On 3/20/2013 2:51 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>
> 2013/3/20 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>
>
>     On 19 Mar 2013, at 22:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>>     Since I惴 more in the side of Aquinas/Aristotle -or even Plato
>>     sometimes-
>
>     ?
>     I see Plato and Aristotle as the most opposite view we can have on
>     reality.
>     (To be sure by Aristotle I means its usual interpretation by the
>     followers. Aristotle himself is still close to Plato, at least
>     that can be accepted, if only because his treatise on metaphysics
>     is quite unclear and hard to interpret).
>
>      
>
> Are you a follower of La Rouche? I do not see such opposition
> between Plato and Aristotle .  Aristotle believed in essences and
> ideas and in the the inner sense of what is right, just like Plato. he
> was not an empiricist nor a materialist. its phisics is drawn
> both form intuition and observation, not from experiments (and it was
> quite right for the range of  the terrestrial phenomena that he studied)
>
>      
>
>
>>     I don not share the Occam views.Occam was a nominalist, that  is
>>     rejected the existence of universals, he did not like to think in
>>     terms universals, because if universals exist, for example Truth,
>>     Love and Peace then they impose some obligations to God: for
>>     example, God must do Good, and must not do Evil by definition.
>>     Then, why Evil exist?
>>      
>>     Nominalist did not like to think about these entitities, and
>>     wanted an omnipotent God.  That was the original meaning of the
>>     Occam razor.
>
>
>
>
>
>     In the least Occam refer only to the idea that between a simple
>     (short) and a complex (long) theory, having the same explanative
>     power for the same range of phenomena, we will choose the shorter,
>     and this most often (but allowing exception). It is the idea that
>     the conceptually simple is better than the ad hoc complex
>     construct. In particular we don't introduce as axiom what is a
>     theorem. 
>
> Probalby what Occam said was purely teological and philosophical.
> Occam AFIK did not told about scientific theories. What we know as the
> Occam Razor is a materialistic version of the philosophical principle
> of "not to multiplicate the (philosophical) entities without need"
>
>>      
>>     But the secularization of this principle produced the modern
>>     concept of materialist science,
>
>     I am not sure. materialism violate Occam directly. It is bad
>     metaphysics at the start. No one has ever given a way to test the
>     existence of primary matter. 
>      
>
> materialism ios a bad name. The appropriate name is phenomenalism.
> What is know now as "science" is the sole study of the phenomena  (as
> if they were no concepts beyond that) . Materialism may be considered
> as a hypostasization of phenomenalism. in such a way that "because
> phenomena are the only thing that I care for, let愀 make them real as
> "things" outside me, and let愀 make the mind and everithing else ,
> inexistent until more phenomena prove otherwise.
>
>      
>
>
>
>
>>     separated from philosophy, via an empiricism science and the
>>     negation of the nous of the greek, the common sense and
>>     finally the negation of the possibility of objective
>>     understanding of anything but some phisical phenomena, and in
>>     general the negation of anything that can be not tested by
>>     experiments
>
>     This is more like Aristotle + a bit of positivism. Positivism has
>     been refuted, mainly. But most scientist still believe that
>     Aristotelianism is "scientific". They confuse the physical reality
>     with the primary physical reality.
>
> I don愒 think so. It is not so historically AFAIK. Positivism is the
> modern form of the different secularizations of nominalism, a
> philosophical movement  born to explicitly reject Aristotle and
> Aquinas (who imposed logical limitations what God can and can not
> do) during the middle ages.
>  
> Although Plato is more radically opposed than Aristotle to what is
> comonly know as materialism.
>
Dear Albert,

    I agree 100% with your comments here!

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to