OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 31, 2014, 11:49:03 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?  (Read 1226 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Greatest I am
Muted
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Gnostic
Posts: 304



« on: June 27, 2013, 12:13:27 PM »

How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?

Please ignore that I do not believe in any invisible entity. I would like this thread to be about you.
I also have rejected the notion of anything being able to breach the limits of nature and physics.
No miracles allowed in my theology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2VjdpVonY

If you do not follow your religion because of culture and tradition, when did you begin to be a believer?

Can you describe how you were made to believe in fantasy or imaginary creatures?

Were you an adult at that time or a child?

If a child, could this real phenomena be what caused you to believe?

http://academia.edu/503195/_Princess_Alice_is_watching_you_Childrens_belief_in_an_invisible_person_inhibits_cheating

Regards
DL
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,531


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2013, 12:27:05 PM »

I have to believe in fantasy or imaginary creatures in order to participate in this thread.  After all, I'm replying to one. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 2,923


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2013, 12:27:20 PM »

How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?

Please ignore that I do not believe in any invisible entity. I would like this thread to be about you.
I also have rejected the notion of anything being able to breach the limits of nature and physics.
No miracles allowed in my theology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2VjdpVonY

If you do not follow your religion because of culture and tradition, when did you begin to be a believer?

Can you describe how you were made to believe in fantasy or imaginary creatures?

Were you an adult at that time or a child?

If a child, could this real phenomena be what caused you to believe?

http://academia.edu/503195/_Princess_Alice_is_watching_you_Childrens_belief_in_an_invisible_person_inhibits_cheating

Regards
DL


If you expect respectful answers, I don't think you should describe the things, people believe in, as "fantasy creatures".

Just a thought.
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2013, 12:35:48 PM »

Quote
Can you describe how you were made to believe in fantasy or imaginary creatures?

How old are you sir? This will help me answer your question better.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,382



« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2013, 12:40:17 PM »

Well if someone believes in a creature they don't consider them imaginary, now do they Mr. man?
Logged

"Change is the process of becoming more like who we are."
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2013, 12:46:23 PM »

Well if someone believes in a creature they don't consider them imaginary, now do they Mr. man?

It is interesting and I would say in fact this is more often the case than not. We often believe in many things we consider to be imaginary. There are a number of ways to runs with this subject.

In fact, I am not sure how one believes in anything that isn't imaginary in some sense.

The advent of the real seems to be the one thing most people long for.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Ansgar
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: More than an inquirer, less than a catechumen
Jurisdiction: Exarchate of orthodox churches of russian tradition in western Europe
Posts: 2,923


Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2013, 12:56:39 PM »

Well if someone believes in a creature they don't consider them imaginary, now do they Mr. man?

It is interesting and I would say in fact this is more often the case than not. We often believe in many things we consider to be imaginary. There are a number of ways to runs with this subject.

In fact, I am not sure how one believes in anything that isn't imaginary in some sense.

The advent of the real seems to be the one thing most people long for.

This thread is like candy to you, isn't it?  Wink
Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 3,997


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2013, 12:57:05 PM »

How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?

Sweetly. Wink
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2013, 01:05:44 PM »

How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?

Please ignore that I do not believe in any invisible entity. I would like this thread to be about you.
I also have rejected the notion of anything being able to breach the limits of nature and physics.
No miracles allowed in my theology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2VjdpVonY

If you do not follow your religion because of culture and tradition, when did you begin to be a believer?

Can you describe how you were made to believe in fantasy or imaginary creatures?

Were you an adult at that time or a child?

If a child, could this real phenomena be what caused you to believe?

http://academia.edu/503195/_Princess_Alice_is_watching_you_Childrens_belief_in_an_invisible_person_inhibits_cheating

Regards
DL

Why do you dogmatically and religiously profess that the material is all that exists?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,382



« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2013, 01:10:40 PM »

Well if someone believes in a creature they don't consider them imaginary, now do they Mr. man?

It is interesting and I would say in fact this is more often the case than not. We often believe in many things we consider to be imaginary. There are a number of ways to runs with this subject.

In fact, I am not sure how one believes in anything that isn't imaginary in some sense.

The advent of the real seems to be the one thing most people long for.

To an extent I agree with you. I am a skeptic after all. I think people overestimate the evidence or certainty of everything from their religion to existence itself. Still, I find it impossible to go along with something I really think is imaginary. (I'm not really talking about things like myths, which are a different discussion). For example, for years I have been grappling with the fact that I reject or simply don't believe some of what is foundational to Christianity, and can only seem to go along with an imaginary (=romanticized/cherry-picked/cafeteria) version of it. I know what I am attracted to is not real, but is a creation of my mind. Yes, in some sense everything is a creation of my mind, or a biased view of my mind, or however you want to put it. But what I mean is, whatever the real thing (or whatever) is, I know that my own version is a manipulated and imaginary creation crafted to make Christianity more palatable to me (no eternal damnation for eating a cup cake, no moral hang ups from the bronze age, etc.)
Logged

"Change is the process of becoming more like who we are."
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2013, 01:14:08 PM »

Well if someone believes in a creature they don't consider them imaginary, now do they Mr. man?

It is interesting and I would say in fact this is more often the case than not. We often believe in many things we consider to be imaginary. There are a number of ways to runs with this subject.

In fact, I am not sure how one believes in anything that isn't imaginary in some sense.

The advent of the real seems to be the one thing most people long for.

To an extent I agree with you. I am a skeptic after all. I think people overestimate the evidence or certainty of everything from their religion to existence itself. Still, I find it impossible to go along with something I really think is imaginary. (I'm not really talking about things like myths, which are a different discussion). For example, for years I have been grappling with the fact that I reject or simply don't believe some of what is foundational to Christianity, and can only seem to go along with an imaginary (=romanticized/cherry-picked/cafeteria) version of it. I know what I am attracted to is not real, but is a creation of my mind. Yes, in some sense everything is a creation of my mind, or a biased view of my mind, or however you want to put it. But what I mean is, whatever the real thing (or whatever) is, I know that my own version is a manipulated and imaginary creation crafted to make Christianity more palatable to me (no eternal damnation for eating a cup cake, no moral hang ups from the bronze age, etc.)
Skeptic, as in the ancient skeptic philosophers? Do you find this philosophical position disconcerting? Just curious.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,765



« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2013, 01:14:28 PM »

Can you describe how you were made to believe in fantasy or imaginary creatures?

Trolls are fantasy creatures, and yet here you are.
Logged

On a OC.net diet.

"Chi son?  Sono un poeta. Che cosa faccio? Scrivo. E come vivo?  Vivo."
-Giacomo Puccini
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2013, 01:16:24 PM »

Can you describe how you were made to believe in fantasy or imaginary creatures?

Trolls are fantasy creatures, and yet here you are.
Like the Troll in The Fellowship of the Ring, or the ones in The Hobbit?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,765



« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2013, 01:17:49 PM »

Can you describe how you were made to believe in fantasy or imaginary creatures?

Trolls are fantasy creatures, and yet here you are.
Like the Troll in The Fellowship of the Ring, or the ones in The Hobbit?

I like the ones in The Hobbit better.
Logged

On a OC.net diet.

"Chi son?  Sono un poeta. Che cosa faccio? Scrivo. E come vivo?  Vivo."
-Giacomo Puccini
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,382



« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2013, 01:20:10 PM »

Skeptic, as in the ancient skeptic philosophers? Do you find this philosophical position disconcerting? Just curious.

Yes, like the ancient skeptics (though probabilist, like Carneades), not so much like the modern debunkers/skeptics like Michael Shermer, James Randi, etc.  Though the Amazing Randi is pretty entertaining.  Anyway, but I wouldn't say disconcerting, though it is, for me anyway, intellectually paralyzing at times.
Logged

"Change is the process of becoming more like who we are."
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,765



« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2013, 01:21:15 PM »

Skeptic, as in the ancient skeptic philosophers? Do you find this philosophical position disconcerting? Just curious.

Do sceptics of the Pyrrhonite school even exist nowadays? If they do they must be an endangered species.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 01:21:39 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a OC.net diet.

"Chi son?  Sono un poeta. Che cosa faccio? Scrivo. E come vivo?  Vivo."
-Giacomo Puccini
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #16 on: June 27, 2013, 01:21:41 PM »

Well if someone believes in a creature they don't consider them imaginary, now do they Mr. man?

It is interesting and I would say in fact this is more often the case than not. We often believe in many things we consider to be imaginary. There are a number of ways to runs with this subject.

In fact, I am not sure how one believes in anything that isn't imaginary in some sense.

The advent of the real seems to be the one thing most people long for.

To an extent I agree with you. I am a skeptic after all. I think people overestimate the evidence or certainty of everything from their religion to existence itself. Still, I find it impossible to go along with something I really think is imaginary. (I'm not really talking about things like myths, which are a different discussion). For example, for years I have been grappling with the fact that I reject or simply don't believe some of what is foundational to Christianity, and can only seem to go along with an imaginary (=romanticized/cherry-picked/cafeteria) version of it. I know what I am attracted to is not real, but is a creation of my mind. Yes, in some sense everything is a creation of my mind, or a biased view of my mind, or however you want to put it. But what I mean is, whatever the real thing (or whatever) is, I know that my own version is a manipulated and imaginary creation crafted to make Christianity more palatable to me (no eternal damnation for eating a cup cake, no moral hang ups from the bronze age, etc.)

This is not at all to what I am referring, a naive skepticism, but rather one of the structuring elements of belief always being within the imagined realm. Maybe I can get back to you. Did you catch my PM about computer / work situation . . . I might Audi (non-marc) for a while.

I don't see how you can write the above then write off Descartes.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,194



« Reply #17 on: June 27, 2013, 01:25:25 PM »


Please ignore that I do not believe in any invisible entity. I would like this thread to be about you.
Sweet!  If you would like this to be about me, I will indulge you.

I was born in 1979. Exciting times were afoot.  Three Mile Island just sustained a partial nuclear meltdown threatening not just PA, but also New York City which would have been in the wind stream of the plume.  Out of this drama rose an infant child, born only a few short miles away.  He had bright blue eyes and a curious smile.  As I crested out of the birth canal, my mother gave a final shriek and out I came into a bright new, but uncertain, world!  I had not yet formulated by opinion on Santa or the Tooth Fairy, but in only a few short years, I began to ponder the potential of their existence.  Being a precocious child with a stern father who believed only in giving his child factual information, I soon discarded any belief in such fantasy creatures.

I don't wish to burden you with too much information at one time, but if you would continue to learn about my beliefs regarding mythical creatures, please let me know. Also, I can further explain my transformation from blastocyst to descent from the birth canal as it might be helpful to get a better understanding on my early, formational thinking.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #18 on: June 27, 2013, 01:29:47 PM »

Skeptic, as in the ancient skeptic philosophers? Do you find this philosophical position disconcerting? Just curious.

Do sceptics of the Pyrrhonite school even exist nowadays? If they do they must be an endangered species.
Some believe that the absolute skepticism of some of the ancients is just philosophically absurd. Aristotle argues about how their position actually assumes the truth of certain first principles, like the law of non-contradiction.

That's why I find Cartesian/Kantian skepticism much more interesting.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #19 on: June 27, 2013, 01:31:41 PM »

Skeptic, as in the ancient skeptic philosophers? Do you find this philosophical position disconcerting? Just curious.

Yes, like the ancient skeptics (though probabilist, like Carneades), not so much like the modern debunkers/skeptics like Michael Shermer, James Randi, etc.  Though the Amazing Randi is pretty entertaining.  Anyway, but I wouldn't say disconcerting, though it is, for me anyway, intellectually paralyzing at times.
What about Descartes' and Kant's "skepticism?" Are they of any interest to you?
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 01:33:08 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,765



« Reply #20 on: June 27, 2013, 01:38:43 PM »

I tend to see scepticism and the related solipsism as a joke. It can, however, be hilarious to use sceptisicm and solipsism to make the most outlandish claims and then ask Average Joe to disprove it.
Logged

On a OC.net diet.

"Chi son?  Sono un poeta. Che cosa faccio? Scrivo. E come vivo?  Vivo."
-Giacomo Puccini
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #21 on: June 27, 2013, 01:40:27 PM »

I tend to see scepticism and the related solipsism as a joke. It can, however, be hilarious to use sceptisicm and solipsism to make the most outlandish claims and then ask Average Joe to disprove it.
Well, they are a joke for most. However, the possibility of solipsism has been very disconcerting for some philosophers.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,382



« Reply #22 on: June 27, 2013, 01:46:30 PM »

I find the contrived skepticism and assumption-riddled dogmatism of Descartes [unhelpful]. There aren't a ton of skeptics who mirror the ancient ones around, that I know of anyway; first because there isn't really a role for them in Academia, and second because most people are uneasy with the whole challenge they present, and it's easier to dismiss them with statements which completely misunderstand what they're doing, statement like "are you certain there are no certainties?" or "do you know that you don't know that you don't know?". Peter Unger (NYU) is one professional philosopher that is a radical skeptic that I'm aware of. I believe if this kind of radical skepticism is used as a world view or system, or with any rigidity really, then it is self-contradictory; however, if it is used as a tool then it has value, intellectually if not often practically.
Logged

"Change is the process of becoming more like who we are."
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,765



« Reply #23 on: June 27, 2013, 01:47:32 PM »

Papist, what do you think about nominalism?
Logged

On a OC.net diet.

"Chi son?  Sono un poeta. Che cosa faccio? Scrivo. E come vivo?  Vivo."
-Giacomo Puccini
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,848



WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 27, 2013, 01:47:55 PM »

This will be fun. As soon as real work is done I'll be back here. Smiley
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #25 on: June 27, 2013, 02:03:01 PM »

Papist, what do you think about nominalism?

Rufus is who you want to talk to, when I don't have the time.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #26 on: June 27, 2013, 02:34:54 PM »

I find the contrived skepticism and assumption-riddled dogmatism of Descartes [unhelpful]. There aren't a ton of skeptics who mirror the ancient ones around, that I know of anyway; first because there isn't really a role for them in Academia, and second because most people are uneasy with the whole challenge they present, and it's easier to dismiss them with statements which completely misunderstand what they're doing, statement like "are you certain there are no certainties?" or "do you know that you don't know that you don't know?". Peter Unger (NYU) is one professional philosopher that is a radical skeptic that I'm aware of. I believe if this kind of radical skepticism is used as a world view or system, or with any rigidity really, then it is self-contradictory; however, if it is used as a tool then it has value, intellectually if not often practically.
Ok. This last sentence is very helpful. Thanks for sharing.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #27 on: June 27, 2013, 02:35:52 PM »

Papist, what do you think about nominalism?
I think that it is incoherent, but that doesn't mean I agree with Pato's view either.
What do you think about nominalism?
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 02:36:48 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,305


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #28 on: June 27, 2013, 02:37:35 PM »

What do you think about nominalism?

Much more rational than the mystical fairy-tale Greek views, but still somewhat inconsistent.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,765



« Reply #29 on: June 27, 2013, 02:56:25 PM »

Papist, what do you think about nominalism?
I think that it is incoherent, but that doesn't mean I agree with Pato's view either.
What do you think about nominalism?


I don't fully agree with Plato either (I'm not even sure whether Plato himself even agreed with it - vide Parmenides) but I do think universalia exist independent of their materialisations. I'm still fairly unsure about some aspects of it.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 03:00:07 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a OC.net diet.

"Chi son?  Sono un poeta. Che cosa faccio? Scrivo. E come vivo?  Vivo."
-Giacomo Puccini
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,305


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #30 on: June 27, 2013, 03:04:57 PM »

Papist, what do you think about nominalism?
I think that it is incoherent, but that doesn't mean I agree with Pato's view either.
What do you think about nominalism?


I don't fully agree with Plato either (I'm not even sure whether Plato himself even agreed with it - vide Parmenides) but I do think universalia exist independent of their materialisations. I'm still fairly unsure about some aspects of it.

I find myself somewhat closer to the agnostic conceptualist camp; I don't think we can definitively answer whether or not universals and abstracts exist. This is my criticism toward both Plato and Nominalism because they both assert that they can. I'd much rather just leave it a mystery. However, I believe that we can at least understand them as mental concepts and use them to categorize patterns in observable material phenomena. As to whether they really exist, I don't know or care.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 03:05:19 PM by JamesR » Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,848



WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 27, 2013, 04:35:45 PM »

I don't see how people don't see universals. Smiley

Sometimes I think it's because people think of existence in a narrow concrete way. Many things exist that are not concrete. In fact, concrete things seem to be the most fragile of all things that exist, the ones closest to non-existance.

Papist, what do you think about nominalism?
I think that it is incoherent, but that doesn't mean I agree with Pato's view either.
What do you think about nominalism?


I don't fully agree with Plato either (I'm not even sure whether Plato himself even agreed with it - vide Parmenides) but I do think universalia exist independent of their materialisations. I'm still fairly unsure about some aspects of it.

I find myself somewhat closer to the agnostic conceptualist camp; I don't think we can definitively answer whether or not universals and abstracts exist. This is my criticism toward both Plato and Nominalism because they both assert that they can. I'd much rather just leave it a mystery. However, I believe that we can at least understand them as mental concepts and use them to categorize patterns in observable material phenomena. As to whether they really exist, I don't know or care.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 04:36:07 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #32 on: June 27, 2013, 05:15:51 PM »

I tend to see scepticism and the related solipsism as a joke. It can, however, be hilarious to use sceptisicm and solipsism to make the most outlandish claims and then ask Average Joe to disprove it.
Well, they are a joke for most. However, the possibility of solipsism has been very disconcerting for some philosophers.

Astute. Can you tell which works you have read which you would consider to be works which support nominalism?

Frankly, I think I would hard pressed to meet a non-nominalist today.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #33 on: June 27, 2013, 05:17:33 PM »

Papist, what do you think about nominalism?
I think that it is incoherent, but that doesn't mean I agree with Pato's view either.
What do you think about nominalism?


How is it incoherent? Is there really anything like nominalism as such? I am not sure a nominalist would argue for such a thing. Which argument for nominalism do find incoherent? What is Plato's view? His view on what?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #34 on: June 27, 2013, 05:18:23 PM »

What do you think about nominalism?

Much more rational than the mystical fairy-tale Greek views, but still somewhat inconsistent.

So it is now both inconsistent and incoherent. How is "nominalism" inconsistent" Which nominalism?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #35 on: June 27, 2013, 05:23:47 PM »

I don't see how people don't see universals. Smiley


When have you seen one?

Of course this is in jest.

I am not sure I can quite believe in a universal or rather as I was saying in another thread, universals might be part of the imaginary so that I can encounter anything at all. Universals certainly do strike me as a having a certain psychic element to them. Nietzsche was clear about this, but I think his conclusions while brilliant led himself back to the same spot he was trying to get away from.

There are three threads going on right now that come down to the old questions of the many and the one.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,765



« Reply #36 on: June 27, 2013, 05:25:27 PM »

Frankly, I think I would hard pressed to meet a non-nominalist today.

Hello.

*waves hand*
Logged

On a OC.net diet.

"Chi son?  Sono un poeta. Che cosa faccio? Scrivo. E come vivo?  Vivo."
-Giacomo Puccini
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,765



« Reply #37 on: June 27, 2013, 05:26:07 PM »

universals might be part of the imaginary so that I can encounter anything at all.

So you're basically an idealist?
Logged

On a OC.net diet.

"Chi son?  Sono un poeta. Che cosa faccio? Scrivo. E come vivo?  Vivo."
-Giacomo Puccini
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #38 on: June 27, 2013, 05:30:45 PM »

Frankly, I think I would hard pressed to meet a non-nominalist today.

Hello.

*waves hand*

Just cause you say so, doesn't make it so. Should I use my Applebee's analogy again.

This is not to say because of certain circumstances you have inculcated yourself with enough reading to think you are not a nominalist, but I would have to get you in the every day so to speak to demonstrate to you how often you like act in a nominalist manner.

Papist is going to say the same thing. Again, I am not going to argue people aren't going to tell me they believe in universals, especially those who take philosophy as some hobby and take a reactionary stance, like both you and Papist tend to.

But in my day to day life, and this is recent revelation to me, people are functional nominalists. And how people act and in virtue of what they do is much more interesting to me than someone who can parrot a summary of a philosophical trend.

EDIT: Observe your friends, unless they philosophy students, and see how they act and in virtue of what they discuss "bigger questions". You can do the experiment yourself. I really don't care if you agree with me. Agreement or being right or wrong are the most boring of ways to deal with thought.

When people shout, incoherence or inconsistent when dealing with interesting questions, I hear: I am boring and unproductive. An awe filled and passionate adversary I'll take any day over a milktoast agreer with me.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 05:34:08 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,765



« Reply #39 on: June 27, 2013, 05:32:26 PM »

What is a "functional nominalist"? How does one act like a functional nominalist?
Logged

On a OC.net diet.

"Chi son?  Sono un poeta. Che cosa faccio? Scrivo. E come vivo?  Vivo."
-Giacomo Puccini
lovetzatziki
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 430



« Reply #40 on: June 27, 2013, 05:32:55 PM »

I will reply with a quote :

"Why do we close our eyes when we pray, cry, kiss, dream? Because the most beautiful things in life are not seen but felt only by heart."

The same reason we close our eyes when we kiss, cry, dream and pray.. Because magic exists... and because the most beautiful things in life are not seen but felt with the heart.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #41 on: June 27, 2013, 05:34:29 PM »

What is a "functional nominalist"? How does one act like a functional nominalist?

I edited my post.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #42 on: June 27, 2013, 05:36:01 PM »

What is a "functional nominalist"? How does one act like a functional nominalist?

Functional, that is easy. It is in virtue of how they act. They aren't going to tell me they are nominalists, they simply are, in a very rough sense.

As to the latter question, latter, I have to run, literally.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,133


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #43 on: June 27, 2013, 05:51:50 PM »

How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?

Please ignore that I do not believe in any invisible entity. I would like this thread to be about you.
I also have rejected the notion of anything being able to breach the limits of nature and physics.
No miracles allowed in my theology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2VjdpVonY

If you do not follow your religion because of culture and tradition, when did you begin to be a believer?

Can you describe how you were made to believe in fantasy or imaginary creatures?

Were you an adult at that time or a child?

If a child, could this real phenomena be what caused you to believe?

http://academia.edu/503195/_Princess_Alice_is_watching_you_Childrens_belief_in_an_invisible_person_inhibits_cheating

Regards
DL


I always find atheistic arguments the best, because atheistic arguments hold absolutely no water on theology.  They can never explain the countless miracles recorded by people, witnessing of angels, miracles, etc.   They can never explain exactly how the Earth got here, how life began, and how human beings came to pass. 

They give credence to theories such as evolution, where man came from chimps, though they never consider if chimps survived, man survived, then the in-between stages (I guess planet of the apes types LOL) did not survive.

Atheists can't explain feelings - things that we all know exist yet can't be proven in a lab.
Atheists can't prove love - which God has been declared "God is love" - in a lab.  Of course we know these things exist.

Yet despite the countless testimonies of people, the bible being the #1 sold book in the world period, countless miracles, and things they know that exist that they can't prove in a lab - they still attack God.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,382



« Reply #44 on: June 27, 2013, 05:56:44 PM »

I always find atheistic arguments the best, because atheistic arguments hold absolutely no water on theology.  They can never explain the countless miracles recorded by people, witnessing of angels, miracles, etc.   They can never explain exactly how the Earth got here, how life began, and how human beings came to pass. 

They give credence to theories such as evolution, where man came from chimps, though they never consider if chimps survived, man survived, then the in-between stages (I guess planet of the apes types LOL) did not survive.

Atheists can't explain feelings - things that we all know exist yet can't be proven in a lab.
Atheists can't prove love - which God has been declared "God is love" - in a lab.  Of course we know these things exist.

Yet despite the countless testimonies of people, the bible being the #1 sold book in the world period, countless miracles, and things they know that exist that they can't prove in a lab - they still attack God.

I disagreed with everything you said in that paragraph. Well, almost everything. I would concede that the Bible has probably sold more copies than any other book. Almost no one reads it, but people do buy it.   Anyway, I actually counted, and you said 16 things I disagreed with. I find that kind of consistency phenomenal Smiley
Logged

"Change is the process of becoming more like who we are."
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,133


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #45 on: June 27, 2013, 06:00:17 PM »

I always find atheistic arguments the best, because atheistic arguments hold absolutely no water on theology.  They can never explain the countless miracles recorded by people, witnessing of angels, miracles, etc.   They can never explain exactly how the Earth got here, how life began, and how human beings came to pass.  

They give credence to theories such as evolution, where man came from chimps, though they never consider if chimps survived, man survived, then the in-between stages (I guess planet of the apes types LOL) did not survive.

Atheists can't explain feelings - things that we all know exist yet can't be proven in a lab.
Atheists can't prove love - which God has been declared "God is love" - in a lab.  Of course we know these things exist.

Yet despite the countless testimonies of people, the bible being the #1 sold book in the world period, countless miracles, and things they know that exist that they can't prove in a lab - they still attack God.

I disagreed with everything you said in that paragraph. Well, almost everything. I would concede that the Bible has probably sold more copies than any other book. Almost no one reads it, but people do buy it.   Anyway, I actually counted, and you said 16 things I disagreed with. I find that kind of consistency phenomenal Smiley

Cool, they trapped love and feelings in a jar?


EDIT - also their "explanations" are "theories", not Scientific law.   As far as feelings go, I'm speaking of the actual emotional feeling that you feel.

Other than that, I don't get where else you' disagree, but LOL, guess we'll agree to disagree Wink
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 06:02:35 PM by yeshuaisiam » Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,382



« Reply #46 on: June 27, 2013, 06:02:27 PM »

I always find atheistic arguments the best, because atheistic arguments hold absolutely no water on theology.  They can never explain the countless miracles recorded by people, witnessing of angels, miracles, etc.   They can never explain exactly how the Earth got here, how life began, and how human beings came to pass. 

They give credence to theories such as evolution, where man came from chimps, though they never consider if chimps survived, man survived, then the in-between stages (I guess planet of the apes types LOL) did not survive.

Atheists can't explain feelings - things that we all know exist yet can't be proven in a lab.
Atheists can't prove love - which God has been declared "God is love" - in a lab.  Of course we know these things exist.

Yet despite the countless testimonies of people, the bible being the #1 sold book in the world period, countless miracles, and things they know that exist that they can't prove in a lab - they still attack God.

I disagreed with everything you said in that paragraph. Well, almost everything. I would concede that the Bible has probably sold more copies than any other book. Almost no one reads it, but people do buy it.   Anyway, I actually counted, and you said 16 things I disagreed with. I find that kind of consistency phenomenal Smiley

Cool, they trapped love and feelings in a jar?

Yes. They tried mason jars for a long time, but there was always leakage. By the time the love got to the consumers it was barely infatuation. Finally they figured out that they needed jars made from a certain type of plastic. And voila.
Logged

"Change is the process of becoming more like who we are."
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,133


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #47 on: June 27, 2013, 06:03:59 PM »

I always find atheistic arguments the best, because atheistic arguments hold absolutely no water on theology.  They can never explain the countless miracles recorded by people, witnessing of angels, miracles, etc.   They can never explain exactly how the Earth got here, how life began, and how human beings came to pass. 

They give credence to theories such as evolution, where man came from chimps, though they never consider if chimps survived, man survived, then the in-between stages (I guess planet of the apes types LOL) did not survive.

Atheists can't explain feelings - things that we all know exist yet can't be proven in a lab.
Atheists can't prove love - which God has been declared "God is love" - in a lab.  Of course we know these things exist.

Yet despite the countless testimonies of people, the bible being the #1 sold book in the world period, countless miracles, and things they know that exist that they can't prove in a lab - they still attack God.

I disagreed with everything you said in that paragraph. Well, almost everything. I would concede that the Bible has probably sold more copies than any other book. Almost no one reads it, but people do buy it.   Anyway, I actually counted, and you said 16 things I disagreed with. I find that kind of consistency phenomenal Smiley

Cool, they trapped love and feelings in a jar?

Yes. They tried mason jars for a long time, but there was always leakage. By the time the love got to the consumers it was barely infatuation. Finally they figured out that they needed jars made from a certain type of plastic. And voila.

MASON jars.... eek.   So they are putting love in the luciferian... nevermind.  heh edit above.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #48 on: June 27, 2013, 11:42:51 PM »

Papist, what do you think about nominalism?
I think that it is incoherent, but that doesn't mean I agree with Pato's view either.
What do you think about nominalism?


I don't fully agree with Plato either (I'm not even sure whether Plato himself even agreed with it - vide Parmenides) but I do think universalia exist independent of their materialisations. I'm still fairly unsure about some aspects of it.
Look into Aristotle's view. He believed that universals were objective but he disagreed with Plato's view that universals have some kind of independent existence.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #49 on: June 27, 2013, 11:48:36 PM »

I tend to see scepticism and the related solipsism as a joke. It can, however, be hilarious to use sceptisicm and solipsism to make the most outlandish claims and then ask Average Joe to disprove it.
Well, they are a joke for most. However, the possibility of solipsism has been very disconcerting for some philosophers.

Astute. Can you tell which works you have read which you would consider to be works which support nominalism?

Frankly, I think I would hard pressed to meet a non-nominalist today.
The post you are quoting is not about nominalism. But since you ask, the most famous nominalists I have read are David Hume and John Locke.
I have also read some 20th century nominalists in my contemporary philosophy class but none were philosophical giants the way Hume was.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 11:53:07 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #50 on: June 27, 2013, 11:50:32 PM »

I don't see how people don't see universals. Smiley


When have you seen one?

Of course this is in jest.

I am not sure I can quite believe in a universal or rather as I was saying in another thread, universals might be part of the imaginary so that I can encounter anything at all. Universals certainly do strike me as a having a certain psychic element to them. Nietzsche was clear about this, but I think his conclusions while brilliant led himself back to the same spot he was trying to get away from.

There are three threads going on right now that come down to the old questions of the many and the one.
Sounds somewhat like a form of Kantian Conceptualism.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #51 on: June 28, 2013, 01:57:20 PM »

Papist, what do you think about nominalism?
I think that it is incoherent, but that doesn't mean I agree with Pato's view either.
What do you think about nominalism?


I don't fully agree with Plato either (I'm not even sure whether Plato himself even agreed with it - vide Parmenides) but I do think universalia exist independent of their materialisations. I'm still fairly unsure about some aspects of it.
Look into Aristotle's view. He believed that universals were objective but he disagreed with Plato's view that universals have some kind of independent existence.

So do you believe in universals?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #52 on: June 29, 2013, 05:11:33 PM »

Papist, what do you think about nominalism?
I think that it is incoherent, but that doesn't mean I agree with Pato's view either.
What do you think about nominalism?


I don't fully agree with Plato either (I'm not even sure whether Plato himself even agreed with it - vide Parmenides) but I do think universalia exist independent of their materialisations. I'm still fairly unsure about some aspects of it.
Look into Aristotle's view. He believed that universals were objective but he disagreed with Plato's view that universals have some kind of independent existence.

So do you believe in universals?
Yes. But only in the Aristotelian sense. They exist only insofar as individuals beings make them manifest and the intellect makes them universal. I don't believe that they exist in some third realm out in who-knows-where. If there were no individuals, there would be no universals.
I can predict Orthonorm's response: "How stupid, papist, what a moronic post, papist.... etc... etc... etc." Just thought I would save him the trouble.

Anywhooooo, I think that Bertrand Russell's response to nominalism was interesting. He argues that the nominalist denies universals, and claims that universals only exist because one gives universal names to objects that have a relationship of similarity with one another. Russell responds that if that were the case, then resemblances would be universals. One might argue that those resemblances are only given a universal name because they resemble one another. But then we have another higher level universal concept of resemblances. He concludes that nominalism suffers from infinite regress, and rejects its validity.

That all being said, I really do enjoy reading the works of nominalist philosophers, as I do enjoy reading pretty much any philosopher with whom I disagree. It gives me more to think about. Smiley
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 05:22:30 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,157


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #53 on: June 29, 2013, 05:29:43 PM »

Oh,
And btw, I disagree with orthonorm completely. I don't think that there is a single functional nominalist anywhere. Even the philosophy professors/students who write papers on nominlism do not act like nominalists in real life. When some one refers to a cat, that person does not go through a process of thinking, I see x in front of me, an x resembles y and y resembles z. I know that they are not really the same kind of thing, but for the sake of engaging in thought and speech, I will refer to it with common term "cat."

No one does that!

Here is what all really do on a day to day basis. We see a cat, and we see another cat, and we assume that when we call each a cat, we mean exactly the same thing. Sure we recognize some accidental differences, but we recognize the term cat applying to both in a univocal manner.

People might like to pretend they are nominalists, so that they sound "enlightened" (for some reason, in our day and age, disagreeing with the majority automatically = enlightened), but they don't act like nominalists.

NOTE: This post is not intended to disprove nominalism.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,305


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #54 on: June 29, 2013, 05:50:43 PM »

I'm probably coming off really amateur here, but I just don't get how we could say in either direction whether or not something abstract that we cannot see, feel or touch exists. It seems foolish to me. How could some fairy tale Greek philosopher definitively say that universals exist in some far-off realm? Likewise, how could a nominalist definitively say that they don't exist? The way I see it is that we have no way of saying whether or not they exist, so we are better off staying neutral. That being said, I believe that the concept of universals and abstract things exist in our mind--we still notice similarities and traits in physical phenomena and we can classify those certain traits and similarities under a label like "universals," but, how could we definitively say whether or not "universals" actually exist or not? What if they are just manmade concepts to describe what we see around us?
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #55 on: June 29, 2013, 07:00:33 PM »

Papist, what do you think about nominalism?
I think that it is incoherent, but that doesn't mean I agree with Pato's view either.
What do you think about nominalism?
I don't fully agree with Plato either (I'm not even sure whether Plato himself even agreed with it - vide Parmenides) but I do think universalia exist independent of their materialisations. I'm still fairly unsure about some aspects of it.
Look into Aristotle's view. He believed that universals were objective but he disagreed with Plato's view that universals have some kind of independent existence.
So do you believe in universals?
Anywhooooo, I think that Bertrand Russell's response to nominalism was interesting. He argues that the nominalist denies universals, and claims that universals only exist because one gives universal names to objects that have a relationship of similarity with one another. Russell responds that if that were the case, then resemblances would be universals. One might argue that those resemblances are only given a universal name because they resemble one another. But then we have another higher level universal concept of resemblances. He concludes that nominalism suffers from infinite regress, and rejects its validity.

Some time ago, orth and I posted the same thing at the same time, and since then I've become the OC.net prince of nominalism or something. We agreed that people today tend toward some kind of nominalism.

Aren't you a philosophy student? Or am I confusing you? I'm not read in the subject except for a few things, so maybe you can help clear up my uneducated and fogged-up mind.

I believe there are similarities, but not exactly universals. My view requires that one ditch the law of the excluded middle here, as something is not longer absolutely a cat or not a cat. Calling something like similarity a universal is difficult, because such a thing could only exist in the complete abstract (how can you instantiate similarity?)

If one goes the route of much of modern philosophy by reducing an object to the phenomenon, I believe the argument against universals could get even stronger.

Then there's the matter of ideas, which are not the same as universals.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #56 on: June 29, 2013, 07:09:21 PM »

Oh,
And btw, I disagree with orthonorm completely. I don't think that there is a single functional nominalist anywhere. Even the philosophy professors/students who write papers on nominlism do not act like nominalists in real life. When some one refers to a cat, that person does not go through a process of thinking, I see x in front of me, an x resembles y and y resembles z. I know that they are not really the same kind of thing, but for the sake of engaging in thought and speech, I will refer to it with common term "cat."

No one does that!

Here is what all really do on a day to day basis. We see a cat, and we see another cat, and we assume that when we call each a cat, we mean exactly the same thing. Sure we recognize some accidental differences, but we recognize the term cat applying to both in a univocal manner.

People might like to pretend they are nominalists, so that they sound "enlightened" (for some reason, in our day and age, disagreeing with the majority automatically = enlightened), but they don't act like nominalists.

NOTE: This post is not intended to disprove nominalism.

I have no idea what goes through my mind when I see a cat. What about borderline cats? Do they possess the universal cat qualities, or not? If they do, then in virtue of what is such a thing's cathood questionable?

Orth's old post reflects my experience when talking to the philosophically uneducated today about universals and especially essences:

Cavaradossi,

Back to the other thing I know nothing about.

If you talk to a non-sophisticate (if someone of your erudition know such folks), ask them in a plain way about "universals". If green exists? And wait for their answer.

I think you might be surprised about how nominalist in a "weak sense" most folks are.
Logged
Greatest I am
Muted
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Gnostic
Posts: 304



« Reply #57 on: July 30, 2013, 04:57:11 PM »

I have to believe in fantasy or imaginary creatures in order to participate in this thread.  After all, I'm replying to one. 

Boo.

Regards
DL
Logged
Greatest I am
Muted
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Gnostic
Posts: 304



« Reply #58 on: July 30, 2013, 04:57:11 PM »

How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?

Please ignore that I do not believe in any invisible entity. I would like this thread to be about you.
I also have rejected the notion of anything being able to breach the limits of nature and physics.
No miracles allowed in my theology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2VjdpVonY

If you do not follow your religion because of culture and tradition, when did you begin to be a believer?

Can you describe how you were made to believe in fantasy or imaginary creatures?

Were you an adult at that time or a child?

If a child, could this real phenomena be what caused you to believe?

http://academia.edu/503195/_Princess_Alice_is_watching_you_Childrens_belief_in_an_invisible_person_inhibits_cheating

Regards
DL


If you expect respectful answers, I don't think you should describe the things, people believe in, as "fantasy creatures".

Just a thought.

Understood but what would you call those types of creatures and events?
Talking donkeys and water walking men. That type.
Logged
Greatest I am
Muted
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Gnostic
Posts: 304



« Reply #59 on: July 30, 2013, 04:57:11 PM »

Quote
Can you describe how you were made to believe in fantasy or imaginary creatures?

How old are you sir? This will help me answer your question better.

I am 63 years young and father of 4 boys.

Regards
DL
Logged
Greatest I am
Muted
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Gnostic
Posts: 304



« Reply #60 on: July 30, 2013, 04:57:11 PM »

Well if someone believes in a creature they don't consider them imaginary, now do they Mr. man?

Perhaps so but they will know what I am speaking of exactly the way you do.

Regards
DL
Logged
Greatest I am
Muted
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Gnostic
Posts: 304



« Reply #61 on: July 30, 2013, 04:57:11 PM »

How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?

Please ignore that I do not believe in any invisible entity. I would like this thread to be about you.
I also have rejected the notion of anything being able to breach the limits of nature and physics.
No miracles allowed in my theology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2VjdpVonY

If you do not follow your religion because of culture and tradition, when did you begin to be a believer?

Can you describe how you were made to believe in fantasy or imaginary creatures?

Were you an adult at that time or a child?

If a child, could this real phenomena be what caused you to believe?

http://academia.edu/503195/_Princess_Alice_is_watching_you_Childrens_belief_in_an_invisible_person_inhibits_cheating

Regards
DL

Why do you dogmatically and religiously profess that the material is all that exists?

Is telepathy part of the material world?

I think that that is how God communicates and Jesus also said that the mind is the conduit to God and our minds are in the material world.

Do you not believe Jesus when he says that the kingdom of God is within us.

I am willing to swear that it is and that apotheosis is real.

Are you?

Regards
DL
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.201 seconds with 90 queries.