagen, Peter. "In Defense of Transcendent Universals." In Metaphysics and Scientific Realism: Essays in Honour of David Malet Armstrong, edited by Francesco F. Calemi, 51-70. Boston: De Gruyter, 2016. p. 67)
"The present theory is 'Platonistic': it is a form of extreme realism. There are attributes (properties). Some of them (e.g., being a dog) are exemplified; some of them (e.g., being a unicorn) are unexemplified; and some of them (e.g., being a round square) cannot be exemplified."
(Chisholm, Roderick M. A Realistic Theory of Categories: An Essay in Ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. p. 4)
-
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann
- Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
- Contact:
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
Thanks. I'm currently interested in "conceptual" art and also the relation between Baudelaire, Symbolism and Platonism. Any thoughts on that?Consul wrote: ↑September 17th, 2019, 11:28 pmVan Inwagen & Chisholm:GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 17th, 2019, 11:12 pmDo you know of any philosopher who has unexemplified, separate universals such as I have?
"A transcendent realist is a metaphysician who believes that universals exist, that these universals exist ante res (independently of their instances), that universals are necessarily existent things, that universals are in no sense constituents of particulars, that the only constituents of particulars are their proper parts (other 'smaller' particulars; for example, electrons, submicroscopic particulars, are 'constituents' of macroscopic particulars like cats and canaries), that universals are abstract objects and thus do not and cannot enter into causal relations 'from either end': they can be neither agents nor patients."
(Van Inwagen, Peter. "In Defense of Transcendent Universals." In Metaphysics and Scientific Realism: Essays in Honour of David Malet Armstrong, edited by Francesco F. Calemi, 51-70. Boston: De Gruyter, 2016. p. 67)
"The present theory is 'Platonistic': it is a form of extreme realism. There are attributes (properties). Some of them (e.g., being a dog) are exemplified; some of them (e.g., being a unicorn) are unexemplified; and some of them (e.g., being a round square) cannot be exemplified."
(Chisholm, Roderick M. A Realistic Theory of Categories: An Essay in Ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. p. 4)
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
That's pretty much the field of study of analytical psychology, e.g., Man and his Symbols by Carl Jung.I'm currently interested in "conceptual" art and also the relation between Baudelaire, Symbolism and Platonism. Any thoughts on that?
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
That's Aristotelian form not Platonic form. You are probably right most people understand the Aristotelian form as it has come to us by way of Aquinas and has been popularised in lots of quite nice hymns. Now that genetic engineering has happened it must be terribly Satanically evil by comparison with God's orders.I think you are not alone on this forum in not knowing what Platonism is. Most, like you, probably think it is a kind of naturalism, which believes that universals, if they do exist, are somehow “in” the matter of the object. For example all bears are bears because the Form of Bear is in the matter of a bear.
How could you, who believe in metaphysical realism, tell the difference between Boy and genetically engineered Boy, or indeed android Boy?
-
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann
- Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
- Contact:
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
Have you studied conceptual art? If so, can you see any connection between that and Jung?
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
-
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann
- Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
- Contact:
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
Frankly, it's been ages since I've read Jung and conceptual art tends to bore me, but similar symbolism appears in both ancient and modern art. Do you not think the Platonic forms come from the human psyche? If not, from whence do they come?GaryLouisSmith: Have you studied conceptual art? If so, can you see any connection between that and Jung?
-
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann
- Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
- Contact:
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
Sorry, the word "symbolism" is confusing. I was referring to Symbolism as an art movement in the late nineteenth century. It is often associated with Baudelaire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolism_(arts) and then there is the closely allied era of Decadence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decadent_movement . There was a great amount of Platonism in all that art.Felix wrote: ↑September 18th, 2019, 5:12 pmFrankly, it's been ages since I've read Jung and conceptual art tends to bore me, but similar symbolism appears in both ancient and modern art. Do you not think the Platonic forms come from the human psyche? If not, from whence do they come?GaryLouisSmith: Have you studied conceptual art? If so, can you see any connection between that and Jung?
I'm not surprised that you are bored by conceptual art because most people are. I, however, rather like it. And that is why I am curious as to a connection between it and Symbolism as an art movement. I can feel a connection but I quite put my finder on it.
-
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann
- Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
- Contact:
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
Yes, I am aware the one might call Aristotle a naturalist and his philosophy a type of naturalism. His universals are "in" the matter of the object, not separate from it as a Platonic Form is.Belindi wrote: ↑September 18th, 2019, 4:15 am GaryLouisSmith wrote:
That's Aristotelian form not Platonic form. You are probably right most people understand the Aristotelian form as it has come to us by way of Aquinas and has been popularised in lots of quite nice hymns. Now that genetic engineering has happened it must be terribly Satanically evil by comparison with God's orders.I think you are not alone on this forum in not knowing what Platonism is. Most, like you, probably think it is a kind of naturalism, which believes that universals, if they do exist, are somehow “in” the matter of the object. For example all bears are bears because the Form of Bear is in the matter of a bear.
How could you, who believe in metaphysical realism, tell the difference between Boy and genetically engineered Boy, or indeed android Boy?
As for genetic engineering, that is nothing more than a quick, hurry-up way of doing what farmers have done for millennia with creating hybrids. There's nothing fundamentally new there. As for a mechanical boy and the Boy. You still can't seem to get the hang of a Platonic Form as something immaterial, i.e. separated from all material "manifestations" of it. (My interest in conceptual art comes in here.) That said, I, strangely enough, find a mechanical or android boy to be kind of sexy. I have seen boy actors acting like robots. There's something mystically alluring about it. Here boys wear make-up and masks when they are performing the part of the gods in a religious "play". They move in a jerky fashion like an android. I shiver with erotic attraction. I have thought about that for quite a long time and written about it in my very non-academic style.
-
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann
- Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
- Contact:
Re: If there is a God, why is there evil?
I think it would help if you thought of the distinction between a substance philosophy and the type of formalism that I have in philosophy.
Is the Boy his inner feelings and self or is he his outer form? A substantialism, usually, will tend to think of the inner being of something and be rather dismissive of the outer appearance as something superficial. I am an anti-substantialist. For me the appearing Form is everything. There is an old saying that the soul is the form of the body. I believe that. That is why I can be turned on by a manikin or a glossy piece of photo-shopped pornography. The form is everything. And that is why people say that my philosophy is immoral; I pay no attention to the inner person, who basically disappears.
My immaterialism is my anti-substantialism. Matter is the dark, hidden interior. In a philosophy of pure form there is no such thing.
So, yes, I think you would judge that to be something not "good for us": It's also why my philosophy is a gay philosophy, And why the Platonic Forms are gay.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023