Post Reply
Page 3 of 24  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 24 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Realism v. Nominalism (& Alternatives) in Christianity
3 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 9:00AM #21
amcolph
Posts: 18,009

May 4, 2012 -- 8:38AM, Adelphe wrote:


 


I've never been approached by a "Mormon missionary" so I have no idea how to "carry on" like one.



By asking leading questions without giving away your own position.


I am discussing this subject.  That you don't recognize that is indicative of your inability to carry on a discussion on this topic--if anything--rather than mine.


Remember, my original question was "If a Christian isn't a metaphysical realist what do they say, exactly, happened in the Incarnation?"


So far I've essentially gotten that the Word became flesh, it's "a Mystery", that Word "objectively exists", and was "divine" which is an "adjective."



Would your answer be any different?  Do you not believe that the Word exists objectively?  Perhaps you could help me out here--I don't have a detailed biochemical explanation of how the Incarnation took place and as I am not a Protestant I was taught that the process is inherently unknowable--hence, officially a Mystery. 


 


As you claim you are a Nominalist...



?


and at least seem to understand the position and I also assume you read post #11, then are you saying that divinity "do[es] not "exist" at all but [is] no more than words (flatus voci) that describe specific objects"?



The specific object being, in this case, God.


In which case, again, what happened in the Incarnation?




The Word became flesh.  See?  No universals at all.



 

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 9:16AM #22
Adelphe
Posts: 28,744

May 4, 2012 -- 8:45AM, Blü wrote:


Adelphe


So far I've essentially gotten that [...] it's "a Mystery" [...]


iow, a whole bunch of nothing.


I'm delighted you agree with me about the Trinity.




I do agree the Trinity is a Mystery--a Mystery as defined by where it is claimed to be a Mystery:  revelation.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 9:27AM #23
stardustpilgrim
Posts: 5,318

May 4, 2012 -- 7:34AM, Adelphe wrote:


May 4, 2012 -- 7:22AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 10:16PM, Adelphe wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 8:57PM, stardustpilgrim wrote:


I'm in a little over my head here, so if you have to educate me, feel free.


I'm going to presume a metaphysical realist can't have a conception of something they can't directly experience?


Let's assume that there was a person, Jesus, who actually existed. So a metaphysical realist can deal with that he existed, but not who he was, because that goes beyond what they are willing to admit?


My position is that God exists, is very real. Blu (for example) says that God is imaginary because I can't (objectively) demonstrate that God is real.


Let's say that Blu would admit that as a person, Jesus existed. But Blu couldn't admit that Jesus is God, because, to Blu, God is imaginary.


I'd better stop here.......according to.......... 


sdp




Actually, I know Blu's position well from his arguments in similar discussions on Science & Religion and he is most definitely, manifestly, and decidedly NOT a realist.


My dictionary says that "metaphysical realism is shared by common sense, the sciences and most philosophers. ....and that the answers to the questions we put to the real are provided by reality itself--whatever the answers may be, they are substantially what they are because it is reality itself that determines them to be that way". 


sdp 





That's all true but...incomplete (and inadequate.)  Do you have the entire passage?  Anyway, you said "dictionary" but I wouldn't go to a dictionary for a treatment of this topic.


And whoever accused Blu of "common sense", btw?  Tongue Out


You'll also get vociferous and emphatic arguments from non- and anti-realists on the above.  Some are actually reasoned arguments, though (Faustus5's come to mind), unlike some others we've seen on the S&R board...)




Well...my dictionary is The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition. Metaphysical realism is 1/2 page. Metaphysical realism, in the widest sense, the view that (a) there are real objects (usually the view is concerned with spatiotemporal objects), (b) they exist independently of our experience or our knowledge of them, and (c) they have properties and enter into relations independently of the concepts with which we understand them or the language with which we describe them. Anti-realism is any view that rejects one or more  of these three theses, though if (a) is rejected the rejection of (b) and (c) follows trivially. (pgs 562, 563)


......"usually the view is concerned with spatiotemporal objects" seemed to be significant....


....................


.........Several pieces of a puzzle have been laid out (the different posts), I haven't been able to fit the pieces together.... I think first we have to agree on definitions....it's seems we are not in agreement....


sdp

The purpose of words is to convey ideas. When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten.
Where can I find a man who has forgotten words? He is the one I would like to talk to.
The Way of Chuang Tzu by Thomas Merton

A map is not the territory. Alfred Korzybski
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 9:31AM #24
Adelphe
Posts: 28,744

May 4, 2012 -- 9:00AM, amcolph wrote:


May 4, 2012 -- 8:38AM, Adelphe wrote:


 


I've never been approached by a "Mormon missionary" so I have no idea how to "carry on" like one.



By asking leading questions without giving away your own position.


I am discussing this subject.  That you don't recognize that is indicative of your inability to carry on a discussion on this topic--if anything--rather than mine.


Remember, my original question was "If a Christian isn't a metaphysical realist what do they say, exactly, happened in the Incarnation?"


So far I've essentially gotten that the Word became flesh, it's "a Mystery", that Word "objectively exists", and was "divine" which is an "adjective."



And what would your answer be?  We aren't going to find that out, are we.  What would your amswer be to the question I asked in return?  We aren't going to find that out, either. 


As you claim you are a Nominalist...



?


and at least seem to understand the position and I also assume you read post #11, then are you saying that divinity "do[es] not "exist" at all but [is] no more than words (flatus voci) that describe specific objects"?



The specific object being, in this case, God.


In which case, again, what happened in the Incarnation?




The Word became flesh.  See?  No universals at all.


I begin to think that Bob the Lunatic was right about you after all.





All right, back up.


One, you should know my position--remember the other thread that you referenced in #8?  More, how you could forget the umpteen relatively recent arguments on S&R with mindis1, ncg, me, and Jiwe arguing one side and you and Blu (at least) arguing the other is entirely beyond me.  I am a moderate realist.  Clear enough?  It certainly should have been.


More, you not only obviously recalled the discussion here and followed up on it as you even asked Ed if he was going to "avoid it" as well, you asked yourself for this thread.  Now you have it and I am demonstrating and discussing exactly why the alternatives to realism don't work in Christianity--just as you asked for. 


Further, did you or did you not say you were "born a Nominalist" in this post?  I have no idea of the reason for your feigned "surprise."


Given all the above, the "forgetfulness", the denial of things you've claimed, and evasion, if you now want to retreat from this discussion, just say so (or do it.)


Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 9:32AM #25
nieciedo
Posts: 5,617

Adelphe,


Do you consider the Word to be a universal? Or are you asking about the universals of "human nature" and "divine nature" becoming one at the incarnation?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 9:37AM #26
Adelphe
Posts: 28,744

May 4, 2012 -- 9:27AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:


May 4, 2012 -- 7:34AM, Adelphe wrote:


May 4, 2012 -- 7:22AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 10:16PM, Adelphe wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 8:57PM, stardustpilgrim wrote:


I'm in a little over my head here, so if you have to educate me, feel free.


I'm going to presume a metaphysical realist can't have a conception of something they can't directly experience?


Let's assume that there was a person, Jesus, who actually existed. So a metaphysical realist can deal with that he existed, but not who he was, because that goes beyond what they are willing to admit?


My position is that God exists, is very real. Blu (for example) says that God is imaginary because I can't (objectively) demonstrate that God is real.


Let's say that Blu would admit that as a person, Jesus existed. But Blu couldn't admit that Jesus is God, because, to Blu, God is imaginary.


I'd better stop here.......according to.......... 


sdp




Actually, I know Blu's position well from his arguments in similar discussions on Science & Religion and he is most definitely, manifestly, and decidedly NOT a realist.


My dictionary says that "metaphysical realism is shared by common sense, the sciences and most philosophers. ....and that the answers to the questions we put to the real are provided by reality itself--whatever the answers may be, they are substantially what they are because it is reality itself that determines them to be that way". 


sdp 





That's all true but...incomplete (and inadequate.)  Do you have the entire passage?  Anyway, you said "dictionary" but I wouldn't go to a dictionary for a treatment of this topic.


And whoever accused Blu of "common sense", btw?  Tongue Out


You'll also get vociferous and emphatic arguments from non- and anti-realists on the above.  Some are actually reasoned arguments, though (Faustus5's come to mind), unlike some others we've seen on the S&R board...)




Well...my dictionary is The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition. Metaphysical realism is 1/2 page.


.........Several pieces of a puzzle have been laid out (the different posts), I haven't been able to fit the pieces together.... I think first we have to agree on definitions....it's seems we are not in agreement....


sdp




That's fine.  Can you check to see if it's on-line so you can copy/paste rather than typing it in directly so we can have a look?

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 9:41AM #27
Adelphe
Posts: 28,744

May 4, 2012 -- 9:32AM, nieciedo wrote:


Adelphe,


Do you consider the Word to be a universal? Or are you asking about the universals of "human nature" and "divine nature" becoming one at the incarnation?




More specifically, I (along with the rest of the orthodox Church) consider "divinity" or "deity" to be a universal, instantiated in the Word/Christ (and the persons of the Trinity.)

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 9:54AM #28
stardustpilgrim
Posts: 5,318

May 4, 2012 -- 9:37AM, Adelphe wrote:


May 4, 2012 -- 9:27AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:


May 4, 2012 -- 7:34AM, Adelphe wrote:


May 4, 2012 -- 7:22AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 10:16PM, Adelphe wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 8:57PM, stardustpilgrim wrote:


I'm in a little over my head here, so if you have to educate me, feel free.


I'm going to presume a metaphysical realist can't have a conception of something they can't directly experience?


Let's assume that there was a person, Jesus, who actually existed. So a metaphysical realist can deal with that he existed, but not who he was, because that goes beyond what they are willing to admit?


My position is that God exists, is very real. Blu (for example) says that God is imaginary because I can't (objectively) demonstrate that God is real.


Let's say that Blu would admit that as a person, Jesus existed. But Blu couldn't admit that Jesus is God, because, to Blu, God is imaginary.


I'd better stop here.......according to.......... 


sdp




Actually, I know Blu's position well from his arguments in similar discussions on Science & Religion and he is most definitely, manifestly, and decidedly NOT a realist.


My dictionary says that "metaphysical realism is shared by common sense, the sciences and most philosophers. ....and that the answers to the questions we put to the real are provided by reality itself--whatever the answers may be, they are substantially what they are because it is reality itself that determines them to be that way". 


sdp 





That's all true but...incomplete (and inadequate.)  Do you have the entire passage?  Anyway, you said "dictionary" but I wouldn't go to a dictionary for a treatment of this topic.


And whoever accused Blu of "common sense", btw?  Tongue Out


You'll also get vociferous and emphatic arguments from non- and anti-realists on the above.  Some are actually reasoned arguments, though (Faustus5's come to mind), unlike some others we've seen on the S&R board...)




Well...my dictionary is The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition. Metaphysical realism is 1/2 page.


.........Several pieces of a puzzle have been laid out (the different posts), I haven't been able to fit the pieces together.... I think first we have to agree on definitions....it's seems we are not in agreement....


sdp




That's fine.  Can you check to see if it's on-line so you can copy/paste rather than typing it in directly so we can have a look?




It does not seem to be online. I quoted a little more adding to the earlier post.....(plus a seemingly significant spaciotemporal qualification....)


sdp 




 

The purpose of words is to convey ideas. When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten.
Where can I find a man who has forgotten words? He is the one I would like to talk to.
The Way of Chuang Tzu by Thomas Merton

A map is not the territory. Alfred Korzybski
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 9:55AM #29
amcolph
Posts: 18,009

LOL!  I see that I moderated my original response too late, alas!  My apologies.


 


May 4, 2012 -- 9:31AM, Adelphe wrote:


 


All right, back up.


One, you should know my position--remember the other thread that you referenced in #8?  More, how you could forget the umpteen relatively recent arguments on S&R with mindis1, ncg, me, and Jiwe arguing one side and you and Blu (at least) arguing the other is entirely beyond me.  I am a moderate realist.  Clear enough?  It certainly should have been.


More, you not only obviously recalled the discussion here and followed up on it as you even asked Ed if he was going to "avoid it" as well, you asked yourself for this thread.  Now you have it and I am demonstrating and discussing exactly why the alternatives to realism don't work in Christianity. 



You haven't demonstrated anything.  You have just asked questions and expressed dissatisfaction with the answers.


Further, did you or did you not say you were "born a Nominalist" in this post?  I have no idea of the reason for your feigned "surprise."



I did indeed.  My surprise was not 'feigned.'  I was surprised that you thought you needed to bring it up in that way.


Given all the above, the "forgetfulness", the denial of things you've claimed, and evasion, if you now want to retreat from this discussion, just say so (or do it.)





I haven't denied anything yet.  All I have done so far is fail to satisfy you with answers to questions whose pertinence to the topic has yet to be explained.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 10:01AM #30
amcolph
Posts: 18,009

May 4, 2012 -- 9:41AM, Adelphe wrote:


May 4, 2012 -- 9:32AM, nieciedo wrote:


Adelphe,


Do you consider the Word to be a universal? Or are you asking about the universals of "human nature" and "divine nature" becoming one at the incarnation?




More specifically, I (along with the rest of the orthodox Church) consider "divinity" or "deity" to be a universal, instantiated in the Word/Christ (and the persons of the Trinity.)




So if the instantiation (God, in this case) is objectively real, why does the universal (god with a small 'g') need to be objecitvely real, any more than with mundane objects?

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 24  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 24 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook