Your position on naturalism

[Ignorant]

This all sounds very Platonic, the idea that every instance of something owes its existence to the pure, genuine thing which is not an instance but the pure form itself.  I've never found Plato very convincing in this.

But it is also Aristotelian, in that every instance of something IS the "pure form" (i.e. the nature IS the form) on its way to perfection.

"Being", on the other hand, is not a "form" like human nature. "Being" is the most fundamental act any form can do if it is doing anything at all... to be.

The act-of-being is Platonic in the sense that every instance participates in it as "pure being". Things themselves are Aristotelian in that every instance IS the pure-form, participating in pure-being, on its way to completion.

I hold to a sort of synthesis of Platonism and Aristotelianism, made famous by Thomas Aquinas. Talking on this forum helps me identify the aspects that can be better articulated.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

May I ask a question? Suppose there is no positive way to determine that something we've encountered IS being-itself. 

This is what I'm most curious about.  Does this concept of being-itself have any validity outside of the humanistic mindset?  Does reality conform to our thought processes?

Would that make my view of the world, as presented earlier, inconsistent/inadequate/etc.?

No, sir.  Your beliefs represent one of many ways to interpret reality; they also make you unique. Hence, IMO, it is not my place to tell anyone what is inconsistent, inadequate, meaningful, etc.

With that said, I have enjoyed reading your posts and learning from you.  IMO, you're a very good thinker.

P.S.  I apologize If I have come off as highly inquisitive.  Unfortunately, I am a man who has many questions but not many answers.  

[Ignorant]

May I ask a question? Suppose there is no positive way to determine that something we've encountered IS being-itself. 

This is what I'm most curious about.  Does this concept of being-itself have any validity outside of the humanistic mindset? [1] Does reality conform to our thought processes? [2]

P.S.  I apologize If I have come off as highly inquisitive.  Unfortunately, I am a man who has many questions but not many answers.  [3]

1) Certainly. If humans go extinct, being-itself would continue to-be.

2) Certainly not! Instead, we must seek to conform our thought processes to reality. What I have described in this thread ultimately derives from observation, even if I seem to present it as an a priori conclusion. The thread basically asked if we hold to a sort of super-naturalism as opposed to naturalism/materialism. I hold to neither, and have tried to describe my view (and not necessarily the arguments which lead to such a view).

3) No apologies necessary! Questions are quite welcome.

[bennyboy]

2) Certainly not! Instead, we must seek to conform our thought processes to reality. What I have described in this thread ultimately derives from observation, even if I seem to present it as an a priori conclusion. The thread basically asked if we hold to a sort of super-naturalism as opposed to naturalism/materialism. I hold to neither, and have tried to describe my view (and not necessarily the arguments which lead to such a view).

It's a bit semantic-- you can define "natural" in a lot of ways. I think I'd argue that if nature is defined as the material universe, mind itself could be seen as supernatural. That's because while qualia may have physical correlates, even 100% correlates, the nature of experience itself cannot be said to be material. The "redness" I experience is neither a thing nor a property of a thing.

It seems that you are a catholic mystic to a certain degree. To what degree are you a literalist about the Bible, may I ask? Do you take the resurrection literally? The miracles? Or do you take these as a kind of Dan Brownian symbolism, or what?

[Whateverist]

This all sounds very Platonic, the idea that every instance of something owes its existence to the pure, genuine thing which is not an instance but the pure form itself.  I've never found Plato very convincing in this.

But it is also Aristotelian, in that every instance of something IS the "pure form" (i.e. the nature IS the form) on its way to perfection.

"Being", on the other hand, is not a "form" like human nature. "Being" is the most fundamental act any form can do if it is doing anything at all... to be.

The act-of-being is Platonic in the sense that every instance participates in it as "pure being". Things themselves are Aristotelian in that every instance IS the pure-form, participating in pure-being, on its way to completion.

I hold to a sort of synthesis of Platonism and Aristotelianism, made famous by Thomas Aquinas. Talking on this forum helps me identify the aspects that can be better articulated.

It may seem odd coming from an undergraduate philosophy major, but this kind of analysis doesn't mean anything to me.

"We be" is an indisputable statement.  But just because that describes us doesn't mean we are in any position to say how things stand.  We define a few terms and that confuses us into thinking we know something about their 'essence'.  I seriously question that we're qualified for this kind of thinking.  Feels like a waste of time to me.

[Ignorant]

It's a bit semantic-- you can define "natural" in a lot of ways.  I think I'd argue that if nature is defined as the material universe, mind itself could be seen as supernatural.  That's because while qualia may have physical correlates, even 100% correlates, the nature of experience itself cannot be said to be material.  The "redness" I experience is neither a thing nor a property of a thing. [1]

It seems that you are a catholic mystic to a certain degree. To what degree are you a literalist about the Bible, may I ask? [2] Do you take the resurrection literally? [3] The miracles? [4] Or do you take these as a kind of Dan Brownian symbolism, or what? [5]

1) This is fair, I think.

2) I try to read the bible, as my faith tradition teaches, according to the intention of the author. I don't think every word, narrative, "history" was meant in the literal sense with which we moderns tend to read texts. Some things in the bible are meant literally. Others are not. I try to understand the literal things literally and the other things according to their genre. I am probably not perfect in this attempt, but I keep trying.

3) Yes.

4) Yes, even while I recognize that some of the details of individual miracles may not be a perfect record of the original event.

5) No. I think that Jesus really lived in 1st century Palestine, and he went around actually curing lepers, giving sight to the blind, raising people from the dead, making the lame walk, etc.

---

It may seem odd coming from an undergraduate philosophy major, but this kind of analysis doesn't mean anything to me. [1]

"We be" is an indisputable statement.  But just because that describes us doesn't mean we are in any position to say how things stand. [2] We define a few terms and that confuses us into thinking we know something about their 'essence'. [3] I seriously question that we're qualified for this kind of thinking.  Feels like a waste of time to me. [4]

1) Fair enough  !

2) Well, doesn't it mean we are AT LEAST in a position to say how WE stand?

3) Ahhh, here is an important point. Just because we assign a rudimentary definition to an "essence" DOES NOT MEAN that we know much at all about that essence. All we can adequately say is that things have one. Getting at what that essence is in-itself is a much more difficult enterprise.

4) Maybe we are qualified, but we just aren't very good at it? I don't know if it's a waste of time. If saying things like "human nature" or "the common good" or "god exists/DNE", etc. are to have any contribution to public discourse, it seems like a good understanding of the terms involved and how they fit into your view of reality can help move a conversation in a helpful direction. But that's just me.