Do You Follow Aristotlean or Platonic Philosophical Thought Processes In Religious Understanding?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Aristotle believed in the abstract, Plato believed in the concrete. And it is here that I think most people become confused with each other when it comes to spiritual concepts.

I follow Aristotle, I am capable of seeing things in the abstract and so my answers are always given from that perspective. I get what the Trinity is because it's an abstract idea. I look at a bigger picture with each part being as important to making the whole. In other words, "are the sum of the parts greater than the whole".

When it comes to my understanding of God is not that God can ever exist in the concrete. I think most anti-religious people think in concrete. They tend to look at the whole instead of the parts. They say our views are fractured because the concrete has cracks in it. But when you look at the parts, and there may be some parts that are broken, does not mean the entire thing is broken.

Let's give an example this way...

We all know what a car is. We look at a car and know it is a car because it is a whole. But a car is comprised of many different parts. It can only run while all the parts are working in tandem. But if you took parts out, say you took the engine out, tore apart the chassis, ripped the tires off, removed the spark plugs and filled the gas tank with water, the car no longer works. But people look at those individual parts and can't see a whole car, they see simply the concrete parts. It's only when you put it back together do some people see that it is a car. But some people know that even if those parts are not together, you know that they are still parts of a car.

Let's use another example...

Say you lived 5,000 years ago and you worked for a builder. That builder took you to a field and said "get me 20 bricks", would you only see a field, or would you understand that to get the bricks you have to dig in that field to get clay and then bake that clay? The bricks are there, in the abstract.

I believe that's why people don't understand God. They think God can only exist once they see He is finally assembled with the batteries included.

That's why there are criticisms against religion, people see the final product without realizing all the parts it took to make that religion. They perceive religion in a concrete way, and when they don't like the product they toss it away without going into the engine to see which spark plugs are bad. And because they see in the concrete, they want to apply concrete concepts to it, usually from their own perspective of what is right and wrong. They don't like the color, they don't like the taste, they don't like something that they can only experience with their own moral standards.

Some people like apple pie, some don't. But if you change one ingredient, then it tastes different and if you change something else, like too much water or salt instead of sugar, then it becomes something else entirely.

So how do you think? Aristotle or Plato? Can you not see the forest for the trees, or do you look at the forest with its multiplicity of colors and varieties?

I think like Aristotle and can see the individual parts that make the whole.




posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
You have to see it both ways to get the full picture in my opinion. I believe the concrete compliments the abstract and vice versa. What's the field good for if you don't have the bricks in mind before digging, and what is the idea of bricks good for without a field or clay to make them out of?

I disagree with your idea that a few broken parts doesn't mean the whole thing is broken. What good is a car if the spark plugs are no good or the pistons no longer work? If one part is broken, it is best to replace it with something new or it may stay broken or become broken in the future.

This is the problem with religion in my opinion, when their are broken parts believers tend to ignore the faults and not replace them with something newer, better, and more efficient. They justify the fault and keep driving thinking it will somehow fix itself.

S&F for the interesting thread.



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I think both perspectives are necessary to a certain degree. A mistake would be choosing to favor one over the other. An even bigger mistake is giving yourself the impression that your favoritism makes the chosen perspective superior to the other.



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I think both perspectives are necessary to a certain degree. A mistake would be choosing to favor one over the other. An even bigger mistake is giving yourself the impression that your favoritism makes the chosen perspective superior to the other.


Which in turn leads to misunderstandings with each other. I think I am naturally Aristotlean, even seeing Platonic in abstract. I don't think it is part of favoritism, but rather how my mind works.

It becomes murky when we don't understand certain concepts, so in order to understand, we insert our worldviews into it. That's the old screenwriting format..insert (something) here.



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1
You have to see it both ways to get the full picture in my opinion. I believe the concrete compliments the abstract and vice versa. What's the field good for if you don't have the bricks in mind before digging, and what is the idea of bricks good for without a field or clay to make them out of?

I disagree with your idea that a few broken parts doesn't mean the whole thing is broken. What good is a car if the spark plugs are no good or the pistons no longer work? If one part is broken, it is best to replace it with something new or it may stay broken or become broken in the future.

This is the problem with religion in my opinion, when their are broken parts believers tend to ignore the faults and not replace them with something newer, better, and more efficient. They justify the fault and keep driving thinking it will somehow fix itself.

S&F for the interesting thread.


Even the quote in your profile says it...it's not what you look at, it's what you see-Henry David Thoreau. You could have just posted that quote and I would have gotten it...



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I think most people on here follow the disney philosophical thought processes...I love reading about them, but I get sick of cartoons after a while...

Å99



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



Without Plato, we don't have platonic solids, the building blocks of reality. Without Plato, we have no Logos. Without "Logos" we have no "Christ".

Aristotle brings us the Golden Mean, reason and logic. Without Aristotle, we wouldn't have church and the Bible.

But. me personally, I'm a fan of Pythagoras



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy
 





But. me personally, I'm a fan of Pythagoras



Please expound further. How does that affect how you perceive the world? Interesting about Pythagorus.



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Well, the way I see it, Plato gives us the tools to understand how our thoughts create our world. Aristotle gives us the tools to work with what we've created. Pythagoras gives us the tools to rise above both.

God can't be a trinity, in this universe, according to Plato. God is, within creation, a tetrahedron.



The most basic solid object with facets, a tetrahedron has 4 sides. So, you have the trinity plus the creation. Plato teaches that location 1 gives birth, reflexively, to location 2, 2 gives birth to 3, but only the 4th point gives birth to the 4th dimension, the reality of creation. The point of existence of 1, 2 and 3 are in the spiritual and thought dimension, but the word can't be spoken until the 4th dimension exists.

This tells me that I am part of God, not separate. This tells me that God and the universe are one. God is not separated from us or creation. God is us and the creation.

Pythagoras tells me that I am part of the spiritual body that is God. God is eternal, therefore, so am I. As God creates, I create. I am reborn in the creation through God's creation and my creation. Therefore, reincarnation is God's expression of my existence in the past, present and future. The 5th dimension.





edit on 3-10-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


THIS is what all the spiritual teachers throughout history have been pointing toward, that God is the whole of existence. God is God of the living because God is life itself. We are our own Gods and we create or reject our OWN salvation.

Unfortunately, Earth has rejected that truth in favor of some outside source, which is exactly why the world is in the state it's in today. We've been blinded to our true nature by religion, money, politics, etc., all intentionally to work toward a few people's agendas, which is control and power.

Well said, I agree 100%. Again, I wish I could give you a thousand stars!



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Shucks, thanks.


I edit my post to reflect that I believe that reinarnation represents the 5th dimension.




edit on 3-10-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Plato never saw anything in a concrete way. He believed the world of the senses was merely a shadow, hence the allegory of the cave. Aristotle believed in substance, a mix of matter and form. Both were venerated by the church in some way.

I think you have your philosophers backwards.

You should read them. I'm sure your views on God will change in the process.



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by windword
 


that God is the whole of existence. God is God of the living because God is life itself.


You had me at first, until this...


We are our own Gods and we create or reject our OWN salvation.


If I am my own God and create my own salvation, then wouldn't the first part not fit? I would then be the source of all life and you would be the source of all life, and your evil twin would be the source of all life (not that you have an evil twin, just a phrase to use)

That fourth plane could be the fourth dimension, which is time. You and I are bound to time, therefore we are finite. And if we create our own salvation, then our salvation is finite because it depends on what we are thinking on that day.

I am sure that you don't think the same way today that you did ten years ago. Then your salvation would either evolve or devolve depending on what your worldview is from day to day and year to year.

God is infinite, and that's what we cannot comprehend, because we are finite. Our salvation dependent upon us would then be finite as well.

People always say 1 plus 1 plus 1 equals 3, well that is true to Plato. But is also the whole. 3 is the one whole comprising of three parts. If you take away any of the ones or add to it, then the whole is a different whole, such as 2 or 4. And since 2 and 4 are not 3, because they have different properties, Pythagorus is still holding to the concrete, just adding more properties, until something different is achieved. But for Pythagorus, each property must always be equal for it to work.

a squared plus b squared equals c squared (I hate looking for those keys in the dark). But that is still concrete because there is no whole and we then must figure out what the whole is, and it becomes a mystery. We know what 1 is, we know what 2 is and we know what 3 is.

I don't think your arithmetic teacher would agree that 4 squared plus 7 squared equals 24000 squared. But if we know a squared and c squared, then we could figure out b squared. It does require knowing the properties. But for the car example, a spark plug plus a tire does not individually equal a car, but together they are parts of the whole. So therefore, they become properties of a car, even though they each have individual properties that are not equal.

It's the echad, the whole. God is infinite, therefore He must have infinite properties. And if the properties are infinite, then the properties of the properties must be infinite as well. But God is the whole, all properties cannot be finite. And if we as finite beings have our own finite salvation, then we can't be part of an infinite God.

That's how I see it.



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   

NiNjABackflip
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Plato never saw anything in a concrete way. He believed the world of the senses was merely a shadow, hence the allegory of the cave. Aristotle believed in substance, a mix of matter and form. Both were venerated by the church in some way.

I think you have your philosophers backwards.

You should read them. I'm sure your views on God will change in the process.


And the whole was the substance. Shadows are still concrete because they are determined by physics. Shadows are the result of absence of light because a concrete object blocked the light.

Faith is the substance of all things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. So yes, I am on track with Aristotle.



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   

windword
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Shucks, thanks.


I edit my post to reflect that I believe that reinarnation represents the 5th dimension.




edit on 3-10-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)




Hasn't the Age of Aquarius happened yet? I was born in 1967, so I should have seen the Dawning....
edit on 10/3/2013 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


OK you get a star just because you put a cool music video in the thread.



No objection to cool music.



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 





And the whole was the substance. Shadows are still concrete because they are determined by physics. Shadows are the result of absence of light because a concrete object blocked the light.

Faith is the substance of all things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. So yes, I am on track with Aristotle.


That's simply not true. Plato was speaking metaphorically by using the term shadow. He was saying the physical world is unintelligible, not that he actually sees shadows.

Aristotle rejected Aristotle's theory of forms. He was a natural scientist, concerned with nature and living things.

Seriously, pick up one of their books. There are free copies on the net.



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 





And the whole was the substance. Shadows are still concrete because they are determined by physics. Shadows are the result of absence of light because a concrete object blocked the light.


Our reality is a shadow of a higher dimension.

We are in the 4th dimension and perceive time as the 5th dimension. 1,2,3.........past, present, future.

1, singularity is totality. Picture a zero as a "point" of wholeness. GOD.
2, singularity gives birth to self awareness. Duality. Is, is not. a perceived separation connected in a plane. The 1st dimension.
3, Thought, observation from another viewpoint from the plane. Opinion. Self evaluation.

This is the trinity. But it only exists in a 2 dimensional, sideways plane. There is no up or down. There is no space.

4, Space. We now have an object, with 4 viewpoint that gives it space, up and 3 directions. The tetrahedron. But we don't live a spacial tetrahedron reality. We live within time.

5, Time and space. The cube. Up, down, north, east, south west. A box.

We can't describe the 6th dimension, but if we could, it would be a cube within a cube.

I hope that helps.



edit on 3-10-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   

NiNjABackflip
reply to post by WarminIndy
 





And the whole was the substance. Shadows are still concrete because they are determined by physics. Shadows are the result of absence of light because a concrete object blocked the light.

Faith is the substance of all things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. So yes, I am on track with Aristotle.


That's simply not true. Plato was speaking metaphorically by using the term shadow. He was saying the physical world is unintelligible, not that he actually sees shadows.

Aristotle rejected Aristotle's theory of forms. He was a natural scientist, concerned with nature and living things.

Seriously, pick up one of their books. There are free copies on the net.


Seriously, did you not read why I follow Aristotle's philosophy?

Who Said?


Aristotle “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”


I think in my entire thesis on this thread regarding this subject is....this quote. The echad is greater than the sum of its parts. That's Aristotle.

Please feel free to post a Platonic quote if you wish. We already posted about Pythagorus' math. Two people agree with Pythagorus, but you need to read what I typed for the basis of my belief.

Windword and 3nlight3n3d believe Pythagorus because they understand his math. I believe Aristotle because I understand his math. So what about Plato's math do you understand?



posted on Oct, 3 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 




Aristotle “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”


This is where the communist philosophy of the "greater good for the greater number" comes from, as opposed to the rights of the individual.

Are you sure that is your religious base?

By the way, my explanations are my interpretation of Platonic philosophy. Pythagoras is much too complicated to discuss right now, but his science and math have much to do with vibration and harmony.


edit on 3-10-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join