Intro to Metaphysics Part 3

 

                                      

                            

                                Plato and his student Aristotle.

                                                   

                                           Part 3

                                 Actuality and Potentiality

(I think that I may have forgotten to mention that I have been and will continue to rely heavily on the American philosopher Edward C. Feser.)

For Aristotle as for Plato, universals or forms are real, and they are not reducible to anything either material or mental. Still, he thinks it is an error to regard them as objects existing in a “third realm” of their own. Rather, considered as they are in themselves they exist only “in” the things they are the forms of; and considered as abstractions from these things, they exist only in the intellect. Furthermore even the intellect rely on the senses in coming to know them.

A. Actuality and potentiality

Contra Parmenides who said that change is impossible because something can’t come from nothing, but that nothing was the only thing that something new could come from, since the only thing there is other than what already exists (i.e. being) is non-being or nothing.

Aristotle’s reply is that while it is true that something can’t come from nothing, it is false to suppose that nothing or non-being is the only possible candidate for a source of change.

Take a blue rubber ball for instance.

It can be solid, round, blue, and bouncy. (Different aspects of its being)

There are ways it is not: square and red, for example; it is not a dog or other things.

But the ball is potentially is: red (if you paint it), soft and gooey (if you melt it), a miniature globe (if you draw little continents on it), and so forth.

So being and non-being aren’t the only relevant factors here; there are also a thing’s various potentialities.

On Conscience

(Notes taken while reading ON CONSCIENCE by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Ignatius

 Conscience, the highest norm that man is to follow even in opposition to authority. If this were the case, it would mean that there is no truth, at least not in moral and religious matters.

One must follow a certain conscience or at least not act against it.

Some would argue that we should be grateful to God that He allows so many unbelievers in good conscience. For if their eyes were opened and they became believers, they would not be capable, in this world of ours, of bearing the burden of faith with all its moral obligations. But as it is, since they can go another way in good conscience, they can still reach salvation.

According to this view, faith would not make salvation easier but harder. Being happy would mean not being burdened with having to believe or having to submit to the moral yoke of the faith of the Catholic Church. The erroneous conscience, which makes life easier and marks a more human course, would then be the real grace, the normal way to salvation. Untruth, keeping truth at bay, would be better for man than truth.  

If this were the state of affairs, how could faith give rise to joy? Who would have the courage to pass faith on others? Would it not be better to spare them the truth or even keep them from it?

Is conscience subjectivity’s protective shell, into which man can escape and hide from reality?

Conscience is a window through which one can see outward to that common truth that finds and sustains all, and so makes possible through the common recognition of truth the community of wants and responsibilities.

Conscience is man’s openness to the ground of his being, the power of perception for what is highest and most essential.

The liberal idea of conscience dispenses with truth. It becomes the justification of our subjectivity, which would not like to have itself called into question. Similarly, it becomes the justification for social conformity. As mediating value between the different subjectivities, social conformity is intended to make living together possible. The obligation to seek the truth terminates as do any doubts about the general inclination of society and what it has become accustomed to. Being convinced  of oneself, as well as conforming to others, is sufficient. Man is reduced to his superficial conviction, and the less depth he has, the better for him.

The Nazi SS would be justified and we should seek them in heaven, since they carried out all their atrocities with fanatic conviction and complete certainty of conscience. Since they followed their (albeit mistaken) consciences, one would have to recognize their conduct as moral and as a result, should not doubt their eternal salvation.

That is the  justifying power of the subjective conscience. Firm, subjective conviction and the lack of doubts and scruples that follow from it do not justify man.

To identify my conscience with the “I,” with its subjective certainty about itself and its moral behavior would make my conscience a mere reflection of the social surroundings and the opinions in circulation. On the other hand, this consciousness might also derive from a lack of self-criticism, a deficiency in listening to the depths of one’s own soul.

The identification of conscience with superficial consciousness, the reduction of man to his subjectivity, does not liberate but enslaves.

Whoever equates conscience with superficial conviction identifies conscience with a pseudo-rational certainty, a certainty that in fact has been woven from self-righteousness, conformity, and lethargy. 

Intro to Metaphysics Part 2

 

Aristotle Metaphysics

Part 2

Realism

 

          You might think that Plato has gone off the rail a bit; Aristotle certainly thought so.

Although something like Plato’s theory is very hard to avoid.

 Universals

          Over and above this or that particular triangle, we have the universal “triangularity”; over and above this or that particular human being, we have the universal “humanness”; over and above this or that particular red thing, we have the universal “redness”; in general, each particular thing seems to instantiate or exemplify various universal features. The particular things are unique and non-repeatable, but the features they exemplify (e.g. “humanness”) are repeatable and common to many things, hence “universal’.

 Numbers and other mathematical entities.

          Numbers are not physical objects: the numeral “2” isn’t the number 2 any more than the name “George” is the same thing as the man George.

 Numbers are not purely mental: we discover them rather than invent them. They are in someway “out there” waiting for us to find them and thus cannot depend for their truth on our thinking about them.

They are necessary truths rather than contingent ones.

To know that 2+2=4 is to know a necessary truth, one that could not have been otherwise. It would remain true even if the entire universe collapsed in on itself.

 Propositions.

          Statements about the world, whether true or false, which are distinct from the sentences that express them. “John is a bachelor” and “John is an unmarried man” are different sentences, but they express the same proposition. When Socrates and Ben Gallant think that snow is white, they are thinking exactly the same thing, despite the fact that one of them expresses this thought in Greek in the Athens of the 5^th century B.C., and the other in English in 21^st century Canada.

Being different from any sentence, or indeed from any other sequence of physical sounds or shapes we might use to express them, propositions are in some sense distinct from the material world. But since a proposition is either true or false whether or not we happen to be entertaining it—again, 2+2=4 would be still be true even if we forgot this tomorrow, 2+2=5 would be false even if we all came to believe it, and snow was white long before anyone first saw it—it seems to follow that propositions are also independent of any mind.

 

          The  view that universals, numbers, and/or propositions exist objectively, apart from the human mind and distinct from any material or physical features of the world, is called realism.

It can seem at first glance to be very dry, esoteric, and irrelevant to practical life. But nothing could be further from the truth, as we shall see.

 

Intro to Metaphysics Part 1

  The study of reality and existence is metaphysics, named from a set of books written by Aristotle asking what is being, what are first causes, and what is change. It studies what we are and what our purpose is, seeking knowledge about everything from the nature of the entire universe to that of he human mind.

Starting with Plato I think will make it much easier to understand the theories of his student Aristotle, later on.

Plato wanted to understand the relationship between the material and immaterial realms, the one and the many, change and permanence and the proper role of both senses and the intellect in coming to know them. He sought to demonstrate that objective knowledge about all these things, and not mere opinion, was possible. This is enshrine in his famous theory of Forms.

(For a fine introduction to Plato’s thought in general and his Theory of Forms in particular, see David Melling, Understanding Plato (Oxford University Press, 1987)

 

What is a “Form”?

Consider several triangles; on paper, on chalkboard, on sand, on the pc screen, small, large, red, black.

The essence or nature of a triangle is a closed plane figure with three straight sides.

The features of a triangle has nothing to do with ‘triangularity” as such.

Every particular physical or material triangle—the sort of triangle we know through the senses, and indeed the only sort we can know through the senses—is always going to have features that are simply not part of the essence of nature of triangularity per se, and is always going to lack features that are part of the essence or nature of triangularity.

Plato would say that when we grasp the nature of being a triangle, what we grasp is not something material or physical, and not something we grasp or could grasp through the senses.

Material triangles come and go but triangularity stays the same.

The essential features of triangles would remain true even if every particular material triangle were erased tomorrow.

What we know when we know the essence of triangularity is something universal rather than particular, something immaterial rather than material, an something we know through the intellect rather than senses.

 

What we know is an objective fact that we have discovered, not invented. It is not up to us to decide what the feature of a triangle should be. If the Canadian parliament should declare that  triangles should sometimes regarded has having four sides, it would cast doubt on the sanity of the parliamentarians. The Pythagorean theorems were true long before we discovered them and will remain true long after we’re all dead.

 

          Now if the essence of triangularity is something neither material nor mental—that is to say, something that exists neither in the material world nor merely in the human mind—then it has a unique kind of existence all its own, that of an abstract object existing in what Platonists sometimes call a “third realm.” And what is true, of the essences of triangles is no less, true in Plato’s view, of the essences of pretty much everything; of squares, circles, and other geometrical figures, but also (and more interestingly) of human beings, tables and chairs, dogs, cats, justice, beauty, goodness, and so on and on.

          When we grasp the essence of any of these things, we grasp something that is universal, immaterial, extra-mental, and known via the intellect rather than senses, and is thus a denizen of this “third realm”. What we grasp, in short, is a Form.

          The Forms not being material cannot exist in a spatial location. Plato’s whole point is that the Theory of Forms, if correct, proves that there is more to reality than the world of time and space. As Plato sees it our senses are not the only sources of knowledge of reality; for the highest level of reality is knowable only through the intellect.

In general, the world of material things is merely a faint copy of re realm of the Forms. Particular things an events are what they are only by “participating in,” or “instantiating” the Forms.

Fido is a dog because it participates in the Form of dog.

Paying your phone bill is a just action because it participates in the Form of Justice.

These individual exemplars are all imperfect in various ways.

The Forms are perfect, being the archetypes or standards by reference to which we judge something to be a dog or just action, etc.

Individual things come and go; the Forms, being outside of time and space, are eternal and unchanging.

The Forms are more real that the material things that exemplify them.

A shadow or reflection won’t exist at all unless a physical object casts it, while the object will exist whether or not its shadow or image does. By the same token, the physical objects themselves exist only insofar as they participates in the Forms, while the Forms would exist whether or not the particular physical instantiations did.

 

My view on politics

 I do not like “one person one vote” which seems to be the sacrosanct democratic principle.

Why? Because this way of choosing a leader will always result to the least common denominator or representative. Someone put it very nicely:  What is more important in any voting system - the means or the end? If the process leads to sub-optimal outcomes, should we still fight tooth and nail to preserve this process?

The only time we ask for everybody’s opinion an insist on it, is when we choose our leaders. Now leaving aside the gerrymandering and the many other possible political manoeuvring trying to beat the one person one vote system, why would we ask everybody, even those who have no idea what the idea of leadership is all about, to chose our leaders? In any other circumstances when a choice has to be made, be it building something, buying something, etc., we consult experts in the matter before we make a decision. So why pretend that everyone is an expert when it comes to leadership? 

My problem however is that there does not seem to be any reasonable alternative.

The only positive I can see with the system we have is that, hopefully, having more than one political party seeking election, they can keep each other in check when one is in the power seat. A very important factor indeed is the reporters, always questioning and investigating, keeping a close look at the politicians’ moves.

You might have guessed by now that my allegiance is to conservative principles. If one googles ‘conservatism’ one is bombarded by many, many descriptions of many kinds of conservatism. My description is short and to the point, I think. A conservative will if necessary, trim, make sure a tree is well fed and continues to provide for new circumstances. A liberal will uproot the tree and plant another one, for the same purpose.

I never judge the parties by their political names. Before I vote, I closely look at their leader, at his character, at his decisions records. Their platform has to be seriously consider. Because so many people will choose a candidate for so many idiosyncratic reasons, I always feel that my efforts are wasted.

Now on a more personal level. I had at least a dozen books on political matters, books I did my best to learn from for many years. Then one day, I gave them all away and promised myself not to discuss politics anymore. The reason was that I became too emotional, too argumentative, when it came to political matters. It was perhaps due to my lack of knowledge in the matter which made me see everything in black and white instead of shades of grey; I really don’t know.

Interest In Sciences

 

    I have always been interested in the advance of science, an interest I still very much have today. I always found the basics physics fascinating and still do. I try to keep in touch with the latest development in the natural sciences, especially Theoretical Physics and the latest advances in Photonics and Electronics.

Here are a few examples at random; there are so many to chose from.

The coming of quantum computers is pretty exciting.

What about the ability of measuring how long it takes an electron to revolve around its nucleus? Pretty amazing, I would say.

If you are fascinated by space and time as I am, here is a fascinating example on that subject..

One of the main problems in science today is uniting General Relativity and quantum mechanics. There are different approaches to solve the problem.

One is called Superstring Theory which leads to M Theory.

Another one is called Quantum Loop.

A third one is called twistor theory.

Again another is Quantum Group Theory.

The one that I find really interesting is the Non-commutative geometry which is rich in many conceptual possibilities. One such possibility is the idea that the fundamental level of physical reality can be non-local. On that  level there can be no time and no space in their usual sense. How cool is that? (contact me if you are curious about the details).

This is not the place to get over-excited about this subject, something I obviously could do.

     I also developed a great interest in the philosophy of science, the philosophy of mathematics (what is the nature of), the whole question of religion in relation to natural sciences. I keep deepening my knowledge of theology and apologetics. I have no hesitation to mention that the author I admire the most in theology is the holy and genius man called Cardinal Ratzinger who became Pope Benedict XVI, 1927-2022

I have 62 books written by him and a few about him on my shelves.

 

Objective Truth

 If there is no objective truth then whatever a person says is true. This leads to contradictions.

When there is a contradiction, one statement must be false and the other must be true.

John, for instance, is either at home or he is not. If someone says John is at home and another person says John is not home, only one of these statements can be true. Similarly, it is either right or wrong to date your professor who is already married.

Protagoras, a Greek philosopher of the 4th century BC, maintained "man is the measure of all things." Protagoras is saying each individual determines what is true, and nobody else. If I am the "measure", then I determine what is true; I determine what is right and wrong.

In many ways this is the Age of Protagoras. In today's moral climate individuals decide for themselves what is true, and then they decide what the right thing to do is. Our laws function in this manner, and now our schools more and more.

An objective truth or good does not appear to exist any longer; it's only what is "true for me," and what is "right for me.

Objective truth serves to establish norms of moral behaviour whereby a person can say what is right and wrong.

Man is not the measure of all things. Objective truth is the measure.

Objective truth refers to information or statements that correspond to reality independent of individual perspectives, emotions, or biases. It remains constant regardless of who observes or interprets it. The concept finds its roots in logic and empirical evidence, emphasizing the necessity of verifiable and repeatable facts. 

In philosophy, the idea of truth as objective is straightforward: some things will always be true and other will always be false, irrespective of our beliefs or opinions. Our personal convictions have no bearing on the facts of the world around us. That which is true remains true, even if we stop believing it or cease to exist altogether.

Most people, in their daily lives, implicitly act as though they believe in objective truth. We assume that our clothes will still be in the closet in the morning, even though we stopped thinking about them during the night. We expect our keys to be where we left them, even if we don’t actively believe this at the moment. These assumptions are rooted in the idea that things happen independently of our beliefs.

Scientific research also operates under the assumption of objective, independent truths. Scientists make predictions based on theories and then test those predictions. If the tests succeed or fail, it doesn’t matter how many researchers believe in the outcome—the results stand on their own. This process relies on the existence of objective truths that remain unaffected by our subjective beliefs.

While there are logical and pragmatic reasons for assuming that truth is objective, some skeptics challenge this position. Nevertheless, our daily functioning depends on the idea that certain things are objectively true, regardless of our individual perspectives.  So, whether we’re discussing the height of Mount Everest or the length of a banana, objective truth remains a fundamental concept in our understanding of reality.