Until you secure the execution of George W. Bush, I will not take you seriously.
There is a lot of subatomic physics that is perfectly hard; to name and example, electron spin is hard physics, discovered by Goudsmit who was a friend of my family as well as of Einstein, this led to a vast array of powers, such as the power to discern hydrogen in the cosmos and thus to the power to discern the structure of our galaxy. My father worked at such a project.
The key is here that if the spin in a hydrogen atom, which has only one electron, flips, a radio wave with a particular wavelength of 21 centimetre is released. They then built a large radio-telescope configured specifically to receive these 21 cm waves. With this telescope the first great studies of the galaxy were performed and much of what we now know was mapped using this method.
William Alston was an American Episcopalian who came into contact with philosophy when playing clarinet and bass drum in an army band during World War 2. He got interested in the epistemology of religious experiences and as such in foundationalism, and sought to forge philosophic arguments to sustain faith; to find grounds for the epistemic justification of beliefs based on personal mystic experience, which he struggles to provide with some objective status at which he seems to have predictably failed even before he started, as he did not recognize any philosophic criteria to begin with. In his later work “Perceiving God” He writes:
“Although in this book I am centrally concerned with the epistemological value of mystical perception, I certainly don’t want to suggest either that this is its only theoretical interest, or that this is its main importance for the religious life. I certainly don’t think that God presents Himself to our experience primarily to render certain beliefs justified. On the contrary, according to the Christian tradition the main significance of mystical perception is that it is an integral part of that personal relationship with God that is the fundamental aim and consummation of human life. Without God and me being aware of each other in a way that, on my side, is properly called ‘perception’, there could be no intimate relationship of love, devotion, and dialogue that, according to Christianity, constitutes our highest good.”
How he figured that a man could verify whether or not God was aware of him is not clarified. This is just one example of how the man rants and rambles on and on and on without ever getting close to a will to question his and his congregations basic assumptions.
Alston also helped found the journal “Faith and Philosophy” and in general did things Heidegger would not very much approve of, being an excellent example of how “a Christian philosophy is like a wooden iron”.
Again:
“In mystical perception one can learn what God is doing vis-a-vis oneself at the moment, reproving, forgiving, instructing, guiding, comforting, just being present; and one can learn what God’s will is for oneself in particular. We can’t get any of this out of natural theology and general revelation.”
It simply never occurred to this man to even ask the first question. “What constitutes knowledge?”
A failure.
Johannes Althusius was a German Calvinist who argued for the right of a people to remove a ruler that breaks his pledges, that is to say who wavers from his purpose of serving the commonwealth and its people. He discerned natural law from positive (posited) law but claimed that natural law includes “common” or “moral” law.
Louis Althusser, a Marxist ideologue who frequently fell into insanity, killed his wife and sought, as we must conclude with great success, to defend Marxism from influences which could harm it such as notably empiricism, writes about ideology:
“What seems to take place outside ideology (to be precise, in the street), in reality takes place in ideology. What really takes place in ideology seems therefore to take place outside it. That is why those who are in ideology believe themselves by definition outside ideology: one of the effects of ideology is the practical denegation of the ideological character of ideology by ideology: ideology never says, ‘I am ideological.'”
QED.
Why am I so bothered by William Alston? Because I have a lot of mystic experience myself, and yet never occurs to me to want to quantify this or make a case for it in science. Rather I consider it a deeply private affair, even or especially when it is shared. It forms a communion, for lack of a better world. Its empirical nature is wholly alive, and it is distasteful to make life serve a rhetorical point to, especially when one fails at giving the proof.
Robert Alyngton lived in a time when the seeds of protestantism by John Wycliffe, a first instinctive skepticism before the Image, had been sown and the Aristotelean categories and substances had begun to lose their immediate compelling power. Something was needed behind the image, behind the category; substance could no longer be defined merely in terms of categorical inclusions and exclusions. Alyngtons work signifies a transfer of power that was going on between Objectivism and Subjectivism. Iconoclasm means foremost a breaking of categories.
===The Theory of Substance
Alyngton lists seven opinions about the nature and mode of being of substance, the last of which he supports.
According to the first one, proper to grammarians, substance is what the term ‘substance’ refers to when utilized in a broad sense, that is, the quiddity (quidditas) or essence (essentia) of anything. In this case, substance is not a category, since the items which fulfil this description do not share any common nature (In Cat., cap. de substantia, p. 263).
The second opinion is that of Avicenna, who affirms that any entity which does not inhere in something else is a substance (cf. Liber de philosophia prima, tr. 8, cap. 4, S. Van Riet ed., 2 vols., Louvain-Leiden: Peeters-Brill, 1977–80, vol. 2, pp. 403–404). According to this view, God, substantial differences, and negative truths can be said to be substances, even though only in an analogical way (In Cat., cap. de substantia, pp. 263–264).
A third meaning of the term ‘substance’ can be drawn from the use (of that term) proper to common people and theologians: everything which plays the role of foundation (fundamentum) in relation to something else is a substance. In this sense, the surface is the foundation (and therefore the substance) of the whiteness (In Cat., cap. de substantia, p. 264).
The fourth opinion seems to be the same as the anonymous one discussed and partially criticized by Burley in his last commentary on the Categories (C.E. 1337, cap. de substantia, ed. Venetiis 1509, fol. 22rb–va). Substance would be (i) a positive being, which (ii) does not inhere in something else, and (iii) is naturally apt to play the role of subject in relation to absolute accidents (that is, quantities and qualities). According to this view, matter, form, the composite made up of matter and form, and the angelic intelligences are substances, whereas substantial differences and negative truths are not, since the former do not satisfy the third requisite, nor the latter the first one (In Cat., cap. de substantia, p. 264).
The fifth opinion is that of Boethius (cf. In Categorias Aristotelis libri quattuor, PL, vol. 64, 184A–B), according to whom substance is (i) a positive being, which (ii) does not inhere in something else, and (iii) is a compound of matter and form (In Cat., cap. de substantia, p. 264).
The sixth opinion is that of Burley (cf. Expositio super Praedicamenta Aristotelis, cap. de substantia, fol. 24ra.), to whom Alyngton refers by the expression ‘moderni logici’. According to Burley, (i) not being in a subject, (ii) having an essence, (iii) autonomy and independent existence, and (iv) the capacity of underlying accidental forms are the main aspect of substances. This means that primary substances alone are substances properly speaking, while matter and form, and substantial differences are not (In Cat., cap. de substantia, p. 265).
The last opinion is that of Wyclif (cf. De ente praedicamentali, cap. 5, pp. 36–39), quoted extensively and almost verbatim. Alyngton claims that it is superior to the preceding ones (septima est expositio metaphysica et altior ad intelligendum quam praenominatae). According to this view, the constitutive principle of the substance is not the capacity of underlying absolute accidents, but it is the capacity of underlying potency and act[, which are its inner foundations—the capacity of underlying accidents being only a derivative property (In Cat., cap. de substantia, p. 267).===
Newton and Nietzsche can both be traced back to this crossroads.
Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar is one of the most successful moralists of our time. He is counted as a founding father of the republic of India, architect of its constitution, a rather remarkable feat for someone born in the untouchable class, married at 15 to a 9 year old girl. With a powerful perseverance matching his intelligence he made his mark as a lawyer and became a powerful force for the rights of the untouchables. He founded Indias Labour Party and argued that India should cede Pakistan. Philosophically, he argued that India is the homeland of the Aryans, rejecting “Aryan Invasion Theory”. Upon Indias independence, he was invited by he government to serve as the first Law and Justice minister, and later on appointed to write the nations new constitution. Concerning religion he vowed “I solemnly assure you that I will not die as a Hindu.” and he converted to Buddhism after having considered becoming Sikh but fearing he might be given second-rate Sikh status. He converted together with his wife and then converted half a million of his followers who were gathered around him, demanding that they make the following vows.
[size=95]“I shall have no faith in Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshwara, nor shall I worship them.
I shall have no faith in Rama and Krishna, who are believed to be incarnation of God, nor shall I worship them.
I shall have no faith in Gauri, Ganapati and other gods and goddesses of Hindus, nor shall I worship them.
I do not believe in the incarnation of God.
I do not and shall not believe that Lord Buddha was the incarnation of Vishnu. I believe this to be sheer madness and false propaganda.
I shall not perform Shraddha nor shall I give pind.
I shall not act in a manner violating the principles and teachings of the Buddha.
I shall not allow any ceremonies to be performed by Brahmins.
I shall believe in the equality of man.
I shall endeavour to establish equality.
I shall follow the Noble Eightfold Path of the Buddha.
I shall follow the ten paramitas prescribed by the Buddha.
I shall have compassion and loving-kindness for all living beings and protect them.
I shall not steal.
I shall not tell lies.
I shall not commit carnal sins.
I shall not take intoxicants like liquor, drugs, etc.
I shall endeavour to follow the Noble Eightfold Path and practice compassion and loving-kindness in everyday life.
I renounce Hinduism, which disfavors humanity and impedes the advancement and development of humanity because it is based on inequality, and adopt Buddhism as my religion.
I firmly believe the Dhamma of the Buddha is the only true religion.
I believe that by adopting Buddhism I am having a re-birth.
I solemnly declare and affirm that I shall hereafter lead my life according to the teachings of Buddha’s Dhamma.”[/size]
Ambrose was a Roman governor turned bishop of Milan and heavily devout in defiance of authorities and composing music. I must not indulge each of these religious folks with the finest of my mental efforts as they aren’t all such fresh fruits to press.
James S Saint once jibbed that he might was well derive an ontology called situationalism. To post the situation as the ontological primacy. He said this mockingly but it is perfectly brilliant.
If you can define an entire situation, then you’re really very well on your way to wisdom.
youtube.com/watch?v=sqKYLWEsPYw
(Owen Benjamin and Indiana Jones)
Bona fide interesting conversation between two people who are pissed off over a perceived Jewish moral Hegemony which is much discussed by millions of individuals some of which have made a home out here on ILP - no new subject!
My opinion is known, nevertheless I enjoyed hearing these gentlemen talk. I forgive them for believing the Earth is flat and never having heard of any Jews between the first diaspora and the 1960’s.
Ammonius Hermiae is another Aristotelean commentator, rearranging categories, causes, substances and principles and coming up with slightly different priorities for addressing hypothetical cases, none of it pertaining to anything substantive as we now know it in the Newtonean age which emerged from the antithesis of Aristotelean logic, namely cold obsession with power, namely occult alchemy. Ἀμμώνιος ὁ Ἑρμείου cannot have been someone lost in abstraction as he wrote a treatise on the construction of the “astrolabe”;
“An astrolabe (Ancient Greek: ἀστρολάβος astrolabos; Arabic: ٱلأَسْطُرلاب al-Asturlāb; Persian: اِستاره یاب Astaara yab) is an elaborate inclinometer, historically used by astronomers and navigators to measure the altitude above the horizon of a celestial body, day or night. It can be used to identify stars or planets, to determine local latitude given local time (and vice versa), to survey, or to triangulate. It was used in classical antiquity, the Islamic Golden Age, the European Middle Ages and the Age of Discovery for all these purposes.”
I had one of these, a thick copper medallion
triangular astrolabe:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ … d_1388.jpg
modern
media3.giphy.com/media/xT5LMVOM … /giphy.gif
Kinda puts astrology into perspective.
Ammonius Saccas is said to have held the position that Plato and Aristotle can be understood as being in full agreement, and was the teacher of Plotinus and thereby ranks as the founding father of Neoplatonism, which is one of the logoi most popular in western occultism and compatible as a module with the kabalistic tree of life. Saccas, the origin of whose name is unclear (may even refer to Shakya, late Vedic independent oligarchic republicans who counted among their ranks a Siddhartha Gautama) must remain a mysterious figure because he allegedly never wrote and indeed there are no writings of him in circulation.
“To add to the confusion, it seems that Ammonius had two pupils called Origen: Origen the Christian, and Origen the Pagan.”
Yeah indeed - Newton and his lineage showed that there are more important things about the stars and planets than that they influence our lives.
Well for the ancients it was more that they affect the world, of which humans were a puny part.
The “our lives” thing came later. I think.
“Why is Mercury so angry?”
“Well it’s righy there next to the sun, isn’t it?”
Mercury, Mercury, Mercury.
Sure, I can buy that.
But if you are responsible for your subconscious, you are triply responsible for your planets!
Determinism, real determinism, is unrelated to cause and effect.
BAHAHAHAHA