Truth and consequence

1. 61

   A.Villarasaposted 11 years ago

   Aristotle was credited with the idea that truth could be gleaned if not arrived at through reasoning alone and without any consequential input from our 5 physical senses. If he is right, then one can glean the truth of the spiritual realm without so much as worrying about the consequences that could result, I.e. the devaluation of scientific empiricism.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The only way in which Aristotle was correct is if that gleaning and reasoning is building on previous truth already discovered through the use of 5 senses.
      
      Devalue scientific empiricism and you go back to a flat earth, where we believe whatever we want to and where we make up spiritual "truths" that make us feel good but have no connection to reality.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         A.Villarasaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         @Wilderness:
         
         Thomas of Aquino, a 13th century philosopher and theoretician, agreed with Aristotle's formulation that reason alone (intuition+instinct?) can guide us to the TRUTH, when,  in a major desertation called Summa Theologiae, he argued for the existence of God using his reasoning abilities and faculties alone, unaided by empirical exposition and or scientific observation. His Summa Theologiae has been the anchor of Christian doctrine, and continues to be so, despite attempt by all sorts  of folks (Bertrand Russel for one) to discredit some ( and not all) of  its conclusions.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            But - it doesn't make any sense and has been refuted time and time again. Just another religious logical fallacy as far as most thinking persons are concerned.

            replyreport
         2. 93

            wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Thomas Aquino was a typical theologian that used non-sensical "logic" and a preformed theological conclusion to "prove" the Catholic religion.
            
            Examples:
            "the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all." Therefore the existence of God is self-evident."  Sorry - the knowledge of God is not implanted in anyone.  A belief may be implanted (that's been going on for thousands of years and not only in theology) but a belief is not knowledge.  Fail.
            
            "Further, the existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist: and, if truth does not exist, then the proposition "Truth does not exist" is true: and if there is anything true, there must be truth. But God is truth itself: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (Jn. 14:6) Therefore "God exists" is self-evident."  A simply conundrum about the word truth, ending with a quotation supporting itself as truth.  Sorry, logic doesn't work that way.  Fail.
            
            Just about everything Aquinos wrote is like that; using God or a personal belief system to prove God.  He "reasoned" his way to "proof" without observation and as a result is a total failure.  His assumptions and premises are false or unproven, his logic is incorrect and as a result his conclusions are worthless.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               A.Villarasaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               @Wilderness:
               
               "... but a belief is not knowledge."   I am absolutely sure that millions of people would find that statement incongrous  and incomprehensible to say the least.
               
               For what is belief  (specifically a belief in God) but knowledge emanating from one's instinctual and intuitive perception of  the natural world, a world that as Thomas Aquinas propounded is the physical manifestation of God, its creator. Thus the study of the natural world could in fact indirectly inform us of the existence and nature of God.
               
               I am aware of course that God  in the atheistic world is a non-entity,  where  the definition of knowledge is strictly limited to what is empirically derived.
               
               That kind of knowledge is the kind that even Einstein sought not to be too enamored  with when he said that imagination is better than knowledge.... something akin to what Salvador Dali said: (paraphrasing)  talent without imagination is like a bird without wings... or something to that effect.

               replyreport
   2. 61

      kessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Did he Aristotle, recognise the ramifications of his proposition?
      
      IF a man of his own reasoning, come to the conclusion that Truth can be gleaned without any assistance from the outwardly focus senses.
      
      Then He that man should of his ownself, by his ownself  be that ultimate  proof /evidence of this being so. For he  possesses all and is the fulfillment of all the necessary attributes/factors to make it so, merely by the fact that he thinks to reason along those lines.
      
      My conclusion is this, Aristotle is absolutely correct with his proposition, but his own doubtfulness becomes apparent by the fact that  he not a present living witness of his own proposition.

      replyreport
2. 57

   Mike Marksposted 11 years ago

   Once the old world and the new world were in different rooms and minds wondered if the ocean was outer space or another dimension. And the room that picked up for them was the sailing of wooden ships. Oh, how the world was different once, how the world was flat once, and outer space was across land and ocean and land, so there were more and more rooms, endless space for rooms, until the notion of a circular landscape slammed doors shut and we found ourselves trapped upon a globe.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      A.Villarasaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      @MM:
      
      "....we found ourselves trapped upon a globe."  Is that good or bad, from the perspective of man's journey of  understanding the mysteries of the universe?

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Mike Marksposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         limiting... just as logic is limited to the speed of sound, examined one sound, one word, and the time it takes to sound or read a word, at a time... still, it results in a managable amount of details to produce machines and war machines to defend lies that must result from limited details... while the intuit, calculating multitudes of symbols per fractured second at the full speed of thought, can only stand witness with too many words.

         replyreport