Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [evforum] all talk no facts

Expand Messages
  • James Rovira
    Bill -- I think you re much more of a Platonist than I am. The words conceptualizations, universals, and forms have three completely different meanings
    Message 1 of 241 , Jun 1 6:06 AM
      Bill --

      I think you're much more of a Platonist than I am.

      The words "conceptualizations," "universals," and "forms" have three
      completely different meanings in my vocabulary. Forms and
      conceptualizations are non-existent apart from particular, discrete
      objects. Ideals, similarly, are non-existent apart from particular
      religious and philosophical contexts. I don't know what you might mean by
      "universals" apart from identifying this word with concepts and forms.

      Nothing I said was intended to draw a sharp line between religion and
      philosophy. I only mentioned them both to cover as many bases as possible.


      The analytic tradition in western philosophy is not the only tradition in
      philosophy, and not even the best one. Philosophy as a whole does not deal
      in concepts about concepts. The western analytic tradition does, and
      because of it and the generalizations it makes about philosophy (as well as
      its complete disregard for the historical and human contexts of ideas), it
      is very easy to mistake these generalizations for realities of some kinds,
      "forms" or "universals."

      I would agree to an extent that outside critique of an insider's practice of
      their religion can only be tentative at best, but at the same time anyone
      who's read the Sermon on the Mount and witnesses a Christian sleeping with
      his neighbor's wife, lying about it, and cheating on his taxes can probably
      safely say they're not living up to their beliefs. I think I would qualify
      your statements by taking into account differences in degree in failure to
      live up to a religion's teaching.

      On the whole, though, yes, most non-Christians believe quite a bit about
      Christians based upon the slimmest observations. It's mostly prejudice.

      Jim R


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • James Rovira
      The animus/anima thread seems to have died, and I don t recall if anyone already brought up the uses of the word I m about to introduce, but I just read this
      Message 241 of 241 , Jun 11 5:16 PM
        The "animus/anima" thread seems to have died, and I don't recall if anyone
        already brought up the uses of the word I'm about to introduce, but I just
        read this in one of my sources and thought I'd share it.

        In addition to Aristotle's uses of variants on these words in his discussion
        of the soul, Epicureans used the words "animus" to denote the "rational
        soul" and "anima" to denote the "sensitive" soul. Of course the Epicureans
        believed both arose from the body. These uses were combined with
        Aristotelian uses by Gassendi in his Opera Omnia (1658), who held to the
        Epicurean distinction between animus and anima but, contrary to the
        Epicurerans, argued for the incorporeality of the animus, or rational soul.


        This is summarized from Margaret J. Osler's "Gassendi on the immortality of
        the soul" in _Religion, Science, and Worldview: Essays in Honor of Richard
        S. Westfall_ (Cambridge UP 1985). Most of the volume is devoted to Newton.
        Great stuff.

        Jim R


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.