Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
[split] Hello?
#1

[split] Hello?
(01-03-2019, 04:55 PM)Gandalf the Bronze Wrote: Greetings, humans. I am new to this, gotta figure it all out.

Welcome welcome!
I noticed somewhere else that you identify as christian... but your username hints at Tolkien... hmmm
The Silmarillion does have the best origin myth I've ever read. Good choice!
The following 1 user Likes pocaracas's post:
  • KittyAnn
Reply
#2

[split] Hello?
(01-03-2019, 09:03 PM)pocaracas Wrote:
(01-03-2019, 04:55 PM)Gandalf the Bronze Wrote: Greetings, humans. I am new to this, gotta figure it all out.

Welcome welcome!
I noticed somewhere else that you identify as christian... but your username hints at Tolkien... hmmm
The Silmarillion does have the best origin myth I've ever read. Good choice!

Thanks!
Tolkien was actually a Roman Catholic. I am the exact opposite in Christian terms, Calvinist. But yes, his origin tale was quite unique and fascinating. I chose Gandalf because I enjoy his character, arguably an INTJ, as I myself am.

Where do you stand, metaphysically?
ROMANS I XXII
Reply
#3

[split] Hello?
(01-04-2019, 08:54 AM)Gandalf the Bronze Wrote:
(01-03-2019, 09:03 PM)pocaracas Wrote:
(01-03-2019, 04:55 PM)Gandalf the Bronze Wrote: Greetings, humans. I am new to this, gotta figure it all out.

Welcome welcome!
I noticed somewhere else that you identify as christian... but your username hints at Tolkien... hmmm
The Silmarillion does have the best origin myth I've ever read. Good choice!

Thanks!
Tolkien was actually a Roman Catholic. I am the exact opposite in Christian terms, Calvinist. But yes, his origin tale was quite unique and fascinating. I chose Gandalf because I enjoy his character, arguably an INTJ, as I myself am.

Where do you stand, metaphysically?

So, INTJ... I remember doing one of those online tests that gave me such a 4 letter acronym... but I don't remember my result, however INTJ does ring a bell or two...

Metaphysically I stand in real physics Tongue
I am of the opinion that metaphysics is the result of humanity's pattern seeking brains producing generalizations of the observed reality.
And I am well aware that this is not the preferred view of the Aristotelian philosophers, but I know that all we need is the possibility that my opinion is right for the religious approach to not stand on the sure footing that it claims to stand on.
The following 1 user Likes pocaracas's post:
  • KittyAnn
Reply
#4

[split] Hello?
(01-04-2019, 08:54 AM)Gandalf the Bronze Wrote: Tolkien was actually a Roman Catholic. I am the exact opposite in Christian terms, Calvinist. But yes, his origin tale was quite unique and fascinating. I chose Gandalf because I enjoy his character, arguably an INTJ, as I myself am.

Where do you stand, metaphysically?

I'm an ex-Catholic, atheist and secular humanist. I chose Gandalf as my avatar because I'm a Lord of the Rings/Middle Earth fan fiction writer and Ian McKellen is an atheist.
The following 1 user Likes Gwaithmir's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#5

[split] Hello?
(01-04-2019, 09:53 AM)pocaracas Wrote:
(01-04-2019, 08:54 AM)Gandalf the Bronze Wrote:
(01-03-2019, 09:03 PM)pocaracas Wrote: Welcome welcome!
I noticed somewhere else that you identify as christian... but your username hints at Tolkien... hmmm
The Silmarillion does have the best origin myth I've ever read. Good choice!

Thanks!
Tolkien was actually a Roman Catholic. I am the exact opposite in Christian terms, Calvinist. But yes, his origin tale was quite unique and fascinating. I chose Gandalf because I enjoy his character, arguably an INTJ, as I myself am.

Where do you stand, metaphysically?

So, INTJ... I remember doing one of those online tests that gave me such a 4 letter acronym... but I don't remember my result, however INTJ does ring a bell or two...

Metaphysically I stand in real physics Tongue
I am of the opinion that metaphysics is the result of humanity's pattern seeking brains producing generalizations of the observed reality.
And I am well aware that this is not the preferred view of the Aristotelian philosophers, but I know that all we need is the possibility that my opinion is right for the religious approach to not stand on the sure footing that it claims to stand on.

I quite agree with you. Metaphysics is the product of our pattern seeking brains. Are you saying you don't think that the patterns we see are true? I see a table, and another table, and another, and fairly soon I know that every table has something in common, a tableness, that is, its pattern. I quite agree with what you said, and I am Aristotelian myself.
ROMANS I XXII
Reply
#6

[split] Hello?
(01-05-2019, 01:56 PM)Gwaithmir Wrote:
(01-04-2019, 08:54 AM)Gandalf the Bronze Wrote: Tolkien was actually a Roman Catholic. I am the exact opposite in Christian terms, Calvinist. But yes, his origin tale was quite unique and fascinating. I chose Gandalf because I enjoy his character, arguably an INTJ, as I myself am.

Where do you stand, metaphysically?

I'm an ex-Catholic, atheist and secular humanist. I chose Gandalf as my avatar because I'm a Lord of the Rings/Middle Earth fan fiction writer and Ian McKellen is an atheist.

I chose Gandalf because I admire his character. I do not have him as my image for the same reason that you do. I have a painting by a renaissance artist named Rembrandt, depicting a philosopher.
ROMANS I XXII
The following 1 user Likes Gandalf the Bronze's post:
  • Gwaithmir
Reply
#7

[split] Hello?
(01-06-2019, 04:47 PM)Gandalf the Bronze Wrote:
(01-04-2019, 09:53 AM)pocaracas Wrote:
(01-04-2019, 08:54 AM)Gandalf the Bronze Wrote: Thanks!
Tolkien was actually a Roman Catholic. I am the exact opposite in Christian terms, Calvinist. But yes, his origin tale was quite unique and fascinating. I chose Gandalf because I enjoy his character, arguably an INTJ, as I myself am.

Where do you stand, metaphysically?

So, INTJ... I remember doing one of those online tests that gave me such a 4 letter acronym... but I don't remember my result, however INTJ does ring a bell or two...

Metaphysically I stand in real physics Tongue
I am of the opinion that metaphysics is the result of humanity's pattern seeking brains producing generalizations of the observed reality.
And I am well aware that this is not the preferred view of the Aristotelian philosophers, but I know that all we need is the possibility that my opinion is right for the religious approach to not stand on the sure footing that it claims to stand on.

I quite agree with you. Metaphysics is the product of our pattern seeking brains. Are you saying you don't think that the patterns we see are true? I see a table, and another table, and another, and fairly soon I know that every table has something in common, a tableness, that is, its pattern. I quite agree with what you said, and I am Aristotelian myself.

I say that the patterns are generalizations of things that we perceive as similar. Not some inherent underlying framework upon which reality stands.

In my case, the causal direction goes from reality towards metaphysics.
In Aristotle, it goes the other way around, or am I remembering wrong?
Reply
#8

[split] Hello?
(01-06-2019, 05:20 PM)pocaracas Wrote:
(01-06-2019, 04:47 PM)Gandalf the Bronze Wrote:
(01-04-2019, 09:53 AM)pocaracas Wrote: So, INTJ... I remember doing one of those online tests that gave me such a 4 letter acronym... but I don't remember my result, however INTJ does ring a bell or two...

Metaphysically I stand in real physics Tongue
I am of the opinion that metaphysics is the result of humanity's pattern seeking brains producing generalizations of the observed reality.
And I am well aware that this is not the preferred view of the Aristotelian philosophers, but I know that all we need is the possibility that my opinion is right for the religious approach to not stand on the sure footing that it claims to stand on.

I quite agree with you. Metaphysics is the product of our pattern seeking brains. Are you saying you don't think that the patterns we see are true? I see a table, and another table, and another, and fairly soon I know that every table has something in common, a tableness, that is, its pattern. I quite agree with what you said, and I am Aristotelian myself.

I say that the patterns are generalizations of things that we perceive as similar. Not some inherent underlying framework upon which reality stands.

In my case, the causal direction goes from reality towards metaphysics.
In Aristotle, it goes the other way around, or am I remembering wrong?

I am not sure what you're saying, but here is what I believe.

Reality exists. A is A. Humans have the ability to see that A is A, a thing is what it is. A star is a star. A table is a table. Things happen. Things affect each other. From these we go on to such things as the laws of thermodynamics, and other laws of physics, and we build theories off of what we observe. What is metaphysics but humans being human, seeing patterns which are true? It is true that I am not a planet, and that I am typing on my laptop, and that a laptop is a laptop.

I think what you are rejecting is Platonic forms, and I agree with you there. Aristotle just built us systems for categorizing things. And we put things in categories, such as the fish category, the dog category, and the table category.
ROMANS I XXII
Reply
#9

[split] Hello?
(01-06-2019, 05:35 PM)Gandalf the Bronze Wrote:
(01-06-2019, 05:20 PM)pocaracas Wrote:
(01-06-2019, 04:47 PM)Gandalf the Bronze Wrote: I quite agree with you. Metaphysics is the product of our pattern seeking brains. Are you saying you don't think that the patterns we see are true? I see a table, and another table, and another, and fairly soon I know that every table has something in common, a tableness, that is, its pattern. I quite agree with what you said, and I am Aristotelian myself.

I say that the patterns are generalizations of things that we perceive as similar. Not some inherent underlying framework upon which reality stands.

In my case, the causal direction goes from reality towards metaphysics.
In Aristotle, it goes the other way around, or am I remembering wrong?

I am not sure what you're saying, but here is what I believe.

Reality exists. A is A. Humans have the ability to see that A is A, a thing is what it is. A star is a star. A table is a table. Things happen. Things affect each other. From these we go on to such things as the laws of thermodynamics, and other laws of physics, and we build theories off of what we observe. What is metaphysics but humans being human, seeing patterns which are true? It is true that I am not a planet, and that I am typing on my laptop, and that a laptop is a laptop.

I think what you are rejecting is Platonic forms, and I agree with you there. Aristotle just built us systems for categorizing things. And we put things in categories, such as the fish category, the dog category, and the table category.

Stuff is stuff.
Stuff in particular configurations gets particular descriptions, such as star, planet, table, etc. These descriptions represent the patterns, or generalized concepts, that we use to categorize the configurations of stuff.
But, like Carl Sagan said, we are star stuff. So, are we stars?

Maybe I am rejecting Platonic Forms... but maybe I'm also rejecting Aristotelian forms. Wink
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)