Infinite Regress of Gods

[Ambrose]

I think you're right. There is no "reality" (we can talk about) beyond words. And talking about things we cannot talk about becomes difficult.

So words I suppose, to use your analogy, "correspond" only to themselves. And THAT is how philosophy has changed in the last 2,000 years. I believe it is an advance, I suppose you don't.

Unfortunately, then, we would have to have this conversation before we could have any sort of effective dialogue on the cosmological model of Aristotle. Would you be interested in throwing Wittgenstein against Aristotle some time? Skype, forum, some other medium?

Did you know that Wittgenstein was a life-long active Roman Catholic?

So was William of Occam; I can't stand him either.

[WalkerW]

I think Thomist-Aristotelian arguments are excellent ways to open the door to the idea of God, but not for arguing the actual existence of God. I think the latter takes it much too far and gives us a view of God that does not fit the visionary experiences of the prophets of old. I'd have to agree with mfbukowski that to speak of God as an "essence" or "substance" is unhelpful. I might as well speak of nirvana (which is separated from divine beings or gods in some Buddhist circles).

But the Thomist-Aristotelian views are, in my opinion, great mental exercises that cause one to reflect on one's own existence and purpose as well as the very nature of existence and purpose themselves.

You might like James Faulconer's article "Room to Talk: Reason's Need for Faith."

[mfbukowski]

Interestingly, I don't think that Thomas ever gives an adequate explanation of what is meant by Substance in the Summa. He simply assumes that you're acquainted with Aristotle.

The discussion that Aristotle gives of this comes primarily in Categories, Posterior Analytics and the Topics.

Your saying that "substance" is apart from the "real" is what really threw me off. As far as I've read Aristotle and some of St. Thomas, I cannot say that they ever speak of substances apart from what is real, unless you are perhaps thinking of "secondary substances" . . .

Yeah, honestly?

I think it is a house of cards. It is worse than reading the IRS code.

The main discussion I recall was about whether or not substance was spatial- which ultimately I think he decided it was. That one is classically derided as "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"- which is really an unfair characterization of a point important to the nature of "substance".

But honestly, that was like 40 years ago and I have not thought much about it since, so I could definitely be wrong.

[mfbukowski]

Very interesting arguments. In my mind, very thought-provoking. I, however, cannot accept that the personal, loving God that I find in scripture, in revelation, and manifested in the Incarnation of Christ is the same thing as this pure actuality. One reason, as put forth by Blake Ostler, is that to equate God with pure actuality and thus "the Good" is to make Him good by His very essence. In other words, He does not choose "the Good." He is the Good. This to me is problematic because it makes God an amoral being rather than a moral being. But if God is not equated with the Good, but instead perfectly chooses the Good (thus making Him God), this solves that dilemma.

You are right on the money imo.

Read up on the Social Trinity and relate it to the LDS Godhead- read up on perichoresis. We are all interactive with God as part of his loving family- THAT is what makes it possible for us to become like him- and is what makes the three persons "one" in love, a la John 17. We are part of a "dance" of interaction (Nibley temple reference- sacred dance)

"Essence" and "being" just don't make sense. They are nothing, literally but ideas- designed to solve a problem that cannot be solved.

How are three things one thing? Because they share their "essence" or "being"- What does that mean? Nothing!

Google Nietzsche's use of "virtus dormitiva". Why do sleeping pills work? "Because they have a 'property' which induces sleep"

It's smoke and mirrors with no explanation.

[WalkerW]

I have a love/hate relationship with modern philosophy. As W.T. Stace put it in the 1948 The Atlantic Monthly,

The real turning point between the medieval age of faith and the modern age of unfaith came when the scientists of the seventeenth century turned their backs upon what used to be called "final causes"...The conception of purpose in the world was ignored and frowned upon. This, though silent and almost unnoticed, was the greatest revolution in human history, far outweighing in importance any of the political revolutions whose thunder has reverberated through the world...The world, according to this new picture, is purposeless, senseless, meaningless. Nature is nothing but matter in motion. The motions of matter are governed, not by any purpose, but by blind forces and laws...[but] if the scheme of things is purposeless and meaningless, then the life of man is purposeless and meaningless too. Everything is futile, all effort is in the end worthless...If our moral rules do not proceed from something outside us in the nature of the universe - whether we say it is God or simply the universe itself - the they must be our own inventions. Thus it came to be believed that moral rules must be merely an expression of our own likes and dislikes. But likes and dislikes are notoriously variable. What pleases one man, people or culture, displeases another. Therefore, morals are wholly relative (quoted in Edward Feser, The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism, St. Augustine's Press, 2008: pgs. 225-226. See Ch. 5 "Descent of the Modernists" in its entirety for an overview of philosophical history and implications).

Great ideas have been put forth. A healthy skepticism has also been put to good use. However, I worry that the amount of skepticism leads to the kind of relativism above.

[mfbukowski]

Unfortunately, then, we would have to have this conversation before we could have any sort of effective dialogue on the cosmological model of Aristotle. Would you be interested in throwing Wittgenstein against Aristotle some time? Skype, forum, some other medium?

....So was William of Occam; I can't stand him either.

LOL

I love it- funny stuff!

You realize that Aristotle vs Wittgenstein is like Empedocles vs Einstein in my book, right?

I mean there is some basis for comparison there but it's almost like two alien cultures squaring off to see which is right?

Sure I would do it, but they are so totally different it's hard to imagine any meaningful dialogue would be possible!

[WalkerW]

You are right on the money imo.

Read up on the Social Trinity and relate it to the LDS Godhead- read up on perichoresis. We are all interactive with God as part of his loving family- THAT is what makes it possible for us to become like him- and is what makes the three persons "one" in love, a la John 17. We are part of a "dance" of interaction (Nibley temple reference- sacred dance)

"Essence" and "being" just don't make sense. They are nothing, literally but ideas- designed to solve a problem that cannot be solved.

How are three things one thing? Because they share their "essence" or "being"- What does that mean? Nothing!

Google Nietzsche's use of "virtus dormitiva". Why do sleeping pills work? "Because they have a 'property' which induces sleep"

It's smoke and mirrors with no explanation.

I've read Ostler's work (besides his 3 Volume set), Daniel Peterson's Element article, and David Paulsen's work on the Social Trinity. What is interesting about your use of Nietzsche is that Feser used this exact same example. He said the same thing about it. The "scientific" explanation of it doesn't really answer why it induces sleep. For him (if I understood him correctly), the answer rests in the nature or essence of the thing. Granted, this doesn't exactly explain much. However, it attempts (I think successfully to a degree) to ground some objectivity into experienced reality. I think Thomist-Aristotelian metaphysics are incomplete, but I think they offer a pretty good outline or frame of reference (even if one merely embraces a skeleton version of it).

[WalkerW]

You are right on the money imo.

Read up on the Social Trinity and relate it to the LDS Godhead- read up on perichoresis. We are all interactive with God as part of his loving family- THAT is what makes it possible for us to become like him- and is what makes the three persons "one" in love, a la John 17. We are part of a "dance" of interaction (Nibley temple reference- sacred dance)

"Essence" and "being" just don't make sense. They are nothing, literally but ideas- designed to solve a problem that cannot be solved.

How are three things one thing? Because they share their "essence" or "being"- What does that mean? Nothing!

Google Nietzsche's use of "virtus dormitiva". Why do sleeping pills work? "Because they have a 'property' which induces sleep"

It's smoke and mirrors with no explanation.

To bring in a Thomist-Aristotelian view to this, "love" would have to be objective. This would be one of those eternal principles that I believe Thomist-Aristotelian metaphysics could possibly argue for. However, arguing for the objective existence of "love," "beauty," "truth," "goodness," etc. is quite different than arguing for a Being that is all of those things.

[WalkerW]

While I hesitate to lay down metaphysical assumptions on this, check out the following:

"Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence" (D&C 93:29-30).

D&C explains that "intelligence" is eternal and "acts for itself." Lehi distinguishes between things that "act" and those which are "acted upon." I don't see why "intelligence" can't be equated with some form of "pure actuality."

Then again, I worry about injecting these ideas into the text, mainly because it uses similar language as Lehi and I know Lehi would have had no idea what "Thomist metaphysics" were.

[mfbukowski]

I've read Ostler's work (besides his 3 Volume set), Daniel Peterson's Element article, and David Paulsen's work on the Social Trinity. What is interesting about your use of Nietzsche is that Feser used this exact same example. He said the same thing about it. The "scientific" explanation of it doesn't really answer why it induces sleep. For him (if I understood him correctly), the answer rests in the nature or essence of the thing. Granted, this doesn't exactly explain much. However, it attempts (I think successfully to a degree) to ground some objectivity into experienced reality. I think Thomist-Aristotelian metaphysics are incomplete, but I think they offer a pretty good outline or frame of reference (even if one merely embraces a skeleton version of it).

Interesting.

For me, "objectivity" is contrasted with "subjectivity" and refers to a shared experience.

If I see an angel, and you are in the same room as I am, and you don't see it, my angel experience would be "subjective"

If we both see the angel, but no one else does, the experience has a degree of objectivity, but is not fully objective yet because not everyone can see an angel under specified conditions.

If on the other hand we come up with a formula which everyone can repeat- a recipe- for seeing an angel, seeing an angel would be an "objective" experience.

Science makes experience "objective" because we can all share the same experience- if we follow the recipe for a chemical reaction, say, we will all get the same results and have the same experience.

On the other hand, if I have a pain in my toe, no one knows but me- and that is "subjective". You cannot verify my subjective experiences by definition.

Love is therefore subjective and cannot be objective. The only way we can know God loves us is through a subjective experience of him revealing his love to us.

We cannot go out and guarantee that everyone will have the same experience.

So objective experiences are shared experiences, subjective ones cannot be shared. Both types are "valid" experiences, but are seen from a different point of view (see my siggy)

So for me, the only way to make an experience "objective" is to share it. If it cannot be shared, there is no way to "make it objective". It cannot happen, because I cannot see through your eyes.

[WalkerW]

To hijack further...

Ultimately, it is because of our limited knowledge and the mysterious nature of reality that we are invited to have a personal experience with or revelation from God. Thomas Aquinas' own divine experience led him to cease writing in the last few months of his life. His secretary Reginald of Piperno urged him to continue work. In response, Aquinas said, "Reginald, I cannot, because all that I have written seems like straw to me."

Or as the Prophet Joseph Smith said, "Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject."

[WalkerW]

Interesting.

For me, "objectivity" is contrasted with "subjectivity" and refers to a shared experience.

If I see an angel, and you are in the same room as I am, and you don't see it, my angel experience would be "subjective"

If we both see the angel, but no one else does, the experience has a degree of objectivity, but is not fully objective yet because not everyone can see an angel under specified conditions.

If on the other hand we come up with a formula which everyone can repeat- a recipe- for seeing an angel, seeing an angel would be an "objective" experience.

Science makes experience "objective" because we can all share the same experience- if we follow the recipe for a chemical reaction, say, we will all get the same results and have the same experience.

On the other hand, if I have a pain in my toe, no one knows but me- and that is "subjective". You cannot verify my subjective experiences by definition.

Love is therefore subjective and cannot be objective. The only way we can know God loves us is through a subjective experience of him revealing his love to us.

We cannot go out and guarantee that everyone will have the same experience.

So objective experiences are shared experiences, subjective ones cannot be shared. Both types are "valid" experiences, but are seen from a different point of view (see my siggy)

So for me, the only way to make an experience "objective" is to share it. If it cannot be shared, there is no way to "make it objective". It cannot happen, because I cannot see through your eyes.

Fair enough. Perhaps objective is not the right word. Actual or real might be better. Love is something you can actually experience, as is beauty, goodness, etc. If love wasn't an actual experience or thing, then it is arbitrary, meaningless, and thus has no effect. We therefore could not speak of the love of God. It seems to me that modern philosophy takes on the subjective, the individual experience, over metaphysics. This is a plus. Unfortunately, the eternal truths that Scholastic metaphysics attempted to demonstrate are often left behind, thus paving the way for relativism. I agree with William Hamblin:

In the nearly forty years I have spent studying ancient history and religion, one of the most important truths I've discovered is this: I know fewer answers today than I "knew" when I started studying four decades ago...But I believe I am at last beginning to understand the right questions...My conviction that in this life we can only know in part does not, however, make me a post-modern relativist. Ontologically, I believe there is absolute truth. But epistemologically, I believe that truth about the human past cannot be absolutely understood by humans, for a wide range of reasons. This is not because of the relative nature of truth, but because of the limited nature of the surviving evidence from the past, and the imperfect nature of human reason, knowledge, and understanding. In the tension between intellectual hubris and humility, I think most of us could use a healthy dose of the latter. Although we may seem to be cursed, as Paul says, to be "ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 3:7), I do not take this to mean that we should not be "ever learning." When Paul said, "we know in part," I believe he did not mean that absolute truths cannot be known at all, but rather that our knowledge of absolute truth will always be conditioned and imperfect.

[mfbukowski]

Fair enough. Perhaps objective is not the right word. Actual or real might be better. Love is something you can actually experience, as is beauty, goodness, etc. If love wasn't an actual experience or thing, then it is arbitrary, meaningless, and thus has no effect. We therefore could not speak of the love of God. It seems to me that modern philosophy takes on the subjective, the individual experience, over metaphysics. This is a plus. Unfortunately, the eternal truths that Scholastic metaphysics attempted to demonstrate are often left behind, thus paving the way for relativism. I agree with William Hamblin:

In the nearly forty years I have spent studying ancient history and religion, one of the most important truths I've discovered is this: I know fewer answers today than I "knew" when I started studying four decades ago...But I believe I am at last beginning to understand the right questions...My conviction that in this life we can only know in part does not, however, make me a post-modern relativist. Ontologically, I believe there is absolute truth. But epistemologically, I believe that truth about the human past cannot be absolutely understood by humans, for a wide range of reasons. This is not because of the relative nature of truth, but because of the limited nature of the surviving evidence from the past, and the imperfect nature of human reason, knowledge, and understanding. In the tension between intellectual hubris and humility, I think most of us could use a healthy dose of the latter. Although we may seem to be cursed, as Paul says, to be "ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 3:7), I do not take this to mean that we should not be "ever learning." When Paul said, "we know in part," I believe he did not mean that absolute truths cannot be known at all, but rather that our knowledge of absolute truth will always be conditioned and imperfect.

Well I think there is nothing wrong with "relativism". In a changing universe, and with a God who progresses, it is hard to imagine anything NOT being "relative" in some way or another.

And one can think of things which are "always true" without believing in "Absolute Truth" as well.

I don't think that "TRUTH" is a thing "out there" somewhere- a Platonic Form.

For me, truth is a property of sentences, of propositions, nothing more, nothing less. A sentence is either true or false or something in between.

That's all there is to it.

You can either believe that our "knowledge of absolute truth will always be imperfect" or just that the nature of truth itself changes with the context.

It's ultimately the same thing. Either way, we don't know everything and need to be humble and keep on learning!

[mfbukowski]

Just to clarify- there are propositions which will always be true, not because of a Platonic Form of Truth, but because they always work and in effect become laws of the universe. But they are laws of the universe because they always work in a practical sense, and not the other way around (ie: I am denying that they always work because they are laws)

So for example, I would say that any society which is to survive must adopt something like the Golden Rule- not because (necessarily) it is a Law, but because it has survival value.

A society which condones random murder and getting gain while riding roughshod over others will not long survive. The Golden Rule is ultimately extremely practical, and can be seen as being "always true"

God himself has taken upon himself laws and has agreed to be bound by these laws which I see as "practical" because they are always true. I think the Ten Commandments are in this category as well- in any society, they have survival value and any society which ignores any one of them will ultimately cease to exist or become so miserable as to virtually unlivable.

That is the great lesson of Sodom and Gomorrah, in my opinion. There were so few righteous people that the society could not survive.

So I believe there are principles which are always true for any society even if there exists nothing like "Absolute Truth".

[tana]

But speaking of science and conscious observation, see Robert Lanza's theory of Biocentrism.

Thanks for providing this site WW! I'm glad I came back and reread this thread.

"Some of the greatest physicists have described these results as so confounding they are impossible to comprehend fully, beyond the reach of metaphor, visualization, and language itself. But there is another interpretation that makes them sensible. Instead of assuming a reality that predates life and even creates it, we propose a biocentric picture of reality. From this point of view, life

[Seeker59]

What is eternal, and why?

Is there room in LDS Theology of an ontological cause, source, or principle for everything (Gods, Intelligences, spirit, matter, energy)?

[Seeker59]

I don't see a way to edit that last post, but I meant to ask if there's room in LDS Theology for an ontological cause, source, or principle for everything (Gods, Intelligences, spirit, matter, energy)?

[Seeker59]

"Some of the greatest physicists have described these results as so confounding they are impossible to comprehend fully, beyond the reach of metaphor, visualization, and language itself. But there is another interpretation that makes them sensible. Instead of assuming a reality that predates life and even creates it, we propose a biocentric picture of reality. From this point of view, life

[WalkerW]

The universe includes matter.

Does life, consciousness, intelligence, create matter (or is it independently co-eternal)?

As I asked above--is there room in Mormon thought for some ontological ground for everything?

See my posts throughout this thread. I believe so.

[Seeker59]

See my posts throughout this thread. I believe so.

Thank you.

I didn't ask this question to be argumentative.

I'm looking for answers, and I appreciate your reply.

[Seeker59]

I happen to find Thomist-Aristotelian metaphysics very interesting, especially the "uncaused cause." Unfortunately, I think this argument is misunderstood by both advocates and critics. Eastern Orthodox philosopher David Bentley Hart explained it this way:

In other words, it isn't some cause that started way back when that just so happens to be uncaused. Aquinas knew nothing of the Big Bang and maintained that a "first cause" is needed even if the universe had always been. Why? Because the universe is made up of finite parts (e.g. buildings that did not exist before are built, planets that did not exist before are formed, etc. These are things that had potential, but were then made actual.), the universe in principle does not have to exist. What maintains its existence? Edward Feser covers this extensively in his The Last Superstition: The Refutation of the New Atheism (St. Augustine's Press, 2008). My biggest problem is not the argument itself. The Mormon concept of eternity, including eternal laws, principles, intelligence, and truth, seems to fit just fine with the philosophy. It is equating this essence with the personality of God Himself that I find problematic. I can accept static absolutes when it comes to laws, principles, intelligence, and/or truth. But not when it comes to a personal, loving God.

But speaking of science and conscious observation, see Robert Lanza's theory of Biocentrism.

THANK YOU.

That makes sense to me.