On today's program, the discussion centers around various works of art and artists, the role of such in society, and how such relates to current and future affairs, religious devotion, and the craft of artistry as applied to writing.  

Most of our conversation is consumed by discussing our own works of fiction, and exploring sundry points of philosophy therein.

*Moore's law observes and predicts that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit will double every two years.

*Dune is written by Frank Herbert, not George Herbert.

According to Duns Scotus, being itself possesses a sort of univocity, or oneness.  This univocity allows the simplicity of life to be quantified into the physical moving via the influence of unseen forces beyond physical control.  

Aristotle's thunderous first sentence is the key to it all "..humans by nature desire to know..."  Today's discussion centers around the meta behind metaphysics, in addition to metaphysics itself: why do humans consider things behind the physical observances; what is it that humans desire to know and how does one arrive to a conclusion in this regard?  What is the meaning of the phrase "that for the sake of which?"  Is it provable that the starting points of things were more than material in the beginning, and therefore contained essence?  Between these questions, is there a reason to be found for why there are no metaphysics departments at our universities?

The perceptual capacity of animals and humans differ in the endless search for the source, the answer to questions.   Is any of this clawing at the heaven's truly helpful?  Aristotle describes his craft as the science of starting points and causes, but how is this an exercise fruitful to the human person?

Such is the discussion today, along with much more.

According to Duns Scotus, being itself possesses a sort of univocity, or oneness.  This univocity allows the simplicity of life to be quantified into the physical moving via the influence of unseen forces beyond physical control.  

Aristotle's thunderous first sentence is the key to it all "..humans by nature desire to know..."  Today's discussion centers around the meta behind metaphysics, in addition to metaphysics itself: why do humans consider things behind the physical observances; what is it that humans desire to know and how does one arrive to a conclusion in this regard?  What is the meaning of the phrase "that for the sake of which?"  Is it provable that the starting points of things were more than material in the beginning, and therefore contained essence?  Between these questions, is there a reason to be found for why there are no metaphysics departments at our universities?

The perceptual capacity of animals and humans differ in the endless search for the source, the answer to questions.   Is any of this clawing at the heaven's truly helpful?  Aristotle describes his craft as the science of starting points and causes, but how is this an exercise fruitful to the human person?

Such is the discussion today, along with much more.

According to Duns Scotus, being itself possesses a sort of univocity, or oneness.  This univocity allows the simplicity of life to be quantified into the physical moving via the influence of unseen forces beyond physical control.  

Aristotle's thunderous first sentence is the key to it all "..humans by nature desire to know..."  Today's discussion centers around the meta behind metaphysics, in addition to metaphysics itself: why do humans consider things behind the physical observances; what is it that humans desire to know and how does one arrive to a conclusion in this regard?  What is the meaning of the phrase "that for the sake of which?"  Is it provable that the starting points of things were more than material in the beginning, and therefore contained essence?  Between these questions, is there a reason to be found for why there are no metaphysics departments at our universities?

The perceptual capacity of animals and humans differ in the endless search for the source, the answer to questions.   Is any of this clawing at the heaven's truly helpful?  Aristotle describes his craft as the science of starting points and causes, but how is this an exercise fruitful to the human person?

Such is the discussion today, along with much more.

In today’s episode, Jacob and Brandon bring sidelight topics that stuck out to them from the past few episodes.  The problem of evil and the flaws in the educational system are discussed.  

• Problem of Evil

Why is it that evil is conceived of as a problem?  In what sense does evil pose a problem to philosophers? Does it pose a problem in the sciences to any degree?  You mentioned the possibility of the problem of evil being solved?  How difficult is that too achieve?

Middle Knowledge Method - Plantina Approach - Molinists

Condescension of God - God incarnate.  

God in Relationto Time

• The Educational System

Problem stated as the absence of any ability in the system to teach kids about higher ideals.  If they get lucky and have a good teacher, they can learn those things, but even then it is difficult because the teacher is so focused on getting the good test grades and thereby retaining their job.

Classical education seen as a potentially better model, in that it focuses on an outward gaze on the earth, captivated by its beauty, instead of merely focusing on the things needed to achieve a good test score, thereby leading to monetary gain in the long run?  But is there any other heuristic for gauging success in the educational system besides money and career success?  Are the other intangible things even useful in terms of mass quantification, through which proof to the state is given regarding success of the institutions?

• Freedom Responsibility

Somehow, the majority of the country has chosen safety over freedom, and willingly set aside freedoms so that they might feel "safe."  The way this idea is formulated potentially shows my feelings towards it.   How did we get here?  Waking up to politics once again but feeling as if the old institutions cannot succeed.  

In today’s episode, Jacob and Brandon bring sidelight topics that stuck out to them from the past few episodes.  The problem of evil and the flaws in the educational system are discussed.  

• Problem of Evil

Why is it that evil is conceived of as a problem?  In what sense does evil pose a problem to philosophers? Does it pose a problem in the sciences to any degree?  You mentioned the possibility of the problem of evil being solved?  How difficult is that too achieve?

Middle Knowledge Method - Plantina Approach - Molinists

Condescension of God - God incarnate.  

God in Relationto Time

• The Educational System

Problem stated as the absence of any ability in the system to teach kids about higher ideals.  If they get lucky and have a good teacher, they can learn those things, but even then it is difficult because the teacher is so focused on getting the good test grades and thereby retaining their job.

Classical education seen as a potentially better model, in that it focuses on an outward gaze on the earth, captivated by its beauty, instead of merely focusing on the things needed to achieve a good test score, thereby leading to monetary gain in the long run?  But is there any other heuristic for gauging success in the educational system besides money and career success?  Are the other intangible things even useful in terms of mass quantification, through which proof to the state is given regarding success of the institutions?

• Freedom Responsibility

Somehow, the majority of the country has chosen safety over freedom, and willingly set aside freedoms so that they might feel "safe."  The way this idea is formulated potentially shows my feelings towards it.   How did we get here?  Waking up to politics once again but feeling as if the old institutions cannot succeed.  

In today’s episode, Jacob and Brandon bring sidelight topics that stuck out to them from the past few episodes.  The problem of evil and the flaws in the educational system are discussed.  

• Problem of Evil

Why is it that evil is conceived of as a problem?  In what sense does evil pose a problem to philosophers? Does it pose a problem in the sciences to any degree?  You mentioned the possibility of the problem of evil being solved?  How difficult is that too achieve?

Middle Knowledge Method - Plantina Approach - Molinists

Condescension of God - God incarnate.  

God in Relationto Time

• The Educational System

Problem stated as the absence of any ability in the system to teach kids about higher ideals.  If they get lucky and have a good teacher, they can learn those things, but even then it is difficult because the teacher is so focused on getting the good test grades and thereby retaining their job.

Classical education seen as a potentially better model, in that it focuses on an outward gaze on the earth, captivated by its beauty, instead of merely focusing on the things needed to achieve a good test score, thereby leading to monetary gain in the long run?  But is there any other heuristic for gauging success in the educational system besides money and career success?  Are the other intangible things even useful in terms of mass quantification, through which proof to the state is given regarding success of the institutions?

• Freedom Responsibility

Somehow, the majority of the country has chosen safety over freedom, and willingly set aside freedoms so that they might feel "safe."  The way this idea is formulated potentially shows my feelings towards it.   How did we get here?  Waking up to politics once again but feeling as if the old institutions cannot succeed.  

The greatest theologian that ever lived, according to some, sought to answer every attack on his faith, as well as provide the human mind tangible proof of the divine's existence.  He gave five proofs for God in his famous seminal work Summa Theologica.  Today's discussion revolves around whether these proofs are in fact sufficient, or if there is in fact a way to refute them.  Listen, as Aquinas attempts to take men to the heavens.  

Ontological Argument

Ontology-study of being.  

What is the most amazing thing you can think of?  

Things may exist in imagination or reality, with things in reality better than the imaginary things.

Contrast between ontological argument of Anselm and Cosmological arguments of Aquinas.  How are they different?  Is either superior in anyway?

Begs the Question.  God's existence is assumed, resulting in a circular argument.

Four Cosmological Arguments

Romans 1 Source Text.  The second causes.  

• the argument from "first mover";

The concept that eistence might be seen as a row of dominoes, with something needing to move first to beget the movement in the first place.  Referred to as the presence of an Unchanging Changer. Else infinite regress, which is seen as a logical problem.

• the argument from causation;

Things which cause things often have other causes, and, it is believed, that when one reaches something with on cause, one may form a concept of God.  There cannot be an infinite regress of causes.  This argument asserts that there must be a First Cause.

• the argument from contingency;

As almost all observable phenomena show there to be a sort of perishing occurring in the world, something must be imperishable and eternal or there would be nothing whatsoever in existence.  Here we learn the infinite variable.  Without this, all systems become circles.  If everything is contingent on another being's giving it life, than we run into a logical fallacy yet again of infinite regress.  The Nietzschean Eternal Recurrence.  Could it also be a possibility?

• the argument from degree;

As it is possible to conceive of varied levels of perfection in things, it is possible to conceive of something utterly perfect and beyond comprehension.  This thing must be God.  How might values present themselves without this measuring stick?  Is it an artificial construct or is it truly an a priori in the structure of being?

Teleological Argument

• the argument from final cause or ends ("teleological argument")

That things tend to work towards aims shows that either those things are intelligent, or something intelligent guides them.  From this, men derive that some Telos sets a telos for each thing, for how can those things set those ends for themselves?

Problems:

• Assumptions: Must infinite regress necessarily be impossible?
• Logical Leaps: Leap to biblical view of God.
• Oversimplifying complexity:

Around minute 48, we attempt to wander into the existential beyond. Several soft attempts are made at such, but to my standards, I do not really think they breach this beyond. This will be a topic of further discussion in the future.

If you like what you heard, please like and subscribe, and read more material of this nature on positiveperspectives.net.

The greatest theologian that ever lived, according to some, sought to answer every attack on his faith, as well as provide the human mind tangible proof of the divine's existence.  He gave five proofs for God in his famous seminal work Summa Theologica.  Today's discussion revolves around whether these proofs are in fact sufficient, or if there is in fact a way to refute them.  Listen, as Aquinas attempts to take men to the heavens.  

Ontological Argument

Ontology-study of being.  

What is the most amazing thing you can think of?  

Things may exist in imagination or reality, with things in reality better than the imaginary things.

Contrast between ontological argument of Anselm and Cosmological arguments of Aquinas.  How are they different?  Is either superior in anyway?

Begs the Question.  God's existence is assumed, resulting in a circular argument.

Four Cosmological Arguments

Romans 1 Source Text.  The second causes.  

• the argument from "first mover";

The concept that eistence might be seen as a row of dominoes, with something needing to move first to beget the movement in the first place.  Referred to as the presence of an Unchanging Changer. Else infinite regress, which is seen as a logical problem.

• the argument from causation;

Things which cause things often have other causes, and, it is believed, that when one reaches something with on cause, one may form a concept of God.  There cannot be an infinite regress of causes.  This argument asserts that there must be a First Cause.

• the argument from contingency;

As almost all observable phenomena show there to be a sort of perishing occurring in the world, something must be imperishable and eternal or there would be nothing whatsoever in existence.  Here we learn the infinite variable.  Without this, all systems become circles.  If everything is contingent on another being's giving it life, than we run into a logical fallacy yet again of infinite regress.  The Nietzschean Eternal Recurrence.  Could it also be a possibility?

• the argument from degree;

As it is possible to conceive of varied levels of perfection in things, it is possible to conceive of something utterly perfect and beyond comprehension.  This thing must be God.  How might values present themselves without this measuring stick?  Is it an artificial construct or is it truly an a priori in the structure of being?

Teleological Argument

• the argument from final cause or ends ("teleological argument")

That things tend to work towards aims shows that either those things are intelligent, or something intelligent guides them.  From this, men derive that some Telos sets a telos for each thing, for how can those things set those ends for themselves?

Problems:

• Assumptions: Must infinite regress necessarily be impossible?
• Logical Leaps: Leap to biblical view of God.
• Oversimplifying complexity:

Around minute 48, we attempt to wander into the existential beyond. Several soft attempts are made at such, but to my standards, I do not really think they breach this beyond. This will be a topic of further discussion in the future.

If you like what you heard, please like and subscribe, and read more material of this nature on positiveperspectives.net.

The greatest theologian that ever lived, according to some, sought to answer every attack on his faith, as well as provide the human mind tangible proof of the divine's existence.  He gave five proofs for God in his famous seminal work Summa Theologica.  Today's discussion revolves around whether these proofs are in fact sufficient, or if there is in fact a way to refute them.  Listen, as Aquinas attempts to take men to the heavens.  

Ontological Argument

Ontology-study of being.  

What is the most amazing thing you can think of?  

Things may exist in imagination or reality, with things in reality better than the imaginary things.

Contrast between ontological argument of Anselm and Cosmological arguments of Aquinas.  How are they different?  Is either superior in anyway?

Begs the Question.  God's existence is assumed, resulting in a circular argument.

Four Cosmological Arguments

Romans 1 Source Text.  The second causes.  

• the argument from "first mover";

The concept that eistence might be seen as a row of dominoes, with something needing to move first to beget the movement in the first place.  Referred to as the presence of an Unchanging Changer. Else infinite regress, which is seen as a logical problem.

• the argument from causation;

Things which cause things often have other causes, and, it is believed, that when one reaches something with on cause, one may form a concept of God.  There cannot be an infinite regress of causes.  This argument asserts that there must be a First Cause.

• the argument from contingency;

As almost all observable phenomena show there to be a sort of perishing occurring in the world, something must be imperishable and eternal or there would be nothing whatsoever in existence.  Here we learn the infinite variable.  Without this, all systems become circles.  If everything is contingent on another being's giving it life, than we run into a logical fallacy yet again of infinite regress.  The Nietzschean Eternal Recurrence.  Could it also be a possibility?

• the argument from degree;

As it is possible to conceive of varied levels of perfection in things, it is possible to conceive of something utterly perfect and beyond comprehension.  This thing must be God.  How might values present themselves without this measuring stick?  Is it an artificial construct or is it truly an a priori in the structure of being?

Teleological Argument

• the argument from final cause or ends ("teleological argument")

That things tend to work towards aims shows that either those things are intelligent, or something intelligent guides them.  From this, men derive that some Telos sets a telos for each thing, for how can those things set those ends for themselves?

Problems:

• Assumptions: Must infinite regress necessarily be impossible?
• Logical Leaps: Leap to biblical view of God.
• Oversimplifying complexity:

Around minute 48, we attempt to wander into the existential beyond. Several soft attempts are made at such, but to my standards, I do not really think they breach this beyond. This will be a topic of further discussion in the future.

If you like what you heard, please like and subscribe, and read more material of this nature on positiveperspectives.net.