Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Compatibalism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
    No, you were the one making a particular claim here, or rather a set of claims mashed into one single sentence.

    "Hylomorphism is nonsense, based on antiquated pre-scientific metaphysics that's been refuted for years."

    It should be easy enough for you to demonstrate. And in fact, if neither you nor Tassman can do so, then my point stands 'There is nothing incoherent about hylomorphic dualism.'
    Ok then there might be a misunderstanding here. I'm not arguing that hylomorphic dualism is incoherent. I'm not aware that it is or isn't. My view is that it is false. Which is different from being incoherent.

    I might in another thread one day. So far I haven't found anyone who would be interesting arguing this with. I might do so with JimL, he seems to actually be asking questions worth putting effort into answering. Still working on the reply, but I'm getting a new refrigerator and I'm going to a meetup featuring Anita Sarkeesian as a speaker tomorrow. Plus there are those applications to fill out, and some hobby coding. Busy, busy, busy.

    I'll get to you in time JimL!
    If you could find time out of your busy schedule, that would be great. No rush.

    If there's a Q and A section at the speech with Anita, ask her if it's possible at all to criticize anything about feminism without being labeled a sexist.
    Blog: Atheism and the City

    If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
      Feel free to make a post actually demonstrating this, this was one is all bluster.
      The Thinker may argue that Hylomorphism is false, but that is not the best challenge against Hylomorphism.

      The problem is it is a claim of 'belief' without a logical argument nor objective evidence to support Hylomorphism. The only thing I have seen you argue is the 'argument from ignorance' concerning what science has not apparently falsified concerning consciousness and the nature of qualia. The assertion is Aristotle's teaching that all natural or physical bodies are composed of matter and form as essential substantial principles.

      The problem is what is the form that is described here that you are proposing. The traditional Christian claim is that the form is the soul in a soul-body relationship. What logical argument or objective evidence can you provide to support Hylomorphism?
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-22-2017, 06:51 PM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        Thinker, I believe you are moving the goal posts. Leonhard's main point was that his position was not logically incoherent as Tass was claiming.
        I’m not claiming that Leonhard’s argument is incoherent, just that it’s unsupported by evidence. It’s grounded in the unsubstantiated Aristotelian notion that the human body contains an "internal component” or soul co-existing with the body, which is responsible for our free-will decisions. But there’s no evidence that this is the case.
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          I’m not claiming that Leonhard’s argument is incoherent, just that it’s unsupported by evidence. It’s grounded in the unsubstantiated Aristotelian notion that the human body contains an "internal component” or soul co-existing with the body, which is responsible for our free-will decisions. But there’s no evidence that this is the case.
          This is a better argument than 'The Thinker' proposed. I also do not consider Leonhard's argument as incoherent, but I believe it lacks any substance and weight beyond 'I believe this therefore . . .'
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            This is a better argument than 'The Thinker' proposed. I also do not consider Leonhard's argument as incoherent, but I believe it lacks any substance and weight beyond 'I believe this therefore . . .'
            Yes, it's an argument to rationalise his presuppositions about free-will.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              Yes, it's an argument to rationalise his presuppositions about free-will.
              . . . ,and presuppositions of a Christian Theistic agenda.

              Humans have a Will, but it is not necessarily free.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                What logical argument or objective evidence can you provide to support Hylomorphism?
                He can't provide any. Thomism is just a semantic framework that's based on outdated notions of metaphysics that have been refuted.

                And for the record I have not said hylomorphism is incoherent. I'm agnostic on whether it is or isn't.
                Blog: Atheism and the City

                If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                  He can't provide any. Thomism is just a semantic framework that's based on outdated notions of metaphysics that have been refuted.
                  True

                  And for the record I have not said hylomorphism is incoherent. I'm agnostic on whether it is or isn't.
                  I never said you believed it was incoherent. The problem is statements saying Hylomorphism is 'false,' or challenge prove that it is correct or true. This would indicate you could prove it 'false,' and you are opening your self up to the response;

                  Originally posted by Leonard
                  Feel free to make a post actually demonstrating this, this was one is all bluster.

                  Originally posted by Leonard
                  On the contrary, hylomorphic dualism is based on natural observations.
                  Statements like this can be challenges simply ask 'Show me the natural observations that hylomorphic dualism is based that could not be possibly be explained by natural causes?
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment

                  Related Threads

                  Collapse

                  Topics Statistics Last Post
                  Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                  161 responses
                  513 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post shunyadragon  
                  Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                  88 responses
                  354 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post shunyadragon  
                  Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                  21 responses
                  133 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post shunyadragon  
                  Working...
                  X