A long to get in all the people.
Cittasanto wrote:Where is the Keyboardness of the Keyboard? That has causes and conditions for it to be called a keyboard and it is a keyboard because it fulfils certain requirements, which involve the coming together of parts.
The keyboardness of the keyboard is its form -- its shape, color, smell, and such like. I am in no way stating that such a thing as a keyboard is without causes or conditions. Those causes and conditions are exterior to it. So something outside of it caused it to be. We know what these causes and conditions are.
perkele wrote:I don't get it. Hylomorphism, actuality, potentiality, ... For me those are just a bunch of lofty words. I don't see how they apply to reality. ... In this case, however, I don't see how "actuality", "potentiality" etc. point to something that is to be experienced.
A piece of silver is potentially a coin. It is actually a piece of silver (in whatever shape it would be). When it is struck to make a coin, that is not actually a coin. ANother more "living" example is the acorn. The acorn has within itself teh potential to be an oak tree. It is actually an acorn, but when that potentiality is actualized, it will be an oak tree. All causation and change we experience is due to this process of actualizing of potentialities. They may seem like lofty words, but the concept is right before your eyes at every moment. It is an observation from the senses.
perkele wrote:You (or those philosophers and thinkers you refer to) speak very much in riddles to me.
It riddled me before I studied it. After you understand the terminology, which I admit is a bit jargony, then most of the concepts are quite within everyday experience. To a non-Buddhist, saying fermentations bubble up in the mind and that we are constantly fabricating, that would be confusing for those who aren't acquainted, but does that deminish the value of the teaching?
I don't see that it gives me any clear understanding.
It gives a clear (or better) understanding of the process of causation.
In the temporal sense I don't see what's wrong with infinite regress, and I gather you don't see it either (although it's not completely clear, would be nice if you could confirm or deny that).
Those things within an accidently ordered series can regress to infinity.
But as others have pointed out such an idea holds no water, because existence does not seem to be ultimately good.
If existence does not seem to be ultimately good, then why does the Buddha take as an ultimate good happiness. There must be something more to that state than mere chance. He didn't pick it out of a hat and say, "I am going to strive for this." He saw that as a central goal of his life, and a central goal to share with his followers. If it isn't an ultimate good, then he was less of a teacher than Buddhism teaches.
contemplans wrote:reasoned that in order for anything to be actually in existence, not just a particular version of us at a given moment, it had to have an ultimate source which is pure existence,
It is an interesting line of reasoning, but it is one that really does not tell us anything useful. It certainly has no empirical, experiential, basis. It is naught more than a mental construct.
If there is no value in mental constructs, then why have a path? As for empirical, experiential, value, it has as much value as the doctrine of karma.
tiltbillings wrote:Poor Aristotle. And how does this pure actuality actually function? Sadly, for something to be, to be actual, to exist, it must undergo a process, which means there will have to be an infinite number of pure actualities that lead up to the final existent actuality, and then when the final actuality ceases to exist, what happens to the pure actuality? Goes to pure actuality heaven?
No, you are misunderstanding the theory. For something to COME TO BE, it must under process. When it is actual, it just is. For something to be pure actuality, it undergoes no change nor process, nor coming to be. It just is. It has nothing it is that could be something else. This is probably as hard to understand as the state of Nibbana, since the decription of Nibbana is very similar to this. We are composed of what is, and what could be. The only way you can have more than one is if there is something else that is potentially something else. Pure actuality is only one, without any succession, because succession and multiplicity are signs of potentiality, of something which could have been something else. In the world of senses, all things could be something else. This is why Nibbana is a goal outside of the sense sphere.
tiltbillings wrote:It obviously is not the answer, in that it can explain nothing in a meaningful way.
Many people have and do derive meaning from it. It has affected dramatically Greek, Christian, Muslim, and Jewish religions, as well as numerous schools of philosophy, all of which are significant influences in world history. A great number of humans historically. Either I am doing a bad job describing it, or you don't understand the concepts.
That is the crux of the debate. But if one posits that it isn't pure actuality, then they need to have an explanation for why anything exists at all.
No you don't. One might want to explain why anything exists, and then come up with something like a god notion as an explanation, but then then same question gets leveled at the god notion, why does god exist? Given that a god notion tends to be highly incoherent (and that has to do with the fact that god notions are really nothing more than grand extensions of one's self notion), so , given that god notions tend to be highly incoherent, best not to bother. Taking the universe as it, as it is found to be, without layering upon it unnecessary, indemonstrable notions such as "pure actuality" aka god, would be a far better way to go.
The logic leads to pure actuality. The Judeo-Christian traditions took this and applied it to their religious structure, but Aristotle got to God without the influence of these religions, i.e., he was in a polytheistic culture. God is not brought in, and the logic supplied, but the logic leads to the concept of pure actuality, and those who already believed in monotheism have made use of the logic. You can ignore all the Christians, Jews, and Muslims and still get to pure actuality with Aristotle's reasoning.
Kim O'Hara wrote:Putting that much more simply: Aristotle came up with an unsupported theory which contemplans likes. That doesn't mean it bears any relationship whatsoever to an accurate description of what exists, why it exists or how it exists.
And this post is another attempt to restart the debate with relocated goalposts.
The goalposts are still there -- western ontology. I am at the goal waiting for your kick.