Philosophy Now Forum

Aristotle was the first to distinguish between matter (hyle) and form (morphe).

For Aristotle, matter is the undifferentiated primal element: it is rather that from which things develop than a thing in itself.
The development of particular things from this germinal matter consists in differentiation, the acquiring of particular forms of which the knowable universe consists (cf. Formal cause).
The perfection of the form of a thing is its entelechy in virtue of which it attains its fullest realization of function (De anima, ii. 2).
Thus the entelechy of the body is the soul. The origin of the differentiation process is to be sought in a prime mover, i.e. pure form entirely separate from all matter, eternal, unchangeable, operating not by its own activity but by the impulse which its own absolute existence excites in matter.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_form

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:34 am You seem to playing with forms and functions, scratching the surface but not what that matters.

Note,

Aristotle was the first to distinguish between matter (hyle) and form (morphe).

For Aristotle, matter is the undifferentiated primal element: it is rather that from which things develop than a thing in itself.
The development of particular things from this germinal matter consists in differentiation, the acquiring of particular forms of which the knowable universe consists (cf. Formal cause).
The perfection of the form of a thing is its entelechy in virtue of which it attains its fullest realization of function (De anima, ii. 2).
Thus the entelechy of the body is the soul. The origin of the differentiation process is to be sought in a prime mover, i.e. pure form entirely separate from all matter, eternal, unchangeable, operating not by its own activity but by the impulse which its own absolute existence excites in matter.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_form

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 10:42 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:34 am You seem to playing with forms and functions, scratching the surface but not what that matters.

Note,

Aristotle was the first to distinguish between matter (hyle) and form (morphe).

For Aristotle, matter is the undifferentiated primal element: it is rather that from which things develop than a thing in itself.
The development of particular things from this germinal matter consists in differentiation, the acquiring of particular forms of which the knowable universe consists (cf. Formal cause).
The perfection of the form of a thing is its entelechy in virtue of which it attains its fullest realization of function (De anima, ii. 2).
Thus the entelechy of the body is the soul. The origin of the differentiation process is to be sought in a prime mover, i.e. pure form entirely separate from all matter, eternal, unchangeable, operating not by its own activity but by the impulse which its own absolute existence excites in matter.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_form

What "matters" is composed of limits, hence the matter of action through virtue and vice is composed of limits in itself and extends from these same limits.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 5:43 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 10:42 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:34 am You seem to playing with forms and functions, scratching the surface but not what that matters.

Note,

What "matters" is composed of limits, hence the matter of action through virtue and vice is composed of limits in itself and extends from these same limits.

Note whatever the "limits" or transcending the 'limits' they all boils down to human psychology. As such what is critical is you need to understand what is going on between your ears before you start to make any conclusions re "limits".

Name me one 'limit' that is not conditioned by human as the 'limit'.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 5:36 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 5:43 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 30, 2018 10:42 pm

What "matters" is composed of limits, hence the matter of action through virtue and vice is composed of limits in itself and extends from these same limits.

Note whatever the "limits" or transcending the 'limits' they all boils down to human psychology. As such what is critical is you need to understand what is going on between your ears before you start to make any conclusions re "limits".

Name me one 'limit' that is not conditioned by human as the 'limit'.

Actually it does not boil down "strictly" to human psychology as the "limit" may dually be argued as the foundation for the human psyche...

"Man is the measure of all things", interpreted by Plato to mean that there is no absolute truth, but that which individuals deem to be the truth. Although there is reason to question the extent of the interpretation of his arguments that has followed, that concept of individual relativity was revolutionary for the time, and contrasted with other philosophical doctrines that claimed the universe was based on something objective, outside human influence or perceptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:05 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 5:36 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 5:43 am Note whatever the "limits" or transcending the 'limits' they all boils down to human psychology. As such what is critical is you need to understand what is going on between your ears before you start to make any conclusions re "limits".

Name me one 'limit' that is not conditioned by human as the 'limit'.

Actually it does not boil down "strictly" to human psychology as the "limit" may dually be argued as the foundation for the human psyche...

The foundation for the human psyche has to human, thus human psychology albeit at the ultimate level.

Note Protagoras'

"Man is the measure of all things"

"Man is the measure of all things", interpreted by Plato to mean that there is no absolute truth, but that which individuals deem to be the truth. Although there is reason to question the extent of the interpretation of his arguments that has followed, that concept of individual relativity was revolutionary for the time, and contrasted with other philosophical doctrines that claimed the universe was based on something objective, outside human influence or perceptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras

Your view [like the Philosophical Realists] that there is an objective limit independent of the human conditions is an illusion driven by an internal existential crisis.

I would suggest you look into the long time contentious issue between the Philosophical Realist versus the Philosophical anti-Realists to get a better bearing and grounding instead of presenting groundless views.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:39 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:05 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 5:36 pm

Actually it does not boil down "strictly" to human psychology as the "limit" may dually be argued as the foundation for the human psyche...

The foundation for the human psyche has to human, thus human psychology albeit at the ultimate level.

Note Protagoras'

"Man is the measure of all things"

"Man is the measure of all things", interpreted by Plato to mean that there is no absolute truth, but that which individuals deem to be the truth. Although there is reason to question the extent of the interpretation of his arguments that has followed, that concept of individual relativity was revolutionary for the time, and contrasted with other philosophical doctrines that claimed the universe was based on something objective, outside human influence or perceptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras

Your view [like the Philosophical Realists] that there is an objective limit independent of the human conditions is an illusion driven by an internal existential crisis.

I would suggest you look into the long time contentious issue between the Philosophical Realist versus the Philosophical anti-Realists to get a better bearing and grounding instead of presenting groundless views.

"Man is the measure of all things" observes that all "measure" (limits) extend through man; hence "limit" provides the foundation for human consciousness through "measurement" as "limit through limit".

"Interpreted by Plato" is a relativistic statement; hence contradicts itself in one respect, while showing "man as measurer" is a constant.

The statement of "man as measurer" observes a constant where the relativistic change through which man exists provides a constant boundary in and of itself that defines man..."Everything is Relative...is infinite change as a constant".

One cannot say there is an independent limit that exists independent of the human condition without observing "limit" as the foundation of the human condition and inherently inseperable as this "seperation" is a limit in itself. To say "limit" exists independent of the human condition, ie "seperate", is a statement of relation and cycles back to the relativistic interpretation of Plato's observation of Protagoras' statement.

I would suggest that you think more and reference less as my views are inherently grounded in "limit" itself, which effectively is the foundation of all grounding itself.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 4:48 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:39 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:05 am The foundation for the human psyche has to human, thus human psychology albeit at the ultimate level.

Note Protagoras'

"Man is the measure of all things"



Your view [like the Philosophical Realists] that there is an objective limit independent of the human conditions is an illusion driven by an internal existential crisis.

I would suggest you look into the long time contentious issue between the Philosophical Realist versus the Philosophical anti-Realists to get a better bearing and grounding instead of presenting groundless views.

"Man is the measure of all things" observes that all "measure" (limits) extend through man; hence "limit" provides the foundation for human consciousness through "measurement" as "limit through limit".

"Interpreted by Plato" is a relativistic statement; hence contradicts itself in one respect, while showing "man as measurer" is a constant.

The statement of "man as measurer" observes a constant where the relativistic change through which man exists provides a constant boundary in and of itself that defines man..."Everything is Relative...is infinite change as a constant".

One cannot say there is an independent limit that exists independent of the human condition without observing "limit" as the foundation of the human condition and inherently inseperable as this "seperation" is a limit in itself. To say "limit" exists independent of the human condition, ie "seperate", is a statement of relation and cycles back to the relativistic interpretation of Plato's observation of Protagoras' statement.

I would suggest that you think more and reference less as my views are inherently grounded in "limit" itself, which effectively is the foundation of all grounding itself.

I am not sure of your point. You seem to agree and disagree with what I had proposed. Looks like we are 'talking' pass each other.

My point is whatever the "limit" you introduced such 'limit' is always qualified to the human condition.

There is no such thing as a 'limit' that is absolute, absolutely absolute.

Btw, is your God limited or unlimited?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 5:46 pm You read it correctly...read it again, we are not talking past each other except in one respect: You claim God does not Exist, I am claiming the existence and non-existence of God is not only inevitable through reason but inherent within the universal God as "Alpha and Omega" (Beginning and End, Everything and Nothing).

Actually the line, circle and point are absolutes.

In regards to the last question both and neither.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:39 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 5:46 pm You read it correctly...read it again, we are not talking past each other except in one respect: You claim God does not Exist, I am claiming the existence and non-existence of God is not only inevitable through reason but inherent within the universal God as "Alpha and Omega" (Beginning and End, Everything and Nothing).

Actually the line, circle and point are absolutes.

In regards to the last question both and neither.

So it boils down to;

I claim 'God does not Exist as real'
You claim 'God exists as real'.

I claim both through the definition of God as "Everything and Nothing" stemming from the prerequisite universal definitions of God as "Alpha and Omega".



Note I claim 'God does not Exist as real' but that is an illusion generated from existential crisis which is real within a person.
Can you counter this?


Yes.

1) All illusions are based upon elements of truth as deficiency in truth; hence all illusions are real.
2) Illusions are not limited strictly to the foundation of an existential crisis in the respect that illusions can dually be argued as the foundations of existential crisis.
3) The existential crisis is an illusion in the respect there is no crisis through existence as existence "is".

Your points with 'limit' blah, blah, ... are merely beating around the bush.
The inherent existing crisis within your brain is compelling your reasoning faculty to deceive yourself with an illusion [pseudo-rational] to soothe the pulses of the existential crisis.


Ad-hominum and straw man.

All phenomena exist through order with all order being composed of limits which give premise to that order as a framework, structure, or dimensions (set of limits). No phenomena can exist without being composed of, composing, or existing as a limit in itself.

Normally a human will resort to the physical for psychological comfort when one's security is threatened, e.g. babies to mother, father, parents and that increase to greater sources and to political power, etc.

"Normally" is a probabalistic statement and does not account for the times when divinity is argued for or observed with these crisis are not present. A simple "thank you God" or praise of greatness does not always fall under this negative definition.



But when in the case where no physical power can help, e.g. advent of mortality and existential crisis, one has to resort to mental reasoning, thus God the all powerful.

The limits which form both mental and physical reasoning are all founded in the limits of the line, point and circle...what we understand of physicality and abstractness are subject to definition according to intellect which cannot be entirely seperated.

God the all powerful can be crude [Abrahamic religions, etc.] or more refined philosophical thoughts like yours.

And why not both?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:38 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:39 am So it boils down to;

I claim 'God does not Exist as real'
You claim 'God exists as real'.

I claim both through the definition of God as "Everything and Nothing" stemming from the prerequisite universal definitions of God as "Alpha and Omega".

Note I claim 'God does not Exist as real' but that is an illusion generated from existential crisis which is real within a person.
Can you counter this?

Yes.

1) All illusions are based upon elements of truth as deficiency in truth; hence all illusions are real.
2) Illusions are not limited strictly to the foundation of an existential crisis in the respect that illusions can dually be argued as the foundations of existential crisis.
3) The existential crisis is an illusion in the respect there is no crisis through existence as existence "is".

An existential crisis is often provoked by a significant event in the person's life—psychological trauma, marriage, separation, major loss, the death of a loved one, a life-threatening experience, a new love partner, psychoactive drug use, adult children leaving home, reaching a personally significant age (turning 16, turning 40, etc.), etc.
Usually, it provokes the sufferer's introspection about personal mortality, thus revealing the psychological repression of said awareness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_crisis

Your points with 'limit' blah, blah, ... are merely beating around the bush.
The inherent existing crisis within your brain is compelling your reasoning faculty to deceive yourself with an illusion [pseudo-rational] to soothe the pulses of the existential crisis.

Ad-hominum and straw man.

All phenomena exist through order with all order being composed of limits which give premise to that order as a framework, structure, or dimensions (set of limits). No phenomena can exist without being composed of, composing, or existing as a limit in itself.

Normally a human will resort to the physical for psychological comfort when one's security is threatened, e.g. babies to mother, father, parents and that increase to greater sources and to political power, etc.

"Normally" is a probabalistic statement and does not account for the times when divinity is argued for or observed with these crisis are not present. A simple "thank you God" or praise of greatness does not always fall under this negative definition.

God the all powerful can be crude [Abrahamic religions, etc.] or more refined philosophical thoughts like yours

And why not both?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 6:32 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:38 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:39 am So it boils down to;

I claim 'God does not Exist as real'
You claim 'God exists as real'.

I claim both through the definition of God as "Everything and Nothing" stemming from the prerequisite universal definitions of God as "Alpha and Omega".

Any one can claim X as "Everything and Nothing".
But how do you prove X exists as something or 'nothing'?'

Simple:

X exists as infinite variables, including itself, which observes it conducive to "everything" at minimum.

This infinite number of variables as fundmentally separate, shows "x" as nothing in the respect it is conducive to change and is not a thing in itself, but rather a point of inversion.

Note I claim 'God does not Exist as real' but that is an illusion generated from existential crisis which is real within a person.
Can you counter this?

Yes.

1) All illusions are based upon elements of truth as deficiency in truth; hence all illusions are real.
2) Illusions are not limited strictly to the foundation of an existential crisis in the respect that illusions can dually be argued as the foundations of existential crisis.
3) The existential crisis is an illusion in the respect there is no crisis through existence as existence "is".

You are conflating the issue here.

Note,
when a person see a mirage [illusion] of an oasis in a desert at location X,
the neural process of generating that illusion in the brain/mind is real,
but if anyone were to claim there is real water and palm trees at location X, then that is illusory and delusional.
In this case, we can prove it is an illusion because we can to to the precise location of X and confirm there are no real palm trees and water.

But the illusion is dependent upon existing variables such as "water" etc. Where the illusion is a deficiency in truth (ie water exists at "x" location") this deficiency necessitates existing variables (water and "x" location).

Similarly, when a person believe God exists, that is an illusion.
The neural process in the brain/mind that generate that illusion is real.
But the God that is believed to be real is merely an illusion.
Why theists are able to drag on with such a delusion is because theists deflect the issue and are not able to produce the real God for verification and giving all sorts of excuses.

The existential crisis is not an illusion.
Actually it is an illusion as the crisis of "existence" necessitates the constant nature of existence as a negative cannot be observed without a positive.


The existential crisis which is supported by a neural basis and real experiences can be verified objectively.

How can the existential crisis be verified as objectively existing when it is a problem of abstraction in the respect we cannot observe all of existence in the strictly empirical sense?

Where is the proof the existential crisis is strictly "neural" in its foundation?

An existential crisis is often provoked by a significant event in the person's life—psychological trauma, marriage, separation, major loss, the death of a loved one, a life-threatening experience, a new love partner, psychoactive drug use, adult children leaving home, reaching a personally significant age (turning 16, turning 40, etc.), etc.
Usually, it provokes the sufferer's introspection about personal mortality, thus revealing the psychological repression of said awareness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_crisis

There is more to the above that compels a person to theism.

And these same problems give rise to Atheism as well.....is this a joke?

Your points with 'limit' blah, blah, ... are merely beating around the bush.
The inherent existing crisis within your brain is compelling your reasoning faculty to deceive yourself with an illusion [pseudo-rational] to soothe the pulses of the existential crisis.

Ad-hominum and straw man.

Note the above existential crisis which is a potential in ALL humans and active in the majority.

Potentiality is not actuality.

All phenomena exist through order with all order being composed of limits which give premise to that order as a framework, structure, or dimensions (set of limits). No phenomena can exist without being composed of, composing, or existing as a limit in itself.

What is new in such a truism.

Normally a human will resort to the physical for psychological comfort when one's security is threatened, e.g. babies to mother, father, parents and that increase to greater sources and to political power, etc.

"Normally" is a probabalistic statement and does not account for the times when divinity is argued for or observed with these crisis are not present. A simple "thank you God" or praise of greatness does not always fall under this negative definition.

'Normally' is related to majority.
Fact is theists are the majority of people on Earth.
Thus theists will normally seek God for psychological comfort in the above examples.

But not all "theists" as some theists observe God as uncaring or down right brutal.

God the all powerful can be crude [Abrahamic religions, etc.] or more refined philosophical thoughts like yours

And why not both?

Both are theistic driven but the doctrines of the Abrahamic religions are too crude and laden with evil elements.
Those who delve into the more refined philosophical thoughts would distance themselves from the evil and violent elements in the immutable texts of the Abrahamic religions.
Do you accept and condone the evil elements in the Abrahamic religions?

What is evil but strictly a relativistic term premised in perpetual relativism?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 6:32 am Note,
when a person see a mirage [illusion] of an oasis in a desert at location X,
the neural process of generating that illusion in the brain/mind is real,
but if anyone were to claim there is real water and palm trees at location X, then that is illusory and delusional.
In this case, we can prove it is an illusion because we can go to the precise location of X and confirm there are no real palm trees and water.

But the illusion is dependent upon existing variables such as "water" etc. Where the illusion is a deficiency in truth (ie water exists at "x" location") this deficiency necessitates existing variables (water and "x" location).

Similarly, when a person believe God exists, that is an illusion.
The neural process in the brain/mind that generate that illusion is real.
But the God that is believed to be real is merely an illusion.
Why theists are able to drag on with such a delusion is because theists deflect the issue and are not able to produce the real God for verification and giving all sorts of excuses.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:38 pm The existential crisis is not an illusion.
Actually it is an illusion as the crisis of "existence" necessitates the constant nature of existence as a negative cannot be observed without a positive.

• when a person-A see a mirage [illusion] of an oasis in a desert at location X,
  the neural process of generating that illusion in the brain/mind is real,
  but if A were to claim insists there is real water and palm trees at location X, then that is illusory and delusional.
  In this case, we can prove it is an illusion because we can go to the precise location of X and confirm there are no real palm trees and water.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:00 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 6:32 am Note,
when a person see a mirage [illusion] of an oasis in a desert at location X,
the neural process of generating that illusion in the brain/mind is real,
but if anyone were to claim there is real water and palm trees at location X, then that is illusory and delusional.
In this case, we can prove it is an illusion because we can go to the precise location of X and confirm there are no real palm trees and water.

But the illusion is dependent upon existing variables such as "water" etc. Where the illusion is a deficiency in truth (ie water exists at "x" location") this deficiency necessitates existing variables (water and "x" location).

Similarly, when a person believe God exists, that is an illusion.
The neural process in the brain/mind that generate that illusion is real.
But the God that is believed to be real is merely an illusion.
Why theists are able to drag on with such a delusion is because theists deflect the issue and are not able to produce the real God for verification and giving all sorts of excuses.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:38 pm The existential crisis is not an illusion.
Actually it is an illusion as the crisis of "existence" necessitates the constant nature of existence as a negative cannot be observed without a positive.

Beating around the bush again.

Let try this another time;

• when a person-A see a mirage [illusion] of an oasis in a desert at location X,
  the neural process of generating that illusion in the brain/mind is real,
  but if A were to claim insists there is real water and palm trees at location X, then that is illusory and delusional.
  In this case, we can prove it is an illusion because we can go to the precise location of X and confirm there are no real palm trees and water.

My point is if you know A saw a mirage and insist it is a real oasis when you know there is no oasis at location X, would you agree with him there is a real oasis at location X?

It seems from your arguments you will agree with A, there is real water and palm trees in location X?

For me, I will explain the principles of how a mirage happens. Then I will drive A to location X and show A there is no water a location X [GPS xxx xx.xxx].

Your views on the above precisely?