Posts: 30979
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: Your opinion on the following statement:
January 13, 2015 at 1:04 am
(January 12, 2015 at 11:55 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: The rest of the quote I have goes:
"Hence Empedocles was wrong in saying that many attributes belong to animals because it happened so in their coming to be, for instance that their backbone is such because it happened to get broken by bending."
:-|
Wut.
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: Your opinion on the following statement:
January 13, 2015 at 1:07 am
(This post was last modified: January 13, 2015 at 1:08 am by Alex K.)
@ Cthulhu
I tawt he tawt that empedocles tawt that the vertebrae were created in a lamarckian fashion because a rigid backbone would have been broken again and again.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Your opinion on the following statement:
January 13, 2015 at 1:08 am
(January 13, 2015 at 1:02 am)Alex K Wrote: (January 12, 2015 at 11:55 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: The rest of the quote I have goes:
"Hence Empedocles was wrong in saying that many attributes belong to animals because it happened so in their coming to be, for instance that their backbone is such because it happened to get broken by bending."
:-|
Well this makes it more concrete, so it is very useful context to make *any sense* of the first statement. What we can say for sure is that, indeed, empedocles was wrong here concerning.the details, but more correct than aristoteles: animals are indeed the way they are because "it" (natural selection) happened so in their coming to be. However, I get the feeling that precise meanings of words matter here... Indeed the translators/commentators in "The Presocratic Philosophers" add: "We may rather praise [Empedocles] as the first thinker to see that biology needs both randomness and principles of organization in its exploratory equipment."
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: Your opinion on the following statement:
January 13, 2015 at 1:09 am
@Pickup
I'm so shmart
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Your opinion on the following statement:
January 13, 2015 at 1:14 am
Empedocles was an evolutionist who believed, in the words of Aristotle, that creatures "sprang up many faces without necks, arms wandered without shoulders, unattached, and eyes strayed alone, in need of foreheads," but "Wherever, then, everything turned out as it would have it were happening for a purpose, there the creatures survived, being accidentally compounded in a suitable way; but where this did not happen, the creatures perished and are perishing still.."
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 15351
Threads: 118
Joined: January 13, 2014
Reputation:
117
RE: Your opinion on the following statement:
January 13, 2015 at 1:24 am
Lol. Not gonna lie. I had/have no clue what the OP meant at all.
But my first instinct was to be like, "Yeah. Solid. Aristotle's a pimp."
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: Your opinion on the following statement:
January 13, 2015 at 1:33 am
(This post was last modified: January 13, 2015 at 1:33 am by Alex K.)
Definitely in need of proper foreheads.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 23220
Threads: 26
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
106
RE: Your opinion on the following statement:
January 13, 2015 at 1:46 am
Fuckin' philosophers.
Posts: 5492
Threads: 53
Joined: September 4, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: Your opinion on the following statement:
January 13, 2015 at 2:43 am
(January 12, 2015 at 11:28 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: "Coming to be is for the sake of being, not being for the sake of coming to be." - Aristotle
If he stopped at "Coming to be is for the sake of being", I would just disagree with the notion of intent or design, but then he adds the second part and loses me. Given the scientific tools they had at their disposal, he seems to be making the safe, logical call, so it's funny that he ended up wrong.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a false dichotomy?
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Your opinion on the following statement:
January 13, 2015 at 4:04 am
(This post was last modified: January 13, 2015 at 4:05 am by robvalue.)
Sounds like vague gibberish to me. I *shrug*.
|