|
|
|
|
irichc
New Member
2 Posts |
 Posted - 04/27/2008 : 06:42:37
|
G: Tell me in which way something can be a unity and divisible at the same time.
B: That's easy. I'm one and also divisible, since I am subject to physical and biological laws that effect me.
G: When you say "I am divisible", do you mean that many "I" belonging to you are divisible, or that you, the only "I", are divisible?
B: Obviously I stand for the second assumption. I am an indivisible entity, but I have a divisible body. Both things are true, despite of your attempts of sophistry.
G: Let's examine who is making a less appropriate use of words, me or you. You have stated in the first place that you were divisible. Do you retract from that position?
B: No.
G: But now, in order to clarify your declaration, you add that you have something which is divisible, as far as this posession is singularly yours and, so, it doesn't belong to an indefinite number of "you".
B: Well...
G: And don't we use the verb "to have" for showing accessory qualities, that is, neither essential nor stable ones? For instance, when I say "I have a stomach ache" or "I have something in my hand".
B: Certainly, but... wait a minute.
G: Then, choose: you either have something divisible or you are something divisible. What do you say to it?
B: I admit that what I really wanted to say is that I have something divisible, without being myself a divisible entity.
G: Therefore, you are not your body.
B: How could I accept this?
G: If we refuse the opposite statement, we will be forced to accept the previous proposition. Can you conceive yourself as being indivisible and also being formed by divisible parts?
B: I can't.
G: Will you say, then, that you are formed by indivisible parts?
B: This is nonsensical.
G: You realize the contradiction. You are confusing your subjectivity, your soul, your monad, with the instrument that you use ordinarily when you want to designate it, which is your full person, that is, the metaphysical union between your body and your soul. This is the entity to which we normally refer metonymically as our body (as we point to our chest with the thumbs or with a similar gesture), avoiding futile abstractions.
B: I wouldn't have said it better. But, if we are not lost in our research, why did we get such a strange conclusion, falling away from common sense? Since from your reasoning it follows that my body is mine just like my sandals are mine, without presupposing any intrinsic relationship with my being. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be able to exist if I lacked a body.
G: I have a solution for this mystery. You are right when you say that your body doesn't belong to you in a stronger sense than your sandals. For it is in your individual notion to wear sandals eventually, and also to be united to a body. But being united doesn't mean being a unity. The kind of unity formed by your sandals and you is called a simple predicative unity, whilst the one formed by your body and you is an infinite complex predicative unity. The first conjunction is an artificial machine, an aggregate, but the second one is a natural machine, made by God, assembled since time began and for all the eternity, comprising everything that happened and will happen to you.
B: Are you implying that God works for me when I think that I'm acting according to my free will?
G: No, indeed. I state that your soul acts freely, through its actions, and your body necessarily, through its passions. However, both are perfectly armonized by the first cause, which is God, for whatever that happens in one of them is immediately reflected in the other one; and, by the way, that shouldn't make us think that they exert a mutual influence upon each other. This is also valid for every substance in the present universe.
B: How can it be possible that my body cannot effect my soul, or vice versa?
G: Not effectively, but concomitantly, like two clocks set to run together.
B: And which is the efficient cause for my arm to move when I want, if it is not me?
G: Imputation of causes is metaphysician's duty. A physicist can explain movement in many ways, depending on how he imagines the mobile, either moving by itself or being moved by its environment, that changes with it along with its movement.
B: So, does this mean that physicists and materialists cannot explain us anything useful about our free will?
G: They cannot at all.
B: In this case, we will have to discard Spinoza's system, which claims that everything can be reduced geometrically to physical causes, that is, to the ones produced by a change in the figure, weight and size of the objects. And we will also reject that, anyway, no one really acts, but the addition of causes and effects in the whole universe, which he called God.
G: Absolutely, my dearest friend.
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2008 : 07:44:36 [Permalink]
|
Well, thanks for that irichc. Oh hey, I would talk about this but I am receiving an incoming message and it seems that I am wanted on the planet earth...
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2008 : 07:50:15 [Permalink]
|
| This is why I hate philosophy. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2008 : 08:10:05 [Permalink]
|
| B and G both assume the existence of God, souls and free will, thus ensuring that their argument(s) can have no bearing whatsoever upon materialists or Spinoza. Besides which, B and G also both neglect to examine the idea of "I" as an emergent property of trillions of interdependent actors, meaning they argue from ignorance. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2008 : 08:22:31 [Permalink]
|
| This was also posted over at RichardDawkins.net |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2008 : 09:15:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
This was also posted over at RichardDawkins.net
|
Well, yeah. irichc is a low level spammer. He has exactly 2 posts in a three-year period. He didn't defend his first post, and I doubt that he will be back to defend this one.
Unless I am wrong, we can expect him to post again here in 2010 or 2011…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 04/27/2008 : 12:41:11 [Permalink]
|
Huh?
Cuneiformist:
This is why I hate philosophy. |
I can dig it; I too loath this sort of crap.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2008 : 16:13:50 [Permalink]
|
Dialog of the Soul (Redux)
G: Tell me in which way something can be a unity and divisible at the same time.
B: Huh? Well yes. When Moe hits Curly and pulls Larry's hair, they are separate and violent chaotic entities yet they remain "The Three Stooges" in unity.
G: When you say "The Three Stooges", do you mean that "Moe" interacts with both "Larry" and "Curly" while being also divisible, or that "Larry" and "Curly" form a chaotic duet and only "Moe" is divisible and in command?
B: Obviously I stand for the second assumption. Moe is an indivisible entity, but Moe also has a divisible body of gestures. Both Moes are true to the Stooge's code of behavior, despite Curly's attempts at crazy body language sophistry. (Nyuk nyuk nyuk, woo woo woo!)
G: I agree. Let's play!
B: OK.
G & B (Singing): Neya la la la la! WooWoo! Neya la la la la! WooWoo! Neya la la la la! WooWoo! Neya la la la la! WooWoo! Neya la la la la! WooWoo! Neya la la la la! WooWoo! Neya la la la la! WooWoo! Neya la la la la! WooWoo! Neya la la la la! WooWoo! Neya la la la la! WooWoo! Neya la la la la! WooWoo!  Nyuk nyuk nyuk Nyuk nyuk nyuk... |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2008 : 16:19:38 [Permalink]
|
| Good one, Chippewa. Though had I written it, B's second line would have been "Pokes G in the eye. Nyuk nyuk nyuk Nyuk nyuk nyuk..." and that would have ended it. What more response does a question like G's deserve? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Dialogue on the soul
