Philosophy Now Forum

Thank you, Greta and Nick_A, for your extensive and insightful reviews of "Droll Implications ...", and also for your senses of humor. And thanks for the music videos!

I think that we should make a distinction between 'supernatural' and 'paranormal'.Unless we do so we may fall into the god of the gaps error.

Is there any philosophical usage of 'supernatural' which is not a part of the ontological substances model? If so I don't know what it may be. Mike, your definition of supernatural is a definition of paranormal.

So called miracles are paranormal events, and there is no justification for calling them interventions by God into history .

Is there a huge distinction between extremely organic pears as opposed to the usual canned variety?

-Imp

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jul 07, 2018 4:39 pm I think that we should make a distinction between 'supernatural' and 'paranormal'.Unless we do so we may fall into the god of the gaps error.

Is there any philosophical usage of 'supernatural' which is not a part of the ontological substances model? If so I don't know what it may be. Mike, your definition of supernatural is a definition of paranormal.

So called miracles are paranormal events, and there is no justification for calling them interventions by God into history .

Thanks, Belinda, for your interest, and for your question.

I defined reality as everything that exists (substances and dispositions of substances, in the language of substance ontology). Then I defined nature and it’s complement, the supernatural, has having or containing events. They may also have or contain substances that are acted upon or affected by those events, and which in turn may affect those events.

Maybe the paranormal can be viewed as just the events, as well as the unknown causes (which may entail substances as well as “forces”) of those events.

Unfortunately, words such as "supernatural" and "miracle" have a religious connotation, as you suggest. "Paranormal" has more of a secular/scientific meaning for me. In "Droll Implications ..." , I avoided reference to a supernatural Being or Force. Instead, I referred to the ability or inability of Homo sapiens to understand parts of reality.

Mike Strand wrote: ↑Sat Jul 07, 2018 7:11 pm Unfortunately, words such as "supernatural" and "miracle" have a religious connotation, as you suggest. "Paranormal" has more of a secular/scientific meaning for me. In "Droll Implications ..." , I avoided reference to a supernatural Being or Force. Instead, I referred to the ability or inability of Homo sapiens to understand parts of reality.

Hey there, Mike Strand.

I think most will agree from experience that not all humans can appreciate the reality that exists only because it exists in the minds of others, even if they number fifty thousand. Many may even agree with the exact same words.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlnFuDCHpus

Drollery is well-intentioned, a lightness of heart, however it's circular because supernatural is only a shared concept, it’s a sort of mutual fund for imaginative events.

For real events, the term supernatural does not apply.

The attempt at drollery is still in itself droll in ways, though, which is successful irony.

So, it's got that goin for it.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 07, 2018 8:59 am Actually, I must say sorry for me being a tosspot last night!! Sawy everyone!

I was rather legless after watching the footy.

I admire a man who admits his own faulty. Thumbs up!

QuantumT wrote: ↑Sat Jul 07, 2018 11:28 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 07, 2018 8:59 am Actually, I must say sorry for me being a tosspot last night!! Sawy everyone!

I was rather legless after watching the footy.

I admire a man who admits his own faulty. Thumbs up!

LETS BRING IT HOME ENGLAND!!!