Purpose of Phillosophy

Started by james03, June 24, 2022, 05:04:08 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

james03

I've heard it described as this: "The purpose of philosophy is to answer the Big Question: What is being/existence/reality".  True.

But I like to rephrase it this way: "Is reality absurd?".

Imagine NULL.  "Nothing" really doesn't go far enough because it has the savor of potential.  I'm talking NULL.  It is Null.  Why is it not absurd that anything should ever come into existence or exist?

(And thus, without I Am, reality itself is absurd.)
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

Justin Martyr

The purpose of philosophy is the contemplation of the eternal forms and the cultivation of the love of wisdom that we might more readily adore the Divine (according to Plato). The origin of philosophy is wonder (according to Aristotle).
The least departure from Tradition leads to a scorning of every dogma of the Faith.
St. Photios the Great, Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs

CANON I: As for all persons who dare to violate the definition of the holy and great Synod convened in Nicaea in the presence of Eusebeia, the consort of the most God-beloved Emperor Constantine, concerning the holy festival of the soterial Pascha, we decree that they be excluded from Communion and be outcasts from the Church if they persist more captiously in objecting to the decisions that have been made as most fitting in regard thereto; and let these things be said with reference to laymen. But if any of the person occupying prominent positions in the Church, such as a Bishop, or a Presbyter, or a Deacon, after the adoption of this definition, should dare to insist upon having his own way, to the perversion of the laity, and to the disturbance of the church, and upon celebrating Pascha along with the Jews, the holy Synod has hence judged that person to be an alien to the Church, on the ground that he has not only become guilty of sin by himself, but has also been the cause of corruption and perversion among the multitude. Accordingly, it not only deposes such persons from the liturgy, but also those who dare to commune with them after their deposition. Moreover, those who have been deposed are to be deprived of the external honor too of which the holy Canon and God's priesthood have partaken.
The Council of Antioch 341, recieved by the Council of Chalcedon

Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

AlNg

Is it possible that the contemplation of eternal forms can result in the armchair  philosopher easily falling into simple errors due to his failure to check up on the place of these eternal forms in the real world which we observe and live in?

james03

Quote from: AlNg on July 11, 2022, 09:15:11 PM
Is it possible that the contemplation of eternal forms can result in the armchair  philosopher easily falling into simple errors due to his failure to check up on the place of these eternal forms in the real world which we observe and live in?

Yes.  It's the difference between a Platonist and an Aristotelian in a way.  Kind of like a reverse Plato's cave.  You get blinded by the eternal forms.  If you instead observe reality participating in the form, then you can understand it better.  Probably best to have a balanced approach.

And even more there is spending too much time on it such that he can neglect his duty.  Imagine judgement day and a layman says, "I spent all my time contemplating your Infinite Beauty."  And hearing in reply, "What about that hungry man you always walked past?  You didn't see Me there."  Not a good scene.

This does not impugn the contemplative orders however.  For their office and duties regard prayer and contemplation, so they fulfill the requirements of their office.  But they are not armchair philosophers.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

james03

Hat tip to Ann Barnhardt.  Seems apropos: 

Quote"Any old woman can love God better than a doctor of theology can."
-St. Bonaventure
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

Michael Wilson

Philosophy is for the understanding and explaining of naturally known truths i.e. Those that can be perceived by our intellect through the use of our exterior senses.
Your original question is not absurd, since nothing that we can perceive or know through our senses, is self existing and necessary i.e. Contingent. If it does exist, it necessarily exists because of a cause; and that cause must be a self existing necessary being, which we would call God.
If the necessary being did not exist, then nothing would exist and null would be what we would have. So it is not absurd. 
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

james03

QuoteIf the necessary being did not exist, then nothing would exist and null would be what we would have. So it is not absurd.
So it is absurd.  You're jumping to the conclusion.

Normally the starting point of Philosophy is "What is.".  And then you notice change, move on to act and potential, and on until you arrive at the Necessary Being and First Cause.  I'm not criticizing that approach at all, it is great approach and profitable.  As an aside a most excellent book on this topic is Feser's The Five Proofs.

I'm just looking at it from a different starting point: reality is absurd.  And ironically that was how Greek Realism, the philosophy of the Catholic Church, was derived.  Aristotle dealing with the problem of absurdity introduced by previous Greeks, either arguing that change was impossible, or stasis was impossible, and thus reality is absurd.

Now you don't have to go down the Greek Realism route, you can go by mathematics, e.g. Goedel.  For any system you define, it is incomplete and there must exist something external to the system.  If you expand the system to include the external, you introduce the need for a new external.  And it is an infinite series, and thus mathematics is absurd.

The answer must be something infinite.  Something that is self contained.  Something that is just I Am.

It's interesting.  You keep ending up with God as necessary no matter how you start your approach.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

diaduit

Quote from: james03 on July 28, 2022, 11:00:58 AM
Hat tip to Ann Barnhardt.  Seems apropos: 

Quote"Any old woman can love God better than a doctor of theology can."
-St. Bonaventure

Phew  :cheeseheadbeer:

MundaCorMeum

Quote from: diaduit on August 10, 2022, 01:38:09 AM
Quote from: james03 on July 28, 2022, 11:00:58 AM
Hat tip to Ann Barnhardt.  Seems apropos: 

Quote"Any old woman can love God better than a doctor of theology can."
-St. Bonaventure

Phew  :cheeseheadbeer:


I mean, right?!  St.Bonaventure, ora pro nobis!

AlNg

Quote from: james03 on August 09, 2022, 06:54:29 PM
  And it is an infinite series, and thus mathematics is absurd.

An infinite series is not absurd in mathematics. Generally, there are two types of infinite series - convergent and divergent. A convergent infinite series will converge to a real number, but a divergent infinite series will not. For example, the infinite series Summation n=1 to infinity, 1/2^n (or 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/ 8 + 1/16 + ...) will converge to 1 in the sense that  if you take the sum n=1 to N, then this finite sum will get closer and closer to 1 as N increases without limit. So in mathematics a convergent infinite series is a well defined and useful object. 

james03

QuoteAn infinite series is not absurd in mathematics.

I never said it was.  But a system that must be infinitely expanded to demonstrate it's own consistency is absurd.

Quote from: WikiThe first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

AlNg

#11
Quote from: james03 on August 14, 2022, 06:07:24 PM
  But a system that must be infinitely expanded to demonstrate it's own consistency is absurd.
Even if it is expanded using a non-algorithmic procedure ?

james03

And that's the conclusion.  God is needed.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

AlNg

Quote from: james03 on August 15, 2022, 12:24:49 PM
And that's the conclusion.  God is needed.
Why is God needed in a non-algorithmic process any more than you need God for any logical algorithmic procedure?

james03

First, the term "algorithm" was an unfortunate inclusion due to my laziness of cutting and pasting Wiki.  The proper term is mathematical system.

In answer to your question, propose an alternative to God.

I'll give you one.  The infinite parallel universe theory.  They were forced to propose this absurdity for the reasons I've discussed, because the alternative is to accept the more reasonable conclusion that God exists.

As far as "non-algorithmic process" I don't understand what you mean by that.  I can think of one situation that is outside of mathematics, and that is the zero bound on entropy.  So if we trace back to the point of zero entropy, we have a huge problem.  First, there can be nothing before.  And if you want to imagine an infinite time of zero entropy, now you have the problem that you stipulated that the time of zero entropy is infinite.

I also previously provided the problem of NULL.  How can anything come into existence when NULL?
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"