Poll: Do you prefer the dialogue Mass?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
14
0%
0 0%
22
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

God and "Allah"
Malleus, this is what I mean, everywhere I go I am followed by your posts disagreeing with everything I say.

The Gestalt theory find its foundations in holism. In the Metaphysics, Aristotle summarized holism in the words, "The whole is more than the sum of its parts" (1045a10).

Gestalt psychology echoes this concept by applying it to the human brain.

Malleus: I disagree. First of all - New Age Psychology is not rooted in Aristotle or in Plato for that matter.  It eminates from Kant  ,Rousseau, Goethe and Hegel.    Thomistic understanding has its roots in Aristotle.  And most certainly isnt compatible.  Sorry - I just dont agree with you. 
Reply
(04-01-2010, 04:40 PM)Malleus Haereticorum Wrote: Malleus, this is what I mean, everywhere I go I am followed by your posts disagreeing with everything I say.

The Gestalt theory find its foundations in holism. In the Metaphysics, Aristotle summarized holism in the words, "The whole is more than the sum of its parts" (1045a10).

Gestalt psychology echoes this concept by applying it to the human brain.

Malleus: I disagree. First of all - New Age Psychology is not rooted in Aristotle or in Plato for that matter.   It eminates from Kant  ,Rousseau, Goethe and Hegel.    Thomistic understanding has its roots in Aristotle.   And most certainly isnt compatible.  Sorry - I just dont agree with you.   

Wikipedia isn't always the best source of information, but I didn't have to search very hard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

On holism:

Quote:Holism (from ὅλος holos, a Greek word meaning all, whole, entire, total) is the idea that all the properties of a given system (physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) cannot be determined or explained by its component parts alone. Instead, the system as a whole determines in an important way how the parts behave.

The general principle of holism was concisely summarized by Aristotle in the Metaphysics: "The whole is more than the sum of its parts" (1045a10).

You are taking two broad approaches to philosophy, claiming they these approaches are incompatible, and then forming a non sequitur by claiming that Gestalt theory does not extend from holistic thought.

Another quick search yielded this:

Quote:Gestalt psychology or gestaltism (German: Gestalt - "essence or shape of an entity's complete form") of the Berlin School is a theory of mind and brain positing that the operational principle of the brain is holistic, parallel, and analog, with self-organizing tendencies. [Explanation of Gestalt effect]. The phrase "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts" is often used when explaining Gestalt theory.

You're claiming that because Thomist philosophy is not compatible with modern philosophy, therefore they do not operate on some of the same basic truths introduced by some of the most fundamental philosophers who first described them. These schools of thought differ, yes, but not in all of these basic truths upon which philosophy operates. Much of the dissention comes from the different directions taken from these roots.



Reply
I have to leave for the day and just as it was getting GOOD - in short - the answer to your conundrum is found in Aquinas "Summa Contra Gentiles book II i believe"  in it he defines the relationships (and or refutes the contradictions in)  some of those tenets,

Since this is from memory and since I have to have my feet washed - I'll bid you all a Grace filled Easter Tridium

Pax Vobis
Reply
(04-01-2010, 06:03 PM)Malleus Haereticorum Wrote: I have to leave for the day and just as it was getting GOOD - in short - the answer to your conundrum is found in Aquinas "Summa Contra Gentiles book II i believe"  in it he defines the relationships (and or refutes the contradictions in)  some of those tenets,

Since this is from memory and since I have to have my feet washed - I'll bid you all a Grace filled Easter Tridium

Pax Vobis

Okay, but maybe you should start a new thread for it. This one specifically concerns whether or not Muslim's believe in, worship, or know God.
Reply
A remarkable post from Ludovicus on Angelqueen.
Quote:Just because the Muslims think false things about God, this does not mean that they do not worship the true God. This can be proven from reason.

How can we show this?

Worship is principally an act of the mind by which one gives honor to someone or something.

Consequently, when we ask, "Who or what do I worship,", the question is much like the question, "Who or what am I talking about, or thinking about." All of these questions ask about the object of an act of our minds. Let me take an example. When I say, "Aristotle was an ancient Greek philosopher," who am I talking about?

The name "Aristotle" is nothing but a name. It doesn't have any particular meaning. It simply refers to a man that I have heard referred to by that name. Thus, I am talking about the same person that those from whom I learned the name were talking about.

It is the same with those from whom I learned the name. If one traces this back, one would finally come either to a certain man in ancient Greece who was called Aristotle, or at least to a certain book, which was said to be written by a man named Aristotle. Thus, I would either be talking about this man, or about the author of the book, whoever he might be.

By such a process of tracing back, when I say that Aristotle was the author of a book, I am quite able to talk about a man whom I know little or nothing. For example, I might tell you something about my brother Peter. (I really have a brother Peter.) If I told you something false, you could then go and tell others this falsehood about my brother Peter. You would still be talking about my brother Peter, despite the fact that you would know nothing about him-- the only thing you would believe yourself to know would be an error.

In the same way, when someone says that he worships something, and we ask what or whom he is worshipping, we must trace his worship in the same way that we trace the object of someone's statement.

For example, when the Israelites worshipped the golden calf, their worship was easily traced back. It referred directly to the golden calf, at which they pointed and which they called "god." Thus, they worshipped a false god.

On the other hand, the name "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for "God." To whom does it refer when it is used by Muslims? It is simply a name. If we trace back the usage of this name, we would trace it back to the God of Abraham. When Muslims speak of Allah, they intend to speak about the God of Abraham, whoever He might be. They know very little about the God of Abraham, just as you might know little or nothing about my brother Peter. They are even wrong about the God of Abraham, since they think that he is not a Trinity. Likewise you might be wrong about my brother Peter. Nonetheless you would still be talking about my brother Peter. Likewise, Muslims are still talking about the God of Abraham, even when they say things that are false. And since worship is an act of the mind, they worship the same God that they talk about. They talk about the God of Abraham, and so they worship the God of Abraham.

They even worship the Blessed Trinity, since the God of Abraham is the Blessed Trinity. They do not worship him precisely in respect to his Trinitarian nature, but nonetheless they worship him, although in ignorance.

The Muslim's opinion about whom they worship does not, and in fact cannot, affect whom they worship. This can be proven easily.

Muslims hold two things about their God:

1. Their God is the God of Abraham
2. Their God is not a Trinity.

They are wrong about one of these, because the God of Abraham is the Blessed Trinity. Therefore they cannot be right about both. If they are right about #1, they are wrong about #2. Similarly, if they are right about #2, they are wrong about #1.

Suppose someone holds that they are right about #2, but wrong about #1. But this reveals the falsity of the opinion that the object of someone's worship is determined by his opinion about it. For he says that they are wrong about #1. This means that they think they worship the God of Abraham, but do not. If this is so, then someone can worship something, even though he thinks he is not worshiping it. Thus it is clear: the fact that someone thinks something about his object of worship does not prove that it is true about the object of his worship.

But if their opinion that their God is the God of Abraham does not prove that their God is in reality the God of Abraham, then likewise their opinion that their God is not a Trinity does not prove that their God is in reality not a Trinity.

Thus, someone's opinions about God do not determine the object of his worship. What then does determine the object of his worship?

This object will be determined in the same way that the subject of a statement is determined. Men worship the same God they speak about. For example, when someone says, "God is great!", this very statement is a kind of worship of God. If this statement is about the true God, they it is the worship of the true God, while if it is a statement about a false god, then it is the worship of a false god.

There are two kinds of names, proper names and common names. Common names have a definite meaning. For example, "square" is a common name which signifies a four sided figure. Thus, if someone says something about squares, no one can say that he is speaking about certain circles.

On the other hand, proper names do not have a "meaning," but merely point to something. For example, the name "Ludovicus" refers to me. The name doesn't have any particular meaning. Whoever receives the name from me and uses it, is speaking about me, not about someone else, no matter what he may say about me. Even if he says, "Ludovicus is a woman," which is utter nonsense, he is still speaking about me, not about someone else.

The name "Allah" is a proper name, not a common name. What did it refer to? Since Mohammad claimed to accept the Christian revelation, it is clear that he was pointing to the Christian God. He went on to say many false things about this God. But nonetheless, his statements remained statements about the Christian God, just as someone might say anything false whatever about me, and nonetheless his statements would remain statements about me.

Now just as he continued to speak about the Christian God, he continued to worship the Christian God, although in ignorance. Thus, Muslims are right about #1, but wrong about #2.

God bless,
Ludovicus

http://www.angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=368970&highlight=#368970

Couldn't have said it better myself!

END OF THREAD.
Reply
I think its time to just let this thread die its been going for months big time.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)