/gmt/ - General Metaphysics Thread

[Anonymous No.17562679]

[Discussion thread for Metaphysics from the Early Greeks to the present day]
optional question - was Aquinas' metaphysics superseded by Spinoza's, in your opinion?

discussion on theism, panentheism, pantheism and the like are also welcome :)

[Anonymous No.17562755]

>>17562679
What is /lit/s opinion on the "gods are archetypes" vs "gods are beings" question? Personally I think most if not all of them are too complex to be boiled down to any archetype. For example, Odin is called the All-Father, and yet he encompasses characteristics of the berserk warrior, the jester, the faustian seeker of knowledge, and probably many more.

[Anonymous No.17562891]

>>17562679
What is the appeal of Spinoza?

[Anonymous No.17562907]

>>17562891
He was a very clever man who's literature was life-affirming

[Anonymous No.17562955]

>>17562907
Can you go into greater detail?

[Anonymous No.17562963]

>>17562891
She's a cutie

[Anonymous No.17563004]

>Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.

[Anonymous No.17563023]

>>17563004
Should or must?

[Anonymous No.17563096]

>every action is done out of love
dont know if I agree with thomas here.

[Anonymous No.17563115]

>>17563096
Where is this?

[Anonymous No.17563137]

What are some metaphysical core readings bros?

[Anonymous No.17563137,1]

Answering the optional question: No. Saint Thomas' metaphysics is definitive. It is the perfect reunion of catholic dogma and profane wisdom. I absolutely reject the entirety of modern philosophy, which is almost entirely composed of humanistic ideology and repetition of errors refuted centuries (even millenia) ago.

Just yesterday I was reading an article by an SSPX Priest, Dominique Bourmaud, discussing how german idealism is self contradictory and simply wrong from the correct metaphysical and philosophical standpoint. But what about other modern tendencies? English empiricism and French enlightenment aren't any better to be honest. Modern man urgently needs to rediscover the classical/medieval Philosophy, especially the tenets of Aquinas.

Answering the first question: The classical triad (Socrate, Plato and Aristotle) and the two catholic greats (St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas) are the core of what metaphysics should be. I think it will still take more centuries before another philosopher will reach their level.

[Anonymous No.17563398]

>>17563137
Depends on your leanings. Corpus Hermeticum is definitely up there in any case.

[Anonymous No.17563428]

>>17562679
Transcendent creationist theology has never recovered from pantheism. It only survives among the fearful or uneducated. The more clever theologians attempt panentheism but dualism is still a losing game.

[Anonymous No.17563444]

>>17563428
>theology

Into the trash it goes.

[Anonymous No.17563447]

>>17563428
panentheism?

[Anonymous No.17563478]

>>17563398
Who wrote the corpus hermeticum?

[Anonymous No.17563569]

>>17563478
Why, Hermes the Thrice-Great of course.

[Anonymous No.17563582]

>>17563569
Is that not just a pseudonym?

[Anonymous No.17563634]

>>17563582
Maybe. The goetia probably wasn't written by the actual king Solomon either. It's a good read anyhow.

[Anonymous No.17563689]

>>17563447

[Anonymous No.17563694]

>>17562679
read gilson?

[Anonymous No.17563920]

>>17563634
Is it just fantasy to you, or do you genuinely attempt to summon spirits?

[Anonymous No.17563966]

>>17563920
Genuine

[Anonymous No.17564016]

>>17563966
What do you hold spirits to be?

[Anonymous No.17564320]

>>17563478
Hermes Trismegistus, but, if you want to assign any particular identities, probably a mixture of Egyptian priests, Greek students of various philosophy and some Hellenized Jews, all steeped the various forms of thought that were everywhere in Egypt from Greco-Egyptian religion, the Biblical tradition, Platonism, Stoicism, Philo's thought etc.

[Anonymous No.17564394]

>>17564320
Do you hold it to be more reliable than The Bible?

[Anonymous No.17565519]

>>17564016
Non-corporeal beings. What answer did you expect? As that Alex Jones quote goes
>some are good, some are bad, some are a mix
Only that most of them that have free will are a mix.

[Anonymous No.17565526]

>>17564394
It's a lot shorter than the bible, and in a sense much more technical in its explanation of metaphysics. It's also not blatant propaganda for yhvh and his people. So desu personally yes

[Anonymous No.17565795]

we can all agree that the principle of sufficient reason doesnt hold up right? there MUST be brute facts. because otherwise everything has a reason and everything having a reason has a reason and so on and thats ridiculous.

i guess hegels "logic" is the closest to a system without arbitrary brute facts (though i dont know if it makes sense). but even in that isnt the logic itself a brute fact?

[Anonymous No.17565840]

>>17563689
that's not what "theism" means.

[Anonymous No.17566304]

>>17563428
Unironically why is Panentheism considered heresy in the Church? I know Eriugena argued it but was condemned

[Anonymous No.17566361]

>>17565526
>blatant propaganda for yhvh and his people
???

[Anonymous No.17566546]

>>17566361
What? Do you think the book of the chosen people is something else?

[Anonymous No.17566575]

>>17566546
It's more a collection of mythic tribal lore. You wouldn't call the Greek myths that informed ancient tragedy "blatant propaganda for the Hellenes", would you?

[Anonymous No.17566587]

>>17566575
The hellenes don't go
>we're the absolute best thing on this planet and dashing the heads of trojan babies on rocks is good

[Anonymous No.17566639]

>>17566587
...they did though?

[Anonymous No.17566663]

>>17566639
Maybe I haven't read enough greeks, but the Iliad is very clear in painting a picture where both trojans and achaeans are humans that are caught merely caught up in the tangles of fate and the whims of tje gods, trying to make the best of it. Yes they despise barbarians, but they suck egyptian cock like none other and are aware that they themselves aren't egyptian. The hebrews have no such cock to suck. They suck their own cock.

[Anonymous No.17566676]

>>17566663
I mean athenians in particular really.

[Anonymous No.17566763]

If anyone is interested in medieval Christian philosophy, read the Spirit of Medieval Philosophy by Étienne Gilson.

In the book it lays out the distinction between Greek and Early Christian Theology. How Aristotle's unmoved mover is different from Aquinas' and how generally the implications of divine simplicity have on Christianity and the development of society and history in general.

[Anonymous No.17566809]

>>17565795
Well Leibniz thought there was a reason for everything. But in God there was still nothing that caused Him. However, he still conceded that there was a reason for why God does not need a cause. That is, in his opinion, because he exists by necessity. In other words, the reason that God exists is because he has to. We don't have an infinite chain of reasons here.

[Anonymous No.17566845]

Reminder that Exodus 3:14: "I am who am" is the single greatest contribution to theology.

[Anonymous No.17566859]

>>17566763
pdf anywhere?

[Anonymous No.17566870]

>>17566859
just use libgen like usual

https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=3F87F43164FC7030BBCF8516F232E63E

[Anonymous No.17566876]

>>17566870
thanks fren

[Anonymous No.17566947]

>>17566546
You should do a bible study to get a better understanding of the book you are posting about.

[Anonymous No.17567024]

>>17562755
Well what exactly is an Archetype and why should it be regarded differently from actual deity?

[Anonymous No.17567032]

I just got a copy of Philo of Alexandria's complete works. Which of his works is best to read regarding his metaphysics?

[Anonymous No.17567038]

>>17563689
I read a basic thomist argument against pantheism. The universe is a mixture of actuality and potentiality. God must necessarily be pure actuality. Therefore the universe cannot be God

[Anonymous No.17567061]

>>17563694
Gilson is pretty cool

[Anonymous No.17567096]

>>17567038
True. Divine simplicity really just destroys any argument for pantheism. Here is a general argument.

God is the first principle and cause of all that is contingent.
A pantheist God would imply that God is composite
If God is composite it implies that there is something prior and independent of God's existence. (the whole is dependent on its parts)
Since nothing can be prior or independent of God, God cannot be composite.
Therefore, God cannot be a pantheist or composite God.

[Anonymous No.17567108]

>>17567096
What if we take a Hindu route and say things like change and the universe are only illusions? Does that circumvent the problem?

[Anonymous No.17567135]

>>17567108
I'm not really aware of anything related to Eastern Philosophy. Is there a line of reasoning of why they think change and the universe are illusions?

[Anonymous No.17567158]

>>17567135
Shit I can't really remember. I'll have to look into it

[Anonymous No.17567211]

>>17566809
okay but is the reason that neccesitates god neccesitated? what is it neccesitated by? logic? is logic neccesitated by anything? isnt logic a brute fact? logic neccesitate that it be real or that reality has to abide by it.

[Anonymous No.17567236]

>>17564394
It complements the it, the authors of the first and third tractates straight up were familiar with Genesis (via the Septuagint), I personally suspect the author of the third tractate was himself a Hellenized Jew. So I personally couple it with the Hebrew Bible along with the other Hermetica.

[Anonymous No.17567245]

>>17567211
I think some would say that logic is dependent on God and the source of all reasons and truths come from Him. God would be the "brute" fact not the PSR or logic.

For example, The Law of Conservation of Mass is not dependent on science's discovery. It still existed before we discovered it. Same with God. Logic "discovered or proves" God, but God is not necessarily dependent on the human use of Logic.

Hence, saying that there is a reason for God does not imply that it is prior to him. It's just our tool for our discovery or proof of Him. Same with any other scientific discovery.

[Anonymous No.17567248]

>>17567236
*complements it

[Anonymous No.17567256]

>>17567248
*compliments
Fuck.

[Anonymous No.17567261]

>>17563137
If you can deal with dense terminology, "metaphysics: the fundimentals" by rob koons is good. There's fesers stuff, but desu, I think that after a little bit he's just kinda retarded. There's also "real essentialism" by odderberg.
If you want to get in to aquinas, this list is pretty good
on the principles of nature
De ente et essentia
summa contra gentiles

If you want to get in to scotus, well, good luck. Reading scotus is almost impossible. However, there are some excellent excellent secondary sources on him. The books of alan b wolter are especially good. He's incredibly clear, deep, and well considered. Get his book on scotus view of the transcendentals, and "duns scotus, metaphysician". He's really intelligent.

This got a little out of hand.

[Anonymous No.17567266]

>>17563694
Kinda mediocre. His intellectual history is mildly interesting, but other then that I've never got much out of him.

[Anonymous No.17567270]

>>17567266
boo

[Anonymous No.17567277]

>>17565795
I would just be a voluntarist about things like the psr. God can choose which metaphysical principles to create/design.

[Anonymous No.17567303]

>>17567270
Check the other list of stuff I posted. I've found it all much more useful(to the extent that I've been able comprehend it). That's the list a few posts up.

[Anonymous No.17567355]

>>17567245
I actually think this is a decent way to think about it. I think things like logic and necessity are dependent on Gods choice of creating them. "but what's Gods sufficient reason?" The point here is that is metaphysically prior to things like sufficient reason. He's also prior to brutness. He's literally incomprehensible in a way that is totally prior to our understanding. This is a very dionysian line to take. "the only name properly predicated of God is total incomprehensibility."

[Anonymous No.17567465]

>>17567277
What do you think of the claim that this world is the best possible world? I remember reading in Gilson's book on Aquinas that Thomism would reject that claim, but I couldn't really follow why. I thought the argument that God's omnipotence should viewed in a conservative way would mesh well with the idea that this world is the best possible world.

[Anonymous No.17567545]

>>17567465
I don't think the "best of all possible worlds" is a coherent idea.

[Anonymous No.17567559]

>>17567545
Why?

[Anonymous No.17567644]

>>17567559
Because it's going to be arbitrary regardless of how it's cashed out. Is the best possible world one with one person experiencing eternal bliss, or two. Is it a complex history full of love and strife? why not a little more love or a little more strife? It's going to be arbitrary on some level, so a "best of all possible worlds" just seems like arbitrary nonsense.

[Anonymous No.17567653]

>>17567644
Shouldnt the best possible world maximize being for all its parts?

[Anonymous No.17567669]

>>17567653
There are a full infinite number of worlds that could include, also, it could be that there are sufficient reasons for not allowing that to occur like free choice on the part of participants.

[Anonymous No.17567700]

>>17567669
But free choice would in that case would make it ultimately a better world than one without. Suffering is necessary to some degree because the creation will always lack the total Being of the pure actualizer. But, this is really just consistent with my view that the conservative view of omnipotence lends to the idea that this is the best possible world.

[Anonymous No.17567708]

>>17563023
ought

[Anonymous No.17567717]

>>17567700
I just don't think there's a metric of best. You could have a world that just had God and no one else, and it would be perfectly good. You could have one with a million saints and that would also be perfectly good. There may be different flavors of perfect goodness, but it's there regardless.