All things Philosophical. discussion

36 views
Anthological Discussions > Metaphysics

Comments Showing 1-9 of 9 (9 new)    post a comment »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 1: by Mark, The Failed Philosopher (last edited Jul 05, 2012 09:08AM) (new)

Mark Burns (TheFailedPhilosopher) | 167 comments Mod
This is for posts to do with anything that could be considered as metaphysical and, naturally for comments on the nature and meaning of 'Metaphysics'. Can we talk about this at all?


message 2: by Joel (new)

Joel (joelrossi) | 3 comments Something I've been thinking about lately--and I guess it could fit under this heading--is the notion that God and angels and spirits are more real than we are. Think about the heaven scenes in 'The Great Divorce'. It's easy to forget that the temporal is temporary. But when it's gone what will be left? Is there something more real than you've considered before? Can something be more or less "real" than something else?


message 3: by Mark, The Failed Philosopher (new)

Mark Burns (TheFailedPhilosopher) | 167 comments Mod
Re-read your Plato...this is exactly what his 'real' entailed without the angels and God obviously. Then if you want those thrown in then read your Aquinas and Augustine.


message 4: by Joel (new)

Joel (joelrossi) | 3 comments I've read them all. And I know the discourse.

I'm not talking about a realm of forms.

Let's take this point from the concept of creation. Anything I could ever create would be less real than I am. I could make a doll (form without function, essence, etc.). I could imagine a hero more powerful than Superman (without substance, physicality). Laws of entropy dictate that I cannot create (there's a difference between creation and design) anything more real than I am.

Again, I'm not saying it's the most earth-shattering idea. It's just something I've been thinking about.


message 5: by Xdyj (new)

Xdyj Idk, but I'm not sure how "creation" can be defined. & "laws of entropy" is not really meaningful in this case b/c we're not closed systems ourselves, i.e. in theory we can generate more information than we have ourselves b/c we're eating stuff.


message 6: by Mark, The Failed Philosopher (new)

Mark Burns (TheFailedPhilosopher) | 167 comments Mod
Joel wrote: "I've read them all. And I know the discourse.

I'm not talking about a realm of forms.

Let's take this point from the concept of creation. Anything I could ever create would be less real than I am..."


Anybody else start thinking about The Ontological Argument when they read this post? I mean with this post as an answer to it rather than something that either refutes or supports the idea.


message 7: by John (new)

John | 41 comments What is real in itself or as in Niet. Case bec we deem it so whether by myth or sciencehttps://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...


message 8: by John (new)

John | 41 comments We possess a lot of K what we need is a broad framework to make sense of its relevance to our existence- Metaphysics not tied to the bootstraps of Sc!


message 9: by John (new)

John | 41 comments Mark, maybe you should think about shutting these sites that are unused-5 yrs or more and concentrate on those are!


back to top