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

reply to post by WarminIndy

Is your purpose here to convince me that you are right and I am wrong?

No, my purpose is to discover the Truth, which is NOT determined by a show of hands (or one set of scriptures).

If you aren't here to convince me, then why do you try so hard?

If you have no interest in questioning what you are "convinced" about, why are YOU here? Why do you try so hard to 'defend' yourself?

I have said nothing here to force anyone to see it my way. I have merely replied with my own questions about certain views.

No, you didn't just ask questions; you also posted your OPINIONS (the way you see it, out of YOUR window) on how/what the responders think/do.

I do have the right to ask questions, don't I?

ABSOLUTELY!! What you don't have the 'right to do' is DECIDE WHAT OTHERS ARE THINKING OR DOING based on just what they write here (looking out of YOUR window).

I hope I'm making that clear. Any questions?

wildtimes
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Is your purpose here to convince me that you are right and I am wrong?

No, my purpose is to discover the Truth, which is NOT determined by a show of hands (or one set of scriptures).

If you aren't here to convince me, then why do you try so hard?

If you have no interest in questioning what you are "convinced" about, why are YOU here? Why do you try so hard to 'defend' yourself?

I have said nothing here to force anyone to see it my way. I have merely replied with my own questions about certain views.

No, you didn't just ask questions; you also posted your OPINIONS (the way you see it, out of YOUR window) on how/what the responders think/do.

I do have the right to ask questions, don't I?

ABSOLUTELY!! What you don't have the 'right to do' is DECIDE WHAT OTHERS ARE THINKING OR DOING based on just what they write here (looking out of YOUR window).

I hope I'm making that clear. Any questions?

Is this the end of our discussion? Can I now go back to the question in my thread title, as I am the OP?

reply to post by wildtimes


Hello wildtimes,
And thank you. Cyberspace can be a warm place.

Something you said ...
" It is so darned short-lived!! But, once you've experienced it, you never EVER forget it. "

Can I tell you about my "first time" ?

I wasn't old enough to know I should be hurrying.
That these interruptions in my education were frowned on.
The trip down the yard, bounded on one side by the rising Victorian bulk of the school, and across the narrow space the towering wall which held back the hillside, was a voyage of discovery.
At the far end, the dim outhouse with the big metal milking-bucket that had once seen better times with the cows.
Now relieved of any distractions the return was more significant still.
It shaped the rest of my life.
I was six.

Over the top of the wall, black against the bright morning sky, brambles hung dripping in icy cascades as the sun found all the colours in the stones ferns and moss, and brought them to shining life.
I can't remember what I thought, all those years ago, but the feeling is still with me.
It was the sort of feeling which can make you waste the rest of your days on Earth looking for God. The sort that hurts when you have it, but even more when it leaves you.

The edge in her voice cut me out of Paradise, her small figure in the tall stone doorway almost vibrating with anger, oblivious to the beauty which seemed to me so much more vital and worth seeking ...
than everything she represented.
Teachers, authority, grown-ups, twisted hymns and gentle Jesus meek and mild, she put it all up against the most beautiful thing I'd ever seen.
Well, if I had to choose, I was six - but I wasn't stupid.
Neither was I any longer the child who had gone down the yard. I'd seen too much, I'd had a glimpse.

So I think I know how you feel.
And no -- you never do forget.

mistersmith.

reply to post by wildtimes


Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it, I'm just glad someone else understands where I'm coming from.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Is this the end of our discussion?

Erm....no. Not by my choice or preference....whether it is 'the end of our discussion' rather depends on if/how you respond to my posts.

Can I now go back to the question in my thread title, as I am the OP?

Of course you may!!!

Did you just want 'kudos' and 'stars' and applause? Sorry we've (I've?) let you down.

From what do you gather that this was "the end of our discussion"?

reply to post by mistersmith

The edge in her voice cut me out of Paradise, her small figure in the tall stone doorway almost vibrating with anger, oblivious to the beauty which seemed to me so much more vital and worth seeking ...
than everything she represented.
Teachers, authority, grown-ups, twisted hymns and gentle Jesus meek and mild, she put it all up against the most beautiful thing I'd ever seen.

Wait. I have a question.

When you say "her voice", are you referring to God?
Or someone mundane???

I agree with you on the subject of 'teachers, authority, grown-ups, twisted hymns" and so forth....

Who, though, is "she"? Please, just for clarity.

Interesting.

reply to post by wildtimes


That was my teacher, angry at me for "dawdling."
I've been a bit of a dawdler ever since.

I could not understand how she could be impervious to the beauty I was overcome by.
3NL1GHT3N3D1 in an excellent post earlier in the thread reminds us that it's not what we look at, but what we see that counts -- and young as I was, I felt that if she could not see the beauty of creation, I should regard her with the utmost suspicion.

Further experience has shown me that I was right.
I hope never to suffer that particular form of blindness, and part of me, thankfully, is still six years old, and completely gobsmacked by the sheer wonder of it all.
Anything less would be something of an insult.

mistersmith.

reply to post by wildtimes


I am back today, as I have a life outside of ATS. I went last night with my brother to watch and movie and then had a Guinness with him and we talked about life and other things. So now I am back today.

Would you care to finish the discussion on the topic or would you rather just keep demanding that I pay attention to you? Do you need stars and applause? OK, here goes, stars for Wildtimes for the effort it took to keep coming back to the thread to tell me where I am going wrong. Woo hoo!

Do you feel comfortable with my condescending tone? As you seem to not like being disagreed with to the point you go to other threads and try to rebut a discussion there just because I made a comment on another thread, then perhaps you would like to share with us why you feel I am so worthy of your time and effort?

Do I annoy you just a little bit? Then to put it as your philosophy would suggest, it's my purpose in life. If the philosophy on your side says that we all a part of God with our different personalities and quirks, then why be angry with me if I am simply fulfilling my role in the universe?

Or could it be that your view only works if people all agree with you and everyone is nice?

You seem to be under the impression, as it was on another thread, that I am on the extreme side of Christian fundamentalism. Is that how you view me?

Why fight against my role in the universe if my role were not dictated by you?

mistersmith
reply to post by wildtimes

 

3NL1GHT3N3D1 in an excellent post earlier in the thread reminds us that it's not what we look at, but what we see that counts -- and young as I was, I felt that if she could not see the beauty of creation, I should regard her with the utmost suspicion.;

If you reread that post, it was I who made that comment because I was complimenting his signature of Henry David Thoreau and if you recall, it was I who said that if all they posted was that quote then that was enough to share about understanding. I had agreed at that point with Henry David Thoreau, but then you were upset that I "didn't get it". So please, go back and reread my post.

Further experience has shown me that I was right.
I hope never to suffer that particular form of blindness, and part of me, thankfully, is still six years old, and completely gobsmacked by the sheer wonder of it all.
Anything less would be something of an insult.

A thing of beauty is a joy forever. The difference here with you and I is that when I see the beauty of nature, the first thing I think is "What has God wrought?" We have a song called How Great Thou Art the words are this...

Oh Lord my God, when I in awesome wonder
consider all the worlds thy hands have made
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder
Thy power throughout the universe declare
Then sings my soul, my Savior God to thee
How great thou art, how great thou art.

We might perceive that the universe came into being differently, but to me, God's work in creation is magnificent. I go out at night during meteor showers just to see one. I drive different places so I can see the sun setting over lakes or hills. I also have an appreciation for the beauty of nature, but because one person didn't see it with you, you shouldn't think we all are like that. But she had a purpose in her job and that was to educate you at that moment. Maybe for her, there was beauty in knowledge and education, so she saw you as someone worthy enough to educate?

Seeing is one thing, but understanding what you see is more important. Suppose in your moment of enjoying the scenery that your mind was not on what was happening around you and something did happen to you?

Which reminds me, last night I saw the previews for The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, it looks interesting.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Would you care to finish the discussion on the topic or would you rather just keep demanding that I pay attention to you?

I'm not demanding anything, Indy. I told you it's up to you if you want to continue the discussion or not. Here you are, so....I'm responding.

Do you need stars and applause?

LOL!! No.

OK, here goes, stars for Wildtimes for the effort it took to keep coming back to the thread to tell me where I am going wrong. Woo hoo!

Whatever.

I'm only asking you questions and contributing my point of view. Threads are very boring when everyone simply "agrees" with the OP.

Do you feel comfortable with my condescending tone?

Are you being condescending? I hadn't noticed. More like pissed off and irritated. In any case, your tone doesn't bother me, no.

As you seem to not like being disagreed with to the point you go to other threads and try to rebut a discussion there just because I made a comment on another thread,

I have no idea what post/thread you're talking about.

then perhaps you would like to share with us why you feel I am so worthy of your time and effort?

You have some interesting ideas, and I was enjoying discussing back and forth with you.


I also have a life outside of ATS. I also revel in nature's beauty.

I enjoy interesting debates. In your case, I'm just wondering why you are so hostile to those who disagree with you. You have yet to explain that.

Please stop putting words in my mouth, deciding what my attitude is, and whether or not I "enjoy" being disagreed with.

You have been worthy, yes...you provide meaningful posts that inspire me to think. Also, your behavior is fascinating.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Now for your other questions to me:

Do I annoy you just a little bit?

No. Are you trying to?

Then to put it as your philosophy would suggest, it's my purpose in life.

Well, since that's not happening, I guess that's not your purpose in life.

If the philosophy on your side says that we all a part of God with our different personalities and quirks, then why be angry with me if I am simply fulfilling my role in the universe?

I'm not angry with you. ??? I'm curious about you and your thoughts, and how you arrived at them. And also why you seem to dislike my participation in your thread here.

Or could it be that your view only works if people all agree with you and everyone is nice?

Nope! I've already said that I enjoy talking about these things. I am only presenting my point of view.

You seem to be under the impression, as it was on another thread, that I am on the extreme side of Christian fundamentalism. Is that how you view me?

No, you made yourself quite clear in that thread.

Why fight against my role in the universe if my role were not dictated by you?

I'm not "fighting against" your role in anything. I'm attempting to engage in a discussion. (Also, I thought it might be helpful to point out your tendency to project onto others what you think they mean, or are implying, or think - whether about you or about general topics that are being discussed.)

(By the way, you're doing it again.)

So. Now we have that out of the way. What other on-topic questions would you like to discuss??

reply to post by wildtimes

WoW!!! Hey, can you throw us a link to where we can learn more about that? Please? wind?

I wish I could. I know I've seen it. But, I've scoured the web looking for some animation or write up, but I can't find anything.

It's something I realized in the '80s after reading books, like "Be Here Now" and from people like Alan Watts, Terence McKenna, Alice Bailey, and from my foray into Shinto Buddhism, where I learned the chant the "Nom Myoho Renge Kyo", which the same concept of creative thought.

reply to post by windword

'80s after reading books, like "Be Here Now" Alan Watts

Yep, it was in the very early 90s that I read Alan Watts. Fascinating stuff.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Indy,

I also have a life outside ATS, and yesterday I was doing a craft show. Although, I could sorta keep up by looking at my phone, I don't have the acumen to actually respond from my phone, besides, I was too busy.

However, I"m here today, for the time being. I would like to ask you how Aristotlean thought is reflected, in your opinion, in Christianity.

For example, Plato thought that all of creation was made up of 4 different "atoms".

Plato insisted that the cosmos was not eternal but was created, although its creator framed it after an eternal, unchanging model.

One part of that creation were the four simple bodies of fire, air, water, and earth. But Plato did not consider these corpuscles to be the most basic level of reality, for in his view they were made up of an unchanging level of reality, which was mathematical. These simple bodies were geometric solids, the faces of which were, in turn, made up of triangles. The square faces of the cube were each made up of four isosceles right-angled triangles and the triangular faces of the tetrahedron, octahedron, and icosahedron were each made up of six right-angled triangles.

Aristotle rejected "atomic theory", in favor of a "purposeful" creation.

Sometime before 330 BC Aristotle asserted that the elements of fire, air, earth, and water were not made of atoms, but were continuous. Aristotle considered the existence of a void, which was required by atomic theories, to violate physical principles. Change took place not by the rearrangement of atoms to make new structures, but by transformation of matter from what it was in potential to a new actuality. (This theory is called hylomorphism.) A piece of wet clay, when acted upon by a potter, takes on its potential to be an actual drinking mug. Aristotle has often been criticized for rejecting atomism, but in ancient Greece the atomic theories of Democritus remained "pure speculations, incapable of being put to any experimental test. Granted that atomism was, in the long run, to prove far more fruitful than any qualitative theory of matter, in the short run the theory that Aristotle proposed must have seemed in some respects more promising

SOURCE

So, from what I understand, Plato believed that the universe was an imperfect model of a perfect reality. Plato's reality was constantly changing, but was based on a perfect, unchangeable reality.

Whereby, Aristotle thought that the creation was deliberately created, like a potter makes a mug from clay. In Aristotle's view, change occurs because of God's purposeful will.

Christian creationist and intelligent design advocate, William Lane Craig, uses Aristotle's argument to prove his theory that the universe has a purpose, and that God created the universe for a purpose. He ignores the Platonic viewpoint that the universe arose as a byproduct of God's perfection, and has no real purpose.

So Plato, when he saw, say an elephant, he said that is only an elephant temporarily. The elephant is only a temporary imperfect expression of a basic perfection. Soon that basic expression will be expressed as something else. Aristotle said that the elephant was an elephant because God made an elephant, and that the elephant has a purpose.

I think science shows that Plato was more correct. The elephant is a temporary arrangement of atoms, that exists in an evolutionary process, that arises as a byproduct of a perfect reality.

Both philosophers believed in a creator, but saw the method and the nature of creation differently. Plato was proven to be correct, although there are many more than 4 elements, we now know that fire, air, water and earth are not basic elements.

How does Aristotlean thought reflect in the Christian / Pauline theology on say, original sin? If God purposefully created his creation, why is sin part of creation?

reply to post by WarminIndy


Glad you're back.

I was just surfing looking for explanations/descriptions of the difference between Plato's way of thinking, and Aristotle's.

Could you steer us to some sites that show them side by side?

I've found only one so far: on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and article entitled: Religion and Morality

It says that Aristotle was a student of Plato's. It says that

Finally, in the Laws (716b), perhaps Plato's last work, the character called ‘the Athenian’ says that the god can serve for us in the highest degree as a measure of all things, and much more than any human can, whatever some people say; so people who are going to be friends with such a god must, as far as their powers allow, be like the god themselves.

Ok, so...that is Plato's stance. To try to BE LIKE [the] GOD THEMSELVES.

This train of thought sees the god or gods as like a magnet, drawing us to be like them by the power of their goodness or excellence. In Plato's Ion (533d), the divine is compared to a magnet to which is attached a chain of rings, through which the attraction is passed. This conception is also pervasive in Aristotle (384–22), Plato's student for twenty years.

In the Nicomachean Ethics, for example, the words ‘god’ and ‘divine’ occur roughly twice as often as the words ‘happiness’ and ‘happy’. This is significant, given that Aristotle's ethical theory is (like Plato's) ‘eudaimonist’ (meaning that our morality aims at our happiness). Mention of the divine is not merely conventional, for Aristotle, but does important philosophical work. In the Eudemian Ethics (1249b5–22) he tells us that the goal of our lives is service and contemplation of the god. He thinks that we become like what we contemplate, and so we become most like the god by contemplating the god. Incidentally, this is why the god does not contemplate us; for this would mean becoming less than the god, which is impossible.

Okay. So, it appears to me, in trying to compare/contrast the two (Aristotle and Plato), they said basically the same thing.

WAIT. I'm re-reading now...editing....
Yeah, I don't agree with Aristotle on the 'goal of our lives is service and contemplation of God'....unless by "service" he means service to OTHER HUMANS. I do not believe our purpose in life is to worship God. (The Muslims do, however. I don't know about you.)

Could you be a bit more explanatory about the differences you see between them?

I'm rather confused about the OP saying one was an "abstract" thinker, and the other a "concrete" thinker.

From where do you derive that division (your separation of the two into opposite camps)?

reply to post by wildtimes


The "Nom Myoho Renge Kyo" chant is a really powerful manifestation charm, when chanted in terms of the "1, 2, 3, 4" model of creative thought (clap your hands on the kyo). But be careful, it brings about instant karma!

reply to post by windword


LOL! Didn't see your very helpful post until after I asked for more resources.
Thanks!!

The art and appreciation of philosophy, unfortunately, (as much as I 'think' I do it on my own) is something I have not mastered.

I have read Dialogues of Plato(an edited for college use version of his works); and also have tried with Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics......(another college required text). One of my great shames in life is that I struggle with Philosophy, Debate, and Calculus.....
all three.

I read that type of literature VERY slowly. OTOH, I was handed down a textbook from my daughter's recent college experience: Introduction to Physics, a recent copyright - and it recommends that one DOES go slowly.

So slowly that it takes YEARS, though? That's about where I am.

Nevertheless, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Pythagoras, Eumenides,......whoever......
were all about THINKING about these things. And THAT I'm decidedly "addicted" to doing.

So....*call for help*...can you provide more information to help me navigate this??

I DO notice that the "trial of Socrates" was remarkably similar to the Jesus 3-days story in several ways...
made me wonder. And this morning, I was watching a vid about the "Buddha Boy" (Ram Bonjam) in Nepal.

Got halfway through it - gonna go finish it now.

ETA: Then I re-read your helpful post. These remarks are significant (to me). Thanks!

So Plato, when he saw, say an elephant, he said that is only an elephant temporarily. The elephant is only a temporary imperfect expression of a basic perfection. Soon that basic expression will be expressed as something else. Aristotle said that the elephant was an elephant because God made an elephant, and that the elephant has a purpose.

I think science shows that Plato was more correct. The elephant is a temporary arrangement of atoms, that exists in an evolutionary process, that arises as a byproduct of a perfect reality.

I think Plato got it, too.

reply to post by windword

The "Nom Myoho Renge Kyo" chant is a really powerful manifestation charm, when chanted in terms of the "1, 2, 3, 4" model of creative thought (clap your hands on the kyo). But be careful, it brings about instant karma!

Whoa. Thanks for the warning. At the moment I'm not in a state of mind to try it, then.

reply to post by wildtimes


Maybe these can help shed some light on these philosophers and their philosophies!

reply to post by windword


OMG!!!
Those were hilarious. Thanks for playing

(Aristotle himself would have been pissed off that it took us this long to question him!)
LOL


So.....
what happened to the OP? Indy??? Are you done here??
*old puzzly face emoticon*