Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-10 Thread John M
John - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 6:01 PM Subject: RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief) John, We need to have some sort of system for sorting the wrong beliefs from

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-10 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Jone Mikes writes: Stathis: wise words. (I find your Elvis - Jesus parable exaggerated). Not really: the people who claim they saw Elvis after his alleged death are more numerous and more credible than the second-hand (at best) Biblical accounts of Jesus being sighted after his

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-08 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Tom Caylor writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes: So you believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God? What I was hoping is that you would say Muhammed was deluded or lying, so that the Qur'an is at best an impressive piece of literature with some interesting

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-08 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 08-janv.-07, à 05:36, Tom Caylor a écrit : Do you recognize the problem of evil, and if so, what do you believe is the solution? Do you think that the MWI is the key to the solution? What or who is Jesus in the MWI? Is Jesus described by a quantum wave function? If yes, did God send

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-08 Thread John M
Interleaving in bold John - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:55 AM Subject: RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief) Tom Caylor writes: ---SKIP Stathis Papaioannou

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-08 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
thing: are you atheistic or agnostic about Santa Claus? Stathis Papaioannou From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 09:19:08 -0500 Interleaving in bold John

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-07 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Tom Caylor writes: So you believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God? What I was hoping is that you would say Muhammed was deluded or lying, so that the Qur'an is at best an impressive piece of literature with some interesting moral teachings: i.e., what atheists say about

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-07 Thread Tom Caylor
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes: So you believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God? What I was hoping is that you would say Muhammed was deluded or lying, so that the Qur'an is at best an impressive piece of literature with some interesting moral teachings: i.e.,

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-06 Thread Tom Caylor
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: So the solution to the problem of evil *starts* with the theological solution, as I said above, the solution to the separation between us and who we really are meant to be. Since we were made in the image

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-05 Thread Tom Caylor
Bruno Marchal wrote: OK. Now, if you accept, if only just for the sake of the argument, the mechanist hypothesis, then you will see there could be an explanation why you feel necessary to postulate such a personal God. But then I must agree this explanation is more coherent with

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-05 Thread Tom Caylor
Tom Caylor wrote: So the solution to the problem of evil *starts* with the theological solution, as I said above, the solution to the separation between us and who we really are meant to be. Since we were made in the image of the personal God, then with the G(Logos) we can be brought into

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-05 Thread Bruno Marchal
Tom, It seems you are doing to the arithmetical hypostases what Augustin did to Plotinus's hypostases, including a relation between the three primary hypostases and trinity (criticized by many scholars, note). Roughly speaking, I can agree, except that I cannot put any singular name in a

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-05 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Tom Caylor wrote: So the solution to the problem of evil *starts* with the theological solution, as I said above, the solution to the separation between us and who we really are meant to be. Since we were made in the image of the personal God, then with the G(Logos) we can be brought

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-05 Thread Tom Caylor
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: So the solution to the problem of evil *starts* with the theological solution, as I said above, the solution to the separation between us and who we really are meant to be. Since we were made in the image of the personal God, then with the

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-05 Thread Tom Caylor
Tom Caylor wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: So the solution to the problem of evil *starts* with the theological solution, as I said above, the solution to the separation between us and who we really are meant to be. Since we were made in the image of the

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-05 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: So the solution to the problem of evil *starts* with the theological solution, as I said above, the solution to the separation between us and who we really are meant to be. Since we were made in the image of the personal God, then

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 29-déc.-06, à 16:41, Jef Allbright a écrit : Bruno - It appears that you and I have essential agreement on our higher-level epistemology. It is possible. Note that in general those who appreciates the hypotheses I build on, does not like so much the conclusion, and vice versa, those

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2007-01-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 29-déc.-06, à 10:57, Tom Caylor a écrit : Just to clear this up, my above statement was not meant to be an argument. I purposefully used the word entail rather than imply. I wasn't saying that you cannot believe in some kind of truth without believing in the personal God. However is

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-30 Thread Tom Caylor
Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: I tried to address everything but ran out of time/energy. If there is something I deleted from a previous post that I cut out that you wanted me to address, just bring it back up. Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 26-d c.-06, 19:54, Tom Caylor a crit :

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 27-déc.-06, à 23:40, Jef Allbright a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 27-déc.-06, à 19:10, Jef Allbright a écrit : All meaning is necessarily within context. OK, but all context could make sense only to some universal meaning. I mean I don't know, it is difficult. But this can be

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-29 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Jef Allbright writes: My personal experience is that there's no paradox at all if one is willing to fully accept that within any framework of description there is absolutely no difference at all between a person and a zombie, but even the most philosophically cognizant, being evolved human

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-29 Thread Tom Caylor
I tried to address everything but ran out of time/energy. If there is something I deleted from a previous post that I cut out that you wanted me to address, just bring it back up. Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 26-d c.-06, 19:54, Tom Caylor a crit : On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-29 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Tom Caylor writes (quoting Bruno Marchal): [TC] My whole argument is that without it our hope eventually runs out and we are left with despair, unless we lie to ourselves against the absence of hope. [BM] Here Stathis already give a genuine comment. You are just admitting your

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Jef, Please, don't hesitate to skip the remarks you could find a bit too technical, but which could help others who know perhaps a bit more on G and G*, which are theories which I use to tackle many questions in this list. You can come back on those remarks if ever you got time and

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 28-déc.-06, à 21:54, Brent Meeker a écrit : (to Jef) I think objective should just be understood as denoting subjective agreement from different viewpoints. Curiosuly enough perhaps I could agree if you were saying physically objective can be understood as denoting subjective

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-29 Thread Jef Allbright
Bruno - It appears that you and I have essential agreement on our higher-level epistemology. But I don't know much about your comp so I'll begin reading. - Jef Bruno Marchal wrote: With increasing context of self-awareness, subjective values increasingly resemble principles of the

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 29-déc.-06, à 10:57, Tom Caylor a écrit : I tried to address everything but ran out of time/energy. If there is something I deleted from a previous post that I cut out that you wanted me to address, just bring it back up. No problem, Tom. In fact I will print your post and read it

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-29 Thread Jef Allbright
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Jef Allbright writes: My personal experience is that there's no paradox at all if one is willing to fully accept that within any framework of description there is absolutely no difference at all between a person and a zombie, but even the most philosophically

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-29 Thread Jef Allbright
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I realised when I was about 12 or 13 years old that there could not be any ultimate meaning. I was very pleased and excited with this discovery, and ran around trying to explain it to people (mostly drawing blank looks, as I remember). It seemed to me just another

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-29 Thread Jef Allbright
Thanks Bruno. Much of your terminology at this point escapes me. I do see that a small part of our differences below are simply due to the imprecision of language (and my somewhat sloppy writing.) I also sense that at the core of much of this discussion is the idea that, although we are

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-29 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Jef Allbright writes: My personal experience is that there's no paradox at all if one is willing to fully accept that within any framework of description there is absolutely no difference at all between a person and a zombie, but even the most philosophically

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-29 Thread Brent Meeker
Tom Caylor wrote: I tried to address everything but ran out of time/energy. If there is something I deleted from a previous post that I cut out that you wanted me to address, just bring it back up. Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 26-d c.-06, 19:54, Tom Caylor a crit : On Dec 26, 9:51 am,

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-29 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes (quoting Bruno Marchal): [TC] My whole argument is that without it our hope eventually runs out and we are left with despair, unless we lie to ourselves against the absence of hope. [BM] Here Stathis already give a genuine comment. You

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 27-déc.-06, à 20:11, Jef Allbright a écrit : Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Jef Allbright writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: But our main criterion for what to believe should be what is true, right? I'm very interested in whether the apparent tautology is my misunderstanding, his

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-28 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Brent Meeker writes: It's a strange quality of delusions that psychotic people are even more certain of their truth than non-deluded people are certain of things which have reasonable empirical evidence in their favour. Yet this seems understandable. The psychotic person is believing

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-28 Thread Johnathan Corgan
On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 00:37 +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Sure, it's a defect in the brain chemistry, but the delusional person will give you his reasons for his belief: [...] This is very similar to the arguments of people with religious convictions, who will cite evidence in support

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-28 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: ... This is very similar to the arguments of people with religious convictions, who will cite evidence in support of their beliefs up to a point, but it soon becomes clear that no matter how paltry this evidence is shown to be, they will still maintain their belief.

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-28 Thread John Mikes
On 12/28/06, Johnathan Corgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 00:37 +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Sure, it's a defect in the brain chemistry, but the delusional person will give you his reasons for his belief: [...] This is very similar to the arguments of people with

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-28 Thread Jef Allbright
Bruno Marchal wrote: Although we all share the illusion of a direct and immediate sense of consciousness, on what basis can you claim that it actually is real? Because we cannot doubt it. It is the real message, imo, of Descartes diagonal argument: it is the fixed point of doubt. If we

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-28 Thread Brent Meeker
Jef Allbright wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Although we all share the illusion of a direct and immediate sense of consciousness, on what basis can you claim that it actually is real? Because we cannot doubt it. It is the real message, imo, of Descartes diagonal argument: it is the fixed

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-28 Thread Jef Allbright
Brent Meeker wrote: Jef Allbright wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Although we all share the illusion of a direct and immediate sense of consciousness, on what basis can you claim that it actually is real? Because we cannot doubt it. It is the real message, imo, of Descartes diagonal

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-28 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Brent Meeker writes: This is very similar to the arguments of people with religious convictions, who will cite evidence in support of their beliefs up to a point, but it soon becomes clear that no matter how paltry this evidence is shown to be, they will still maintain their belief.

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-27 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Jef Allbright writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: But our main criterion for what to believe should be what is true, right? I find it fascinating, as well as consistent with some difficulties in communication about the most basic concepts, that Stathis would express this belief of his in

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-27 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Tom Caylor writes (in response to Marvin Minsky): Regarding Stathis' question to you about truth, your calling the idea of believing unsound seems to imply that you are assuming that there is no truth that we can discover. But on the other hand, if there is no discoverable truth, then how

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-27 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes (in response to Marvin Minsky): Regarding Stathis' question to you about truth, your calling the idea of believing unsound seems to imply that you are assuming that there is no truth that we can discover. But on the other hand, if there is no

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 26-déc.-06, à 23:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : I regard the idea of believing to be unsound, because it is a pre-Freudian concept, which assumes that each person has a single self that maintains beliefs. Is this not a bit self-defeating? It has the form of a belief. Now I can still

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 27-déc.-06, à 01:52, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : But our main criterion for what to believe should be what is true, right? We might never be certain of the truth, so our beliefs should always be tentative, but that doesn't mean we should believe whatever we fancy. This is a key

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 27-déc.-06, à 02:46, Jef Allbright a écrit : Stathis Papaioannou wrote: But our main criterion for what to believe should be what is true, right? I find it fascinating, as well as consistent with some difficulties in communication about the most basic concepts, that Stathis would

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 26-déc.-06, à 19:54, Tom Caylor a écrit : On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 25-déc.-06, à 01:13, Tom Caylor a écrit : The crux is that he is not symbolic... I respect your belief or faith, but I want to be frank, I have no evidences for the idea that

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-27 Thread Jef Allbright
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 27-déc.-06, à 02:46, Jef Allbright a écrit : Stathis Papaioannou wrote: But our main criterion for what to believe should be what is true, right? I'm very interested in whether the apparent tautology is my misunderstanding, his transparent belief, a simple lack of

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-27 Thread Jef Allbright
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Jef Allbright writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: But our main criterion for what to believe should be what is true, right? I'm very interested in whether the apparent tautology is my misunderstanding, his transparent belief, a simple lack of precision, or

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-27 Thread Brent Meeker
Jef Allbright wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Jef Allbright writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: But our main criterion for what to believe should be what is true, right? I'm very interested in whether the apparent tautology is my misunderstanding, his transparent belief, a simple lack

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 27-déc.-06, à 19:10, Jef Allbright a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 27-déc.-06, à 02:46, Jef Allbright a écrit : Stathis Papaioannou wrote: But our main criterion for what to believe should be what is true, right? I'm very interested in whether the apparent tautology is my

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-27 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Brent Meeker writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes (in response to Marvin Minsky): Regarding Stathis' question to you about truth, your calling the idea of believing unsound seems to imply that you are assuming that there is no truth that we can discover. But on the

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-27 Thread Jef Allbright
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 27-déc.-06, à 19:10, Jef Allbright a écrit : All meaning is necessarily within context. OK, but all context could make sense only to some universal meaning. I mean I don't know, it is difficult. But this can be seen in a very consistent way. The significance of

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-27 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Jef Allbright writes: I said might because there is one case where I am certain of the truth, which is that I am having the present experience. Although we all share the illusion of a direct and immediate sense of consciousness, on what basis can you claim that it actually is real?

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-27 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Jef Allbright writes: I said might because there is one case where I am certain of the truth, which is that I am having the present experience. Although we all share the illusion of a direct and immediate sense of consciousness, on what basis can you claim

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 25-déc.-06, à 01:13, Tom Caylor a écrit : It looks like I might have timed out. Hopefully this doesn't appear two times. On Dec 24, 8:55 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 24-déc.-06, à 09:48, Tom Caylor a écrit : Bruno, ... I believe the answer to the question, What is

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-26 Thread Tom Caylor
On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 25-déc.-06, à 01:13, Tom Caylor a écrit : The crux is that he is not symbolic... I respect your belief or faith, but I want to be frank, I have no evidences for the idea that Jesus is truth, nor can I be sure of any clear

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-26 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I regard the idea of believing to be unsound, because it is a pre-Freudian concept, which assumes that each person has a single self that maintains beliefs. A more realistic view is that each person is constantly switching among various different ways to think in which different assertions,

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-26 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 14:59:17 -0800 I regard the idea of believing to be unsound, because it is a pre-Freudian

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-26 Thread Jef Allbright
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: But our main criterion for what to believe should be what is true, right? I find it fascinating, as well as consistent with some difficulties in communication about the most basic concepts, that Stathis would express this belief of his in the form of a tautology.

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-26 Thread Tom Caylor
On Dec 26, 3:59 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I regard the idea of believing to be unsound, because it is a pre-Freudian concept, which assumes that each person has a single self that maintains beliefs. A more realistic view is that each person is constantly switching among

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-24 Thread Tom Caylor
Bruno, I have been doing a lot of reading/thinking on your former posts on the Hypostases, other reading on Plotinus and the neo-Platonist hypostases, and the Christian interpretation of the hypostases. There is a lot to say, but I'll start by just giving some responses to your last post on

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-24 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Tom Caylor writes: Bruno, I have been doing a lot of reading/thinking on your former posts on the Hypostases, other reading on Plotinus and the neo-Platonist hypostases, and the Christian interpretation of the hypostases. There is a lot to say, but I'll start by just giving some responses

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-24 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 23-déc.-06, à 15:01, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Bruno marchal writes: Even if it is presented as good for society, the child may accept that because of feelings of empathy for others. OK. Note that such an empathy is hard wired in our biological constitution. Many mammals seems

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-24 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 24-déc.-06, à 09:48, Tom Caylor a écrit : Bruno, I have been doing a lot of reading/thinking on your former posts on the Hypostases, other reading on Plotinus and the neo-Platonist hypostases, and the Christian interpretation of the hypostases. There is a lot to say, but I'll start by

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-24 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 24-déc.-06, à 11:49, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : I'm not sure that this is what you meant, but there is in a sense an objective basis to the personal or subjective, which is simply that when I say I feel or desire something, this is an empirical statement: either I do feel it or I am

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-24 Thread Tom Caylor
On Dec 24, 3:49 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor writes: Bruno, I have been doing a lot of reading/thinking on your former posts on the Hypostases, other reading on Plotinus and the neo-Platonist hypostases, and the Christian interpretation of the hypostases.

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-24 Thread Tom Caylor
It looks like I might have timed out. Hopefully this doesn't appear two times. On Dec 24, 8:55 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 24-déc.-06, à 09:48, Tom Caylor a écrit : Bruno, ... I believe the answer to the question, What is Truth? which Pilate asked Jesus, was standing

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-24 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Thanks for the explanations. I am astonished about all children being psychopathic: I guess you mean very young one? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ To be fair that term isn't normally used for children due to its pejorative connotations, but I think it is close to the truth.

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-24 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Tom Caylor writes: On Dec 24, 3:49 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor writes: Bruno, I have been doing a lot of reading/thinking on your former posts on the Hypostases, other reading on Plotinus and the neo-Platonist hypostases, and the Christian

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-24 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Tom Caylor writes: It is the ultimate irony that Jesus was taken to be blaspheming when he said he was one with the Father and before Abraham was, I AM, for no one can say that they are God. the mistake is the missing phrase at the end: ...except God. Yes, but what if Jesus was not God?

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-24 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes: On Dec 24, 3:49 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Caylor writes: Bruno, I have been doing a lot of reading/thinking on your former posts on the Hypostases, other reading on Plotinus and the neo-Platonist

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-24 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes: It is the ultimate irony that Jesus was taken to be blaspheming when he said he was one with the Father and before Abraham was, I AM, for no one can say that they are God. the mistake is the missing phrase at the end: ...except God. Yes,

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-24 Thread Jef Allbright
Brent Meeker wrote: That raises a fundamental question - should we believe what's true? Of course in general we don't know what's true and we never know it with certainity. But we do know some things, in the scientific, provisional sense. And we also have certain values which, as Jef

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-23 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Bruno marchal writes: Even if it is presented as good for society, the child may accept that because of feelings of empathy for others. OK. Note that such an empathy is hard wired in our biological constitution. Many mammals seems to have it at some degree. Some form of autism are

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 20-déc.-06, à 19:06, Brent Meeker a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 19-déc.-06, à 21:32, Brent Meeker a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: I know it seems a little bit paradoxical, but then it is my methodology to take seriously the interview of the lobian machine, which is famous for its

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-20 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 19-déc.-06, à 21:32, Brent Meeker a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: I know it seems a little bit paradoxical, but then it is my methodology to take seriously the interview of the lobian machine, which is famous for its many paradoxical thoughts. It is certainly not a reductio against comp,

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-20 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 19-déc.-06, à 21:32, Brent Meeker a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: I know it seems a little bit paradoxical, but then it is my methodology to take seriously the interview of the lobian machine, which is famous for its many paradoxical thoughts. It is certainly not a

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 18-déc.-06, à 20:04, Brent Meeker a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: ... Moreover, I don't have to justify it in terms of other ethical principles or commandments from God: With (a)comp, you have to NOT justify it in terms of God. With comp (and God = +/- Plotinus'one) we could justify

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-19 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 18-déc.-06, à 20:04, Brent Meeker a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: ... Moreover, I don't have to justify it in terms of other ethical principles or commandments from God: With (a)comp, you have to NOT justify it in terms of God. With comp (and God = +/-

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-18 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 17-déc.-06, à 03:26, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Democratic system are more efficient to explore the political landscape and thus more efficient in probability to satisfy soul's natural attraction toward the good. The soul's natural attraction towards the good might be compared

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-18 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: ... Moreover, I don't have to justify it in terms of other ethical principles or commandments from God: With (a)comp, you have to NOT justify it in terms of God. With comp (and God = +/- Plotinus'one) we could justify that any *action* made in the name of God is

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-18 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Bruno Marchal writes: The analogous statements are: a1. umbrellas keep you dry a2. feeding the poor reduces their suffering We can agree on the definition of the words and on the facts asserted. If there is disagreement on the definition, for example if you were thinking of

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 16-déc.-06, à 03:49, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Bruno Marchal writes: Le 15-déc.-06, à 02:04, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Who says the Nazis are wrong when they assert they are good? I was not saying that they were wrong. I was saying that they were bad. Who says this? All

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-16 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Democratic system are more efficient to explore the political landscape and thus more efficient in probability to satisfy soul's natural attraction toward the good. The soul's natural attraction towards the good might be compared to the body's natural attraction to keep dry.

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-15 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Brent Meeker writes (quoting SP): There are several differences between the axioms of ethics and aesthetics on the one hand and those of logic, mathematics and science on the other. One is that you can bet that any sentient species would arrive at exactly the same rules

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-15 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 15-déc.-06, à 02:04, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Who says the Nazis are wrong when they assert they are good? I was not saying that they were wrong. I was saying that they were bad. Who says this? All self-referentially correct machine sufficnetly rich to prove elementary theorems in

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-15 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent Meeker writes (quoting SP): There are several differences between the axioms of ethics and aesthetics on the one hand and those of logic, mathematics and science on the other. One is that you can bet that any sentient species would arrive at

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-15 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Bruno Marchal writes: Le 15-déc.-06, à 02:04, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Who says the Nazis are wrong when they assert they are good? I was not saying that they were wrong. I was saying that they were bad. Who says this? All self-referentially correct machine sufficnetly rich

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-14 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 05:10:43 -0800 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Bruno Marchal writes: Le 12-déc.-06, à 11:16, Stathis

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-14 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Bruno Marchal writes: Le 13-déc.-06, à 02:01, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : OK, but the point is that the basic definition of bad is arbitrary. Perhaps, but honestly I am not sure. In acomp, we can define a (very platonist) notion of bad. The simpler and stronger one is just the

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-14 Thread 1Z
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Peter, We can discuss any subject rationally if we agree on axioms, but the problem is that in matters of value, those axioms are ultimately arbitrary. So you say. I don't agree. I believe that capital punishment is wrong; not because it is not a good

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-14 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 14-déc.-06, à 11:43, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: But there is no true/false in saying that torture is bad, unless there is another hidden assumption such as causing gratuitous suffering is bad, in which case the question becomes, why is causing gratuitous suffering bad? Ultimately

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-14 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Peter, We can discuss any subject rationally if we agree on axioms, but the problem is that in matters of value, those axioms are ultimately arbitrary. I believe that capital punishment is wrong; not because it is not a good deterrent, or because it is

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-14 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Bruno Marchal writes: Le 13-déc.-06, à 02:01, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : OK, but the point is that the basic definition of bad is arbitrary. Perhaps, but honestly I am not sure. In acomp, we can define a (very platonist) notion of bad. The simpler and

Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-14 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Bruno Marchal writes: Le 13-déc.-06, à 02:01, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : OK, but the point is that the basic definition of bad is arbitrary. Perhaps, but honestly I am not sure. In acomp, we can define a (very platonist) notion of bad. The simpler and

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-14 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 05:52:59 -0800 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Peter, We can discuss any subject

RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-14 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Bruno Marchal writes: Not in any normative sense. But once we bet on a theory (like comp), then we get mathematical tools which can provide general explanation of what is bad, and also explain why such definition cannot be normative, making the bad/good distinctions an ideal goal for

  1   2   >