What makes people irrational thinkers?

[polymath257]

Or at least theology in general does, in that it tries to show that since there is, self-evidently, something, then the existence of this something requires an absolutely simple actus purus in order to exist. I'm not sure in what way this "kicks the can" a step further. 

Because it never seems to ask about the reason for this absolutely simple thing to exist. By fiat, the claim is made that there has to a *single* basis for *all* existence. At most, what is actually accomplished is that there is *some* thing that has no explanation. It doesn't even show the uniqueness of such.
I find it interesting that the theologians *try* to show the existence of such a thing. But, of course, they use a metaphysics that is tortured and most assuredly outdated. Any use of 'contingent' or 'necessary' as modifiers of 'existence' seem, to me, to be poorly used adjectives that betray bad Aristotelian logic.

[Neo-Scholastic]

@Belacqua

I wonder if you could at least answer poly's question regarding how a Five Ways type God, if it were true, would be any less a brute fact requiring no further explanation than that which it attempts to explain... ie why it's not just 'kicking the can' further back so to speak. As, though most of what he says is clearly way above my pay grade, that particular issue is one of my biggest issues with the five ways. Ie I understand that it has more explanatory power for people like you and Neo, who want/need that, in explaining the little bubble of reality we all find ourselves in... and in that sense you may (or may not) indeed see it as kicking the can, but to a more comfortable place... but it still doesn't appear to even address the question 'why/how something rather than nothing?'... because it still asks us to believe that a complex and infinitely powerful being has always existed, just because, with no further explanation required, inside or outside our universe (however you want to define it).

And in addition to this at this point it almost feels like the can gets kicked in the opposite direction, by basically appealing to the necessity of things in the future (ie the the Five Ways considered a necessary explanation for the universe as we know it... and I might add, a very human-centric view of that universe, which not everyone agrees with), to explain the presence of things in the past. Though granted I may have misunderstood you there (and/or elsewhere) so I'm very curious how you would answer these questions and how you would relate the (granted, disputed) necessity of the Five Ways to this bigger question of why/how God came to be/always existed, if you indeed do.

The 5W are, in the tradition of all classical philosophy, mostly about identifying and describing the most fundamental priniples of the world. Some here think physics is most fundamental and mathematics contingent on that. (Yes, I used the word contingent dispite some otherwise intelligent people finding themselves perplexed by ordinary everyday concepts.) The 5W demonstrate that the sensible world is not fundamental. There is a layer below that is known by the intellect.

[polymath257]

@Belacqua

I wonder if you could at least answer poly's question regarding how a Five Ways type God, if it were true, would be any less a brute fact requiring no further explanation than that which it attempts to explain... ie why it's not just 'kicking the can' further back so to speak. As, though most of what he says is clearly way above my pay grade, that particular issue is one of my biggest issues with the five ways. Ie I understand that it has more explanatory power for people like you and Neo, who want/need that, in explaining the little bubble of reality we all find ourselves in... and in that sense you may (or may not) indeed see it as kicking the can, but to a more comfortable place... but it still doesn't appear to even address the question 'why/how something rather than nothing?'... because it still asks us to believe that a complex and infinitely powerful being has always existed, just because, with no further explanation required, inside or outside our universe (however you want to define it).

And in addition to this at this point it almost feels like the can gets kicked in the opposite direction, by basically appealing to the necessity of things in the future (ie the the Five Ways considered a necessary explanation for the universe as we know it... and I might add, a very human-centric view of that universe, which not everyone agrees with), to explain the presence of things in the past. Though granted I may have misunderstood you there (and/or elsewhere) so I'm very curious how you would answer these questions and how you would relate the (granted, disputed) necessity of the Five Ways to this bigger question of why/how God came to be/always existed, if you indeed do.

The 5W are, in the tradition of all classical philosophy, mostly about identifying and describing the most fundamental priniples of the world. Some here think physics is most fundamental and mathematics contingent on that. (Yes, I used the word contingent dispite some otherwise intelligent people finding themselves perplexed by ordinary everyday concepts.) The 5W demonstrate that the sensible world is not fundamental. There is a layer below that is known by the intellect.

I don't think math is contingent on the physical other than the obvious fact that it is a process in the brains of humans. Logically, it is a separate area of study that is based on formal systems and what can be said in such. But, because it is about formal systems, it alone has limited applicability to the real world. Instead, for anything about the real world, we can make mathematical *models* and then test them to see to what extent they work.

Yes, I consider the word 'contingent' to be rather vague and thereby prone to misuse. There seems to be a confusion about whether it applies to logical deductions, whether it is an aspect of causality, or whether it is based on some sort of explanatory system. Each of those are quite distinct from the others and yet they are lumped together into one word.

Even the term 'logic' in metaphysics is widely misused. Logic alone can say very little (even less than math). Until assumptions are made about things like 'substance' and 'properties' and 'necessity', logic can say almost nothing. And, of course, those assumptions need to be tested and verified. Otherwise, the whole edifice is built on quicksand (which is actually the case for most medieval philosophy).

I think that physics is the process of finding and understanding the 'most fundamental aspects of our world". It has the supreme advantage over metaphysics in that it requires its concepts to be testable. THAT is what makes it able to inspire confidence.

Metaphysics, on the other hand, tends to say things *must* be classified into certain categories with certain assumed properties. Most of the concepts are intolerably vague (like contingency above) and thereby promote sloppy thinking.

[Angrboda]

The 5W demonstrate that the sensible world is not fundamental. There is a layer below that is known by the intellect.

I disagree. The 5W tells us that something is fundamental. Which itself is hardly remarkable. We know this world exists. All the 5W really tells us is that the world necessarily exists, whether that is in the existence of the sensible world, as some theories suggest, or something prior to the sensible world, which we don't have any information about. So all the 5W really say is that this world necessarily exists. Well, that's a surprise. NOT!

[emjay]

people like you and Neo, who want/need that

I can't speak for Neo, of course. But I'm not clear on what it is that you think I want or need.

I didn't mean any offence by that, I was just trying to summarise what @Neo-Scholastic has often said (or seemed to say) about his outlook... namely that he considers himself curious in a way that atheists/physicalists are not... to go beyond the brute facts of nature. And/or a different type of existential curiosity/angst, about purpose etc. Basically by 'want/need' I meant of a certain type of answers... that scientific enquiry cannot give... by definition almost, if it's considering the 'immaterial'/'transcendental'. Where in contrast, many athieists, myself included are less comfortable with speculation into the unknown and unknowable. And where you may think it is knowable, through logic, (eg the Five Ways etc), that remains an open question for me.

Though I should probably not have brought Neo into this... but since you two often seem to agree I assumed you might think alike on this question... so apologies to either of you if you think that was an unfair conclusion to draw.

I find theology fascinating, though I spend a lot of time reading other things too. (Currently I'm researching the roots of 20th century Japanese "decadent" literature. The authors (e.g. Nagai Kafu) claimed to be following in the footsteps of the European Decadents, but it seems pretty clear to me that they are firmly in a native tradition of eccentric writers and artists. This feeds into a larger thesis that I have, that imported systems provide new vocabulary and fresh enthusiasm, but almost always serve as a means of reviving something old. This applies to things like the importation of Buddhism into America. If this comes together properly I expect to publish something on the topic.)

I enjoy the beauty and wisdom of theology. I acknowledge that it's too hard for me to draw some kind of final conclusion one way or the other.

Just out of interest though, are you leaning Christianity, Abrahamic religions in general, or is the Five Ways as far you've got in your thinking?

it still asks us to believe that a complex and infinitely powerful being

Thomas says that God is absolutely simple, with no parts. It is omnipotent not in the sense that it can do anything (which Thomas doesn't claim) but in the sense that all potencies are activated by it and aimed at it. 

it still doesn't appear to even address the question 'why/how something rather than nothing?'

I think the Five Ways do address that issue. Or at least theology in general does, in that it tries to show that since there is, self-evidently, something, then the existence of this something requires an absolutely simple actus purus in order to exist. I'm not sure in what way this "kicks the can" a step further. The goal is to show that all contingencies require a necessity. This necessity is not a temporal beginning point, but the end of an essential or logical chain.  

But I also think that there's a tendency to put too much weight on the Five Ways, which were not meant as some kind of indisputable syllogism. They are more like a course syllabus, with each step requiring a huge amount of background knowledge. They certainly aren't meant to be self-evident.

I just basically mean, whatever God is claimed to be, it is something, not nothing.  Though granted that gets a lot harder to conceptualise the way you/the Five Ways are talking about it as logical constructs... the terminators of essential series'... but still, inasmuch as you're claiming that the Five Ways all refer to the same entity (as opposed to different, and separate, terminators, for different series)?, then that suggests to me a 'thing' with at least those five properties... as opposed to several things with one property... and thus a much more complex entity from that point of view, even if you consider it simple. And by 'thing' here I don't mean the contentious 'thing' of chair threads etc, but just something as opposed to nothing... even something immaterial would be something different from nothing, let's term it 'something-not-nothing' going forward for simplicity, under that way of thinking - however right or wrong that is, but that's the only way I can conceptualise it. If somehow you manage to conceptualise it as not-an-entity, as just somehow purely logic or whatever?, I just can't relate to that, and would argue that when most people think of a God they think of an entity of some sort, and as such something-not-nothing.

So what I meant by kicking the can is that we start with the universe as we know it, which is a something-not-nothing in these terms (whether taken as a whole or it's parts, any fallacies of composition notwithstanding), and then propose another something-not-nothing, in this case the entity of God, to explain it's existence... in the sense of the first cause etc... then you still have something that needs an explanation for its existence... and calling it an 'uncaused cause' for instance, even if that's what the logic of essential series demands, doesn't really help answer that question of why, or at least how, there is something not nothing. In other words, it appears to be, from that POV, just another brute fact to be accepted without question.

by basically appealing to the necessity of things in the future (ie the the Five Ways considered a necessary explanation for the universe as we know it... and I might add, a very human-centric view of that universe, which not everyone agrees with), to explain the presence of things in the past. 

I think I don't understand either part of this. In what way do the Five Ways ask us to believe something about the future? In what way are they human-centered? Of course not everyone agrees with them, that's clear.

Well granted this is a tricky one... basically depends on how you define God; if you consider it something that existed prior to the creation of the universe. I know there's nuance to the Five Ways that makes it perhaps not that simple in your eyes, but to whatever extent you consider god to have existed prior to the creation of the universe, it becomes in the sense I was talking about it, something that exists in the past (prior) used to explain the necessity of something in the future (ie post-creation), and therefore felt like it was kicking the can in the opposite direction in a sense. If somehow you can conceptualise God and his creation coming into existence at the same time somehow, like a big bang that includes god, then again that's something else, but not how I was conceptualising it.

As to the human-centric part, that's perhaps coming from a little bit of conflation with Christianity (as opposed to the Five Ways which doesn't imply any particular religion), so I guess, withdrawn. Ie Christianity puts humanity at the centre of the cosmos, as the sole purpose really of it's existence, but that's a discussion for another time, maybe.

necessity of the Five Ways to this bigger question of why/how God came to be/always existed, if you indeed do.

Well, the Five Ways are just one sort of shorthand summary of an enormous system. And personally I've never felt they're the most important part. I suspect that modern people point to them because they seem like they ought to be easy to deal with. 

Obviously Thomas thought that God has no beginning and no end, and that this is part of what it is to be a necessary being. 

But I may not be getting your point properly, so I'll be happy to try again if I've missed it.

So yeah, it was basically that 'no beginning' aspect I was referring to... that even if it's required of the logic (of a necessary this that or the other), still doesn't speak to why or at least how, something exists rather than nothing, as I said above. So therefore, from that point of view it appears to just 'kick the can' from the brute fact of the universe's existence to the (alleged) brute fact of God's existence, as a necessary being for the creation of the universe, with the latter requiring more assumptions/speculation and thus being a less parsimonious and therefore less satisfactory, explanation, from my POV. But to each their own.

[emjay]

@Belacqua

I wonder if you could at least answer poly's question regarding how a Five Ways type God, if it were true, would be any less a brute fact requiring no further explanation than that which it attempts to explain... ie why it's not just 'kicking the can' further back so to speak. As, though most of what he says is clearly way above my pay grade, that particular issue is one of my biggest issues with the five ways. Ie I understand that it has more explanatory power for people like you and Neo, who want/need that, in explaining the little bubble of reality we all find ourselves in... and in that sense you may (or may not) indeed see it as kicking the can, but to a more comfortable place... but it still doesn't appear to even address the question 'why/how something rather than nothing?'... because it still asks us to believe that a complex and infinitely powerful being has always existed, just because, with no further explanation required, inside or outside our universe (however you want to define it).

And in addition to this at this point it almost feels like the can gets kicked in the opposite direction, by basically appealing to the necessity of things in the future (ie the the Five Ways considered a necessary explanation for the universe as we know it... and I might add, a very human-centric view of that universe, which not everyone agrees with), to explain the presence of things in the past. Though granted I may have misunderstood you there (and/or elsewhere) so I'm very curious how you would answer these questions and how you would relate the (granted, disputed) necessity of the Five Ways to this bigger question of why/how God came to be/always existed, if you indeed do.

The 5W are, in the tradition of all classical philosophy, mostly about identifying and describing the most fundamental priniples of the world. Some here think physics is most fundamental and mathematics contingent on that. (Yes, I used the word contingent dispite some otherwise intelligent people finding themselves perplexed by ordinary everyday concepts.) The 5W demonstrate that the sensible world is not fundamental. There is a layer below that is known by the intellect.

Well this is still an open question for me, pending better understanding of the Five Ways, though granted it's most likely I'll fall on poly's side of this, but regardless, I don't think it much affects what I was saying to Belacqua, as Angrboda pointed out in different words (well maybe, maybe not... but it feels like it relates); whatever is fundamental, beit the sensible world or something else, is still something (ie something-not-nothing).

Regardless of whether you're addressing me, or someone else with that sarky comment, I agree with poly that there is indeed a lot of conflation possible/evident when talking about things like 'contingent', 'necessary', and even 'being'... in these contexts... and that indeed was what I hoped to clarify when I first expressed an interest in all this.

[vulcanlogician]

Jung was careful to differentiate what he called the psyche (Psyche in his German) from the soul (seele). I suspect he revived the earlier Greek word (with a new meaning) to specify its difference from the more common German seele.

What he called the psyche included the whole set of processes, conscious as well as unconscious. What he called soul was more like personality, or a function complex. It was less than the whole psyche.

And yet another "soul concept" is present in Jung's model: the anima (Latin for soul)... which, particularly in men, represents our sense of soul, our feminine self, an intermediary symbol that greatly influences our unconscious. It seemed Jung used many soul concepts to help him describe the goings-on of our inner world. But when he describes the whole mental system as "psyche" including inner drives, capacity for reason, the whole shebang... I think his use of the word equates soul with mind. Jung was heavily influenced by Nietzsche.

All that aside, philosophers have tended to equate mind and soul due to Descartes influence. I'm following in that tradition. It might differ somewhat from Plato's conceptions, but not entirely. There are similarities between the Platonic soul and the Cartesian soul.

Plato had no concept of an unconscious mind. For him, mind is thinking consciously. 

As you say, he did think we might have memories from before we were born which could come to the surface, but there was nothing like the active, ongoing, affective unconscious of Freud or Jung. 

There are hints of an unconscious mind as early as Plotinus, and Paracelsus thought we might be perceiving things which we weren't aware that we were perceiving. But the term was coined in the 19th century by Schelling (Unbewusste), and translated as "unconscious mind" by Coleridge. 

So I'm not sure how Plato's ψυχή resembles Jung's, except in name. They are structured and function entirely differently. 

True that Plato didn't elaborate on the unconscious, but nonetheless I've always been intrigued by the similarities between Freud and Plato. Both had three-parted models to describe our inner world. There is no 1:1 reduction between the two, but similar dichotomies are present in both. Both models have a rational ego trying to manage urges that spring from the body. Jung's model differed from Freud's, sure. But one cannot deny Freud's influence on Jung.

The thing about Freud and Jung were, they were both trying to identify the cause of neurosis, and this makes their descriptive models themselves somewhat neurotic. (Freud more than Jung, to be sure.) Jung saw the ego as "in orbit" around the greater psyche. Jung's method involved introspection, peering into the unconscious and identifying which symbols the Self was using to communicate with the ego. Through a process of individuation, one might come to understand impediments to the general psyche, and ego functioning. Because Jung had this goal in mind, his method of observing the psyche was slightly biased to include the symbols that help untangle neuroses. Hence Jung's model is somewhat neurotic itself. I don't think we even need to go into how Freud's model is neurotic. I mean, yeah.

In any case, it's interesting to analyze how much early thinkers like Plato and Plotinus described (or didn't describe) an unconscious mind. At first thought I want to say that Plato broached the subject, but, yeah. You are correct to say he mostly tried to understand the conscious mind.

So, in conclusion I want to say that each thinker had his particular take on the soul/psyche. But ultimately, Jung, Freud, and Plato were (more or less) understanding the same phenomenon. Going forward, I'm going to keep "conflating" soul and mind in a quasi-Cartesian way. It's just how I roll. I may be somewhat in error to do this, but I think I'm not too far off the mark. I'll address errors on a case-by-case basis. But as far as I define it, soul is (more-or-less) the same thing as mind.

[Belacqua]

he considers himself curious in a way that atheists/physicalists are not... to go beyond the brute facts of nature. And/or a different type of existential curiosity/angst, about purpose etc. Basically by 'want/need' I meant of a certain type of answers... that scientific enquiry cannot give

Yes, certainly. Curiosity is good. And I think we all agree that there are lots of answers science can't give, about lots of fields. 

... by definition almost, if it's considering the 'immaterial'/'transcendental'. Where in contrast, many athieists, myself included are less comfortable with speculation into the unknown and unknowable. And where you may think it is knowable, through logic, (eg the Five Ways etc), that remains an open question for me.

"Comfortable" seems like a good word here. It's about what we feel good doing. 

I agree that most of what we talk about remains an open question. Whether we can even, in theory, close the question is itself a question. If that makes some people want to leave it alone, I understand. 

Though I should probably not have brought Neo into this... but since you two often seem to agree I assumed you might think alike on this question... so apologies to either of you if you think that was an unfair conclusion to draw.

Neo knows a lot, and I respect his approach here. He never pretends to know more than he does, he never writes out-of-the-blue objections just to have a fight with people, he never claims unwarranted certainty. Most importantly, he can talk about these things without being insulting or vulgar. To me, how we behave on these forums is more immediately important than the topics we discuss -- metaphysics isn't likely to change our daily lives, but ethical behavior is something we develop only through practicing it. 

Just out of interest though, are you leaning Christianity, Abrahamic religions in general, or is the Five Ways as far you've got in your thinking?

Is "leaning" a typo for "learning"? Or is it a question about which way I'm inclined?

I find beauty and wisdom in the Abrahamic religions. The Five Ways are about the least interesting part of theology, as far as I'm concerned. I talk about them because other people keep bringing them up. 

William Blake or Martin Buber or Simone Weil are vastly more inspiring. 

But I'm learning different things. I just finished reading a book on Aristotle. Before that I read a book on the role of holy eccentrics in Confucianism. 

then that suggests to me a 'thing' with at least those five properties... as opposed to several things with one property... and thus a much more complex entity from that point of view

I see what you mean. Yes, the various ways of looking make it appear complex. As far as I know, all classical theology takes Divine Simplicity as a given. Because human beings can't see the entirety, we approach the issue in different ways, which give the impression that there are different parts of God. 

not-an-entity, as just somehow purely logic or whatever?, I just can't relate to that, and would argue that when most people think of a God they think of an entity of some sort, and as such something-not-nothing.

In classical theology, God is intelligible but not sensible. That is, known through the mind not the senses. This is why I say God is more like a number than like bigfoot. (Although the analogy with numbers, like all analogies, has its limits.) God is more like a principle than a physical object. More like the Good itself than a good person.

As for what most people think of God, this is not really interesting to me, unless it's in a sociological way. Most people think that Dan Brown and Stephen King are good literature, but that doesn't mean I have to pay attention to that. 

and calling it an 'uncaused cause' for instance, even if that's what the logic of essential series demands, doesn't really help answer that question of why, or at least how, there is something not nothing. In other words, it appears to be, from that POV, just another brute fact to be accepted without question.

Well, theology wants to show that since there is, obviously, something, that we can explain the existence of all that something through positing an intelligible eternal non-physical necessary something that has to be in order for the sensible stuff to be. They would claim that it isn't kicking the can down the road because it is the final explanation for things that science can't explain.

I understand that nobody here will accept that. 

how you define God; if you consider it something that existed prior to the creation of the universe. 

Augustine argued that it doesn't make sense to talk about a time prior to the beginning of time. If time begins, then there is no "before" time. God is the cause of time, but it doesn't make sense to talk about him existing "before" time. 

I've always wondered if the Rev. Lemaître knew Augustine's argument about time when he first came up with the idea of the Big Bang. 

Also there is some question about whether intelligible objects (e.g. numbers) require time for their existence. But I'm not going to start that argument up again.

Aristotle believed that the universe was eternal. Thomas agreed that evidence and logic can't demonstrate a beginning, but if Christians believe in one it's due to revelation. 

And as has been pointed out, the Five Ways are not arguments about temporal beginning points. Whether the universe had a temporal beginning or not is completely irrelevant to the Five Ways. 

The word "cause" in Aristotle and Thomas has a wider meaning than the modern term, which they would call "efficient cause." No matter how many times this fact gets typed out on this forum, people immediately go back to talking as if the Five Ways only address efficient cause. Then people bring up certain quantum events which seem not to have an efficient cause, as if that's a relevant argument, and that's when I leave the discussion, because I can see everybody's talking about irrelevant stuff. 

But the whole thing is very difficult. The Five Ways are far harder to get a handle on than some people think. To do them justice would require far more work than most of us are willing to put in.

---

the similarities between Freud and Plato

One thing to keep in mind is that after Lessing and Goethe, education in German-language countries gave enormous weight to Greek thought. It's no coincidence that the Three Big Guys -- Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche, all rooted their thought in ancient Greece.

[emjay]

Though I should probably not have brought Neo into this... but since you two often seem to agree I assumed you might think alike on this question... so apologies to either of you if you think that was an unfair conclusion to draw.

Neo knows a lot, and I respect his approach here. He never pretends to know more than he does, he never writes out-of-the-blue objections just to have a fight with people, he never claims unwarranted certainty. Most importantly, he can talk about these things without being insulting or vulgar. To me, how we behave on these forums is more immediately important than the topics we discuss -- metaphysics isn't likely to change our daily lives, but ethical behavior is something we develop only through practicing it. 

I'll get to the rest later but for now I'll just ask, of the italic-ed, are you referring to me here? As I'm aware that most of my posts will indeed be perceived as out-of-the-blue, simply because I rarely post, and I read a lot more than I post. And for the record I was not trying to pick a fight, just ask a question.

[Belacqua]

Neo knows a lot, and I respect his approach here. He never pretends to know more than he does, he never writes out-of-the-blue objections just to have a fight with people, he never claims unwarranted certainty. Most importantly, he can talk about these things without being insulting or vulgar. To me, how we behave on these forums is more immediately important than the topics we discuss -- metaphysics isn't likely to change our daily lives, but ethical behavior is something we develop only through practicing it. 

I'll get to the rest later but for now I'll just ask, of the italic-ed, are you referring to me here?

Not at all! I always appreciate that you are sincere and respectful. I hope I give your posts the attention they deserve. 

There are people who like to pick fights, but it's no trouble to ignore them.