Traditional cosmologies?
#31
(11-22-2015, 04:34 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(11-22-2015, 04:21 PM)Dominicus Wrote: Interesting, however I never saw any real disagreement between heliocentrism and geocentrism or at least the question is rather meaningless. I think of it as only an apparent difference. It is scientifically impossible to determine out of two objects moving relative to each other, which one is moving. If that makes sense. What do you think regarding my other questions?

Technically, yes, it is scientifically impossible to know with 100% certainty which object is moving around the other.  However, we can observe that every other planetary body orbits the sun, not us.  We can observe that all the stars in the galaxy appear to be orbiting around the galactic core.  It would take a serious suspension of reason to suggest it is more likely that the sun is orbiting us than that we are orbiting it.

I'm not really talking about certainty. Rather the question is meaningless. Anyone could go to any point in the universe and claim that they are not moving relatively and everything else is and technically they would be correct according to the definition of the term "relative motion."
Reply
#32
(11-22-2015, 08:36 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Well, yes, the criteria for insufficiency and even reasonableness are contingent, that's why we it generally doesn't work to criticize one narrative from another one.

I started writing some big response to your view, but, really, I'm simply tired so I'll just say that while we know things by their actions it simply doesn't follow we cannot abstract universals—or even worse, that being itself is time (pantheism!). This is just good ol' modernism.

On universals, I'm sort of curious what you think of Milbank's suggestion that we make these abstractions but that they are not merely arbitrary since human making participates in divine making. Of course, this goes along with his view of narrative and rhetoric.

Also, I don't think the view I've defended here really results in pantheism. Really, the idea is more that God is entirely beyond being, as Dionysius sometimes says.
Reply
#33
(11-22-2015, 01:50 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Also, when I say that truth is historically situated, I don't only mean that the propositions we fabricate about the essences of things are historically situated, though of course this is true. Actually, I am thinking of truth more as something that belongs to beings as they reveal themselves to us and which is reflected only secondarily in propositions. In a sense, I am thinking more of Adorno's "temporal core of truth," though I don't quite go along with all of the Marxian assumptions that Adorno made when using this phrase. At any rate, beings, and thus Being, reveal themselves to us only in time. There is no separate realm of timeless Being that we can come to know through abstraction from the data of experience. This being the case, when we come to know a being, it is always in a peculiar way: the being simultaneously reveals itself to us and conceals itself from us in time. Being, then, is not pure presence. In fact, in a certain way, we might say that Being is time. In this sense, all truth, just as all being, is historically situated.

I think we might also say that we only come to know Being in language. By this, I don't mean only--or even primarily--the language of philosophy, but rather language insofar as it constitutes the horizon against which we, as particular historical human beings, view the various beings that we come across. The consequence of this, I think, is that both the being of beings itself and our encounter with this being in language is tied to a unique historical moment.       

I am not familiar with this area but what you are saying seems to me to be just wrong. The idea that Being is time seems quite heretical to me. God alone is Being and he is beyond time. Time is created and derives its existence from God's existence. Unless I am misunderstanding your use of the word "being" (and if I am please correct me).
Reply
#34
Good old wordy constructions can mean almost anything if they're delicately nuanced.

Just getting back to the OP for a moment; ole Harry Stotle and his contemporaries were not stupid in suggesting 4 Elements: Earth, Air, Fire and Water... they just didn't have the technological advantages that could show what those Elements consist of.

Interesting question.
Reply
#35
(11-23-2015, 02:36 AM)Oldavid Wrote: Good old wordy constructions can mean almost anything if they're delicately nuanced.

Just getting back to the OP for a moment; ole Harry Stotle and his contemporaries were not stupid in suggesting 4 Elements: Earth, Air, Fire and Water... they just didn't have the technological advantages that could show what those Elements consist of.

Interesting question.

Thanks for the input. I'm not sure who Harry Stotle is, so feel free to enlighten me. I like to think that the four Elements do exist, but not in the way that many would portray them. I don't think of them as physical objects or particles, rather they are more like attributes or forces perhaps. Maybe they exist only in Forms. I obviously don't know for certain (I don't think that's possible outside of revelation) but it is an interesting thought.
Reply
#36
:LOL:
Harry Stotle -- Aristotle. It's a play on words game just for fun. It's what my Dad used to call him. Just Harry for short.

It's still an interesting question... I'll be back later with more comment on the Four Elements.
Reply
#37
(11-23-2015, 10:03 PM)Oldavid Wrote: :LOL:
Harry Stotle -- Aristotle. It's a play on words game just for fun. It's what my Dad used to call him. Just Harry for short.

It's still an interesting question... I'll be back later with more comment on the Four Elements.

Oh well now I feel silly.  :LOL: I'm not sure how I didn't put that together.
Reply
#38
(11-23-2015, 03:15 AM)Dominicus Wrote: I like to think that the four Elements do exist, but not in the way that many would portray them. I don't think of them as physical objects or particles, rather they are more like attributes or forces perhaps. Maybe they exist only in Forms. I obviously don't know for certain (I don't think that's possible outside of revelation) but it is an interesting thought.
You seem a commendably thoughtful young fella.

Let's have a little think about what these Elements are. They can exist in various types or forms, and in various mixtures or combinations.

Earth: Solid stuff like dust, stones, salts etc.

Air: Gaseous stuff; you know it's there because you need to breathe it, it can knock your hat off and push ships around, it can be spent or putrid as in from a rotting corpse.

Fire: Heat, light, and energy expended in doing work. The Sun is the great source of Fire.

Water: That wonderful stuff that can be mixed with air as in steam or vapour, can be mixed with Earth to make a salty sea or a bog, and in the absence of some "Fire" it will freeze into ice.

One practical application is; any gardener knows that plants will not grow without Earth (mineral nutrients), Water, Air, and Fire (light and heat from the Sun). Suppose that the plant in question is a tree that produces wood.

Someone in the cold and dark would say "I know that there is fire in that wood and if I can get it out we can warm our fingers and toes and see to cook some food." When the water is removed so that it can burn the wood gives back its Fire, Air (gaseous products of combustion), leaving the Earth component in the form of ash.

With some intuition that scenario can be applied to just about all life processes and cycles. Just to repeat; Harry and his contemporaries weren't stupid... they just had not developed the technology that could differentiate the components of the Four Elements. Indeed, except for the technical questions of how and why, those Elements are pragmatically sufficient for ordinary life's processes. For example, how many people that drive a motor car know of the technical intricacies of engineering, chemistry, electronics etc. that make it work?
Reply
#39
Thanks, Oldavid. Thats how I think of them. Its interesting how applicable they are, you're correct in saying that they can be used to understand just about anything.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)