Basic philosophy: objective vs. subjective; Christ vs. satan; Christian vs. Jew

[apollonian]

The BASIC Philosophic Conflict: Objectivity Vs. Subjectivism (Christ Vs. satanism)

Comrades: remember what the basic PHILOSOPHIC concepts are--Truth vs. Lies.  Thus we understand this means, in ALLEGORIC terms, Christ (= truth, Gosp. JOHN 14:6) vs. satanic lies (JOHN 8:44), Jews being most organized and committed satanists.  Note Jews are foremost leaders among satanists due to their ORGANIZED, hence COLLECTIVIST emphasis and configuration.

Thus observe the more specific PHILOSOPHIC concept(s) and principle(s): Christian truth NECESSARILY dependent upon Aristotelian OBJECTIVITY, vs Jew subjectivism, basis of their incessant lies and lying.

Specifically then, note Jews will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS emphasize "good" (hence then subjectivism) over and AGAINST TRUTH, "good" being whatever benefits Jews and keeps them at the top.  And note "good" then is WHATEVER JEWS SAY IT IS, according to their "oral law tradition" and "midrash"--hence Talmud, which is the recorded tradition, which the "reform" Jews say they don't necessarily accept, yet still accept and practice the basic "midrash" method--hence "interpretation" and subjectivism.

Thus u see: Jews and satanists say truth is subjective, DEPENDENT UPON "GOOD"--THIS SUBJECTIVIST GOOD DETERMINING TRUTH, which "truth" is always, necessarily "politically correct," hence what's "good" for kikes, ALWAYS determined by the head kikes.

Thus note most profound fact: "good" (specific form of subjectivism) is always, necessarily the worst enemy of TRUTH (= Christ)--and don't forget the "noble lie" of Plato, taken-up again by Leo Strauss, reputed founder of "neo-conservatism," defender of zionism even if Strauss pretends to some reservations.

[Christopher Marlowe]

I think the error here is the choice to adopt the Jewish concept of "good".  The ancients, including Aristotle, had no problem with the idea of objective "good".  Thus, "good" is not in conflict with "truth".  These types of arguments are called "teleological" since the concern the "ends", or telos of a thing.  The natural law is based on the idea of there being self-evident "goods" based on our human nature.  The primary rule of natural law is that the good is to be done, and evil is to be avoided.  The first five precepts are: 1. The preservation of Human Life; 2. Marriage and procreation; 3. Education of the Young; 4. Knowledge of the Truth about God. 5. Live in society.

Jewish thought is worldly, and thus subject to change based on it efficacy on attaining a specific end. Christian moral law is based on the final ends: eternal life with God.  The final ends are never changing, so the natural law does not change. It is objective.

[apollonian]

...
The primary rule of natural law is that the good is to be done, and evil is to be avoided.  The first five precepts are: 1. The preservation of Human Life; 2. Marriage and procreation; 3. Education of the Young; 4. Knowledge of the Truth about God. 5. Live in society.
...

The refutation of ur thesis is WHY something/anything is good--what's the premise which makes something "good"?--there is none.  Ethics is mere logic btwn ends and means.

Why should human life be preserved?--what's premise?--same question goes for all the others, i.e., marriage, education, knowledge, society, etc.

In actuality/reality, "good" merely refers to obedience, which we're taught when young--also taught to dogs.

[Christopher Marlowe]

...
The primary rule of natural law is that the good is to be done, and evil is to be avoided.  The first five precepts are: 1. The preservation of Human Life; 2. Marriage and procreation; 3. Education of the Young; 4. Knowledge of the Truth about God. 5. Live in society.
...

The refutation of ur thesis is WHY something/anything is good--what's the premise which makes something "good"?--there is none.  Ethics is mere logic btwn ends and means.

Why should human life be preserved?--what's premise?--same question goes for all the others, i.e., marriage, education, knowledge, society, etc.

In actuality/reality, "good" merely refers to obedience, which we're taught when young--also taught to dogs.

Your misunderstanding of what "good" means seems related to the logical fallacy made famous by GE Moore, and Hume before him.  Their positions are essentially positivist, and based on a misunderstanding of natural law.  Despite your apprehensions to the contrary, it is the positivist view that is relativist; it is the natural law view that is founded on moral absolutes. The position you are taking is actually promoting the "subjective" view.

Hume
Hume claimed that in every system of morality he had ever encountered, there was always a leap in reasoning from the "is" to the "ought" without ever establishing how the latter was proven. 

The simple answer to Hume's supposition that the 'ought' cannot be derived from the 'is', is to suppose the contrary: Instead of human beings sharing a common nature, "such that certain things are true of any of them insofar as they are human"; we should assume that human beings are just random products of natural selection, with "no built in
purpose that we might discover." [My assertions here rely very heavily on the writings of Ralph McInerny, PT Geach, John Finnis, and Anthony D'Amato] Very simply, Hume is asking us to suppose that, "The way things are gives us no clue as to what we ought to do". Besides being ridiculous on its face, this makes a mockery of the entirety of law: for if this is the case, how should people be held to account for anything?

Moore
Moore was made famous for his supposed refutation of the "naturalist fallacy", but this is just a restatement of what Hume proposed.  Moore says that the problem with natural law theory comes about when an illogical equivalence is made between some "natural" quality and its goodness; i.e. there is a non-necessary deduction of a normative aspect from a descriptive one:

"For whatever we may have proved to exist, and whatever two existents we may have proved to be necessarily connected with one another, it still remains a distinct and different question whether what thus exists is good; whether either or both of the two existents is so; and whether it is good that they should exist together. To assert the one is plainly and obviously not the same thing as to assert the other. We understand what we mean by asking: Is this, which exists, or
necessarily exists, after all, good? In the face of this direct perception that the two questions are distinct, no proof that they must be identical can have the slightest value."

Basically, Moore is saying there is a "gap between fact and value that cannot be closed by citing facts about the valued thing": The relation between the properties of the thing in question and our calling it 'good' are wholly contingent. Moore reasons that if the properties of the thing are not related to its 'goodness', "so far as the meaning of good goes, anything whatever may be good".

The interesting thing about Moore's criticism of the "naturalist fallacy" is that it is based on a fallacy that ignores the difference between predicative and attributive adjectives:

"n a phrase 'an A B' ('A' being an adjective and 'B' being a noun) 'A' is a (logically) predicative adjective if the predication 'is an A B' splits up logically into a pair of predications 'is a B' and 'is A'; otherwise ... 'A' is a (logically) attributive adjective."

Thus, I can take the sentence "He is a tall lawyer", and divide that into "he is tall" and "he is a lawyer." But if I say that "He is a good lawyer", it would not be the same thing as saying that "he is good", and "he is a lawyer". This is because 'good' and 'evil' are attributive adjectives, not predicative. Therefore, this relation between 'good' and 'lawyer' can only be figured out by looking into what it means to be a lawyer.

Natural Law versus Moral Relativism
Traditional natural law holds that "some things are right for all times and all places, other things are always wrong, and two reasonable people could not differ about which was which because if they differed then one of them would not be reasonable." Universally valid laws, e.g. condemning the torture of an innocent child, or the killing of a person for the
killer's personal profit, could be labelled labeled 'M-1'; but relative "morality", M-2, is used to describe something that is 'immoral' in some societies, and 'moral' in others. M-2 is not really 'morality' at all, but is rather 'custom'. In contrast, a person referring to M-1 morality is talking about something that this person would feel is wrong or right,
no matter where it occurred.  A reasonable person would feel an inner compulsion to stop a child from being tortured. So M-2, or "moral relativism" is really a misleading term because it doesn't really describe morality. As you can see, natural law is viewing morality as objectively wrong or right; the positivist view is subjective.

The Natural Law is really just the application of practical reason.  Practical reason shows that the postivist method of determining human good is illogical: 

"Contemporary skepticism about the basic human goods is  based on a logically illicit slide from "is" to "ought". For example:

• X is not universally/commonly regarded as good/obligatory, so X is not good/obligatory.

Explicit natural law theory was launched by Plato and Aristotle, precisely as a critique of non sequiturs such as these."

There is a similar misconception in the modern account of natural law, which confuses the human good as identified by the "requirements of practical reasonableness", with the perceived benefits bestowed on a large number of persons:

"

• utside the contexts established by simple goals ... there is, in situations of morally or political significant choice, no net greatest good or lesser evil to be identified by aggregative calculations or assessments. The belief that there is, is not merely practically chimerical, but incompatible with free choice, and incoherent."

Aquinas
Hume and Moore would have done well to study Aquinas because his natural system avoids their errors.  Before one discusses these concepts of natural law "goods" it must be understood that there are always certain self-evident premises that must be admitted into any proof. Aquinas plainly states that

"the first principles of natural law, which specify the basic forms of good and evil and which can be adequately grasped by anyone of the age of reason (and not just by metaphysicians), are per se nota (self-evident) and indemonstrable."

It is oddly inconsistent that skeptics will willingly accept self-evident principles that the natural sciences and all theoretical disciplines rest upon, but then object to the use of these same principles, or at least strongly analogous versions of such, when they are used to establish the principles of practical reason.

Aquinas' discussion of the first principles includes, notably, an explanation of what it means to be self-evident:

"Any proposition is said to be self-evident in itself, if its predicate is contained in the notion of the subject".

There is no middle term required to explain the conjunction between the subject and predicate because it is immediately
apparent from the meaning of the terms that the proposition is either true or false. In this can be seen the difference between apprehension and judgment, because it is necessary to understand the meanings of the terms of a proposition before we can create a meaningful proposition from those terms.

Aquinas establishes his first principles in a specific order, and calls our attention to the logical relation being demonstrated between them. The first universal notion that must be apprehended, says Aquinas, is being itself,

"the notion of which is included in all things whatsoever a man apprehends."

It is upon this first notion, Aquinas adds the principle of non-contradiction, citing Aristotle's Metaphysics:

"It is impossible for the same attribute at once to belong and not to belong to the same thing and in the same relation".

Essentially Aquinas is saying that first of all, we know, "and then secondarily and reflectively know the way we know". Thus, as beings, we first grasp our own being, and then "the good is the first thing grasped by [the] mind in its practical function of directing some operation."

It may seem to some that mentioning the "good" at this point is merely begging the question, but that notion does not apprehend the essence of being, and what this entails:

"We desire to do what we are actually doing."

This would seem self-evident enough. The other half of this step is provided by the maxim:

"whatever is desired is desired in the form of good":

"We shall...find ourselves talking nonsense if we try to describe a people whose custom it was, when they wanted A's, to choose A's they thought bad and reject A's they thought good."

Certainly, it may be said that a person might be mistaken in desiring something that he only thinks is perfective and fulfilling. But this mistake does not refute the fact that our actions are based on the assumption that the object of our desire deserves the "formality under which it is desired"; i.e. that it is "perfective and fulfilling."

It is the very nature of the 'good' that fills this two-fold role of being both desired and normative:

"The first principle of practical reason is grounded in the knowledge of the notion of goodness: The good is that which all things seek. This is what 'good' is taken to mean, just as 'being' means that which exists. But something is sought insofar as it is completive or perfective of the seeker. Thus 'good' does not simply designate an object of pursuit; it gives the formality under which the object is sought or pursued: as completive, as perfective."

Reviewing these in order, I can derive Aquinas' next principle:

1. I exist; it is the nature of existence that a thing cannot both exist and not exist
in the same way and at the same time;
2. Therefore, the rule of non-contradiction.
3. It is also in the nature of being that I seek after the 'good';
4. Therefore, "this is the first precept of law, that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.""

It is easy to see that "the first principle of practical reasoning is analogous to the first principle of reasoning".

The remaining precepts of natural law follow from this, and are ordered according to their natural inclination:

1. Preserving human life, and of warding off its obstacles;
2. Sexual Intercourse (Marriage/procreation);
3. Education of offspring;
4. To know the truth about God; and
5. To live in society.

[apollonian]

...
The primary rule of natural law is that the good is to be done, and evil is to be avoided.  The first five precepts are: 1. The preservation of Human Life; 2. Marriage and procreation; 3. Education of the Young; 4. Knowledge of the Truth about God. 5. Live in society.
...

The refutation of ur thesis is WHY something/anything is good--what's the premise which makes something "good"?--there is none.  Ethics is mere logic btwn ends and means.

Why should human life be preserved?--what's premise?--same question goes for all the others, i.e., marriage, education, knowledge, society, etc.

In actuality/reality, "good" merely refers to obedience, which we're taught when young--also taught to dogs.

Your misunderstanding of what "good" means seems related to the logical fallacy made famous by GE Moore, and Hume before him. 
...

---------------------------------------

Comrade: all u do is spam the thread w. MASSIVE crap and babbling, along w. some name-dropping--as if u impress urself w. all this crap and verbiage, so therefore u must be right or what u say must have some real substance in it.

I'm sure I'll probably go back over it (ur mass of crap) and try to piece it together for making any sense, but for now I'll simply pt. out u FAIL to say what "good" is, the premise which makes whatever good.  There is none.

Remember, just asserting something doesn't make it true, adding crap and verbiage and name-dropping doesn't either.  Perhaps u could try to attempt to reduce ur babbling to something that makes more sense.  Otherwise, it's all just laughable crap, spam, verbiage, and babbling--sorry, but that's how I see it.

[Michael K.]

He says that your choice to identity the "subjective" and the "objective" as you do is the exact reverse of what you seem to think it means.

Furthermore, your determinism and your denial of the existence of free will, and furthermore labelling that all as Christianity is pernicious.

Your view is positivistic, not natural law.  Yet you call it natural law.  In fact it is naturalism, which has much in common with satanism.

It seems to me like you are angling at the idea that you can be fatalistic and not disturbed by your own sin because it is all fated ultimately to have to be that way.  It is a philosophical sham justification for a lack of ethics and compassion for others' suffering.

[apollonian]

He says that your choice to identity the "subjective" and the "objective" as you do is the exact reverse of what you seem to think it means.

Furthermore, your determinism and your denial of the existence of free will, and furthermore labelling that all as Christianity is pernicious.

Your view is positivistic, not natural law.  Yet you call it natural law.  In fact it is naturalism, which has much in common with satanism.

It seems to me like you are angling at the idea that you can be fatalistic and not disturbed by your own sin because it is all fated ultimately to have to be that way.  It is a philosophical sham justification for a lack of ethics and compassion for others' suffering.

------------------------------------------

Apo commentary in below text capped, bracketed.

* * * * * * *

"He says that your choice to identity the "subjective" and the "objective" as you do is the exact reverse of what you seem to think it means.  [SUBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE CAN HARDLY BE SIMPLER TO UNDERSTAND, AND I FOLLOW ARISTOTLE'S UNDERSTANDING.]

"Furthermore, your determinism and your denial of the existence of free will, and furthermore labelling that all as Christianity is pernicious.[IT'S PERNICIOUS?--HO HO HO--THIS IS JUST UR ASSERTION, AS USUAL, WITHOUT ANY REASONING, AS USUAL, HO HO HO HO HO.  U'RE A SINNER, PERIOD, DOOMED TO HECK, AND THAT WILL NEVER CHANGE, PERIOD.  HO HO HO HO.  AND CHRISTIANITY ISN'T ROCKET-SCIENCE, THOUGH U DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND IT, SIMPLE AS IT IS.  JUST CK GOSP. JOHN 14:6; CHRIST IS TRUTH, THE ONLY WAY TO HAPPINESS AND GOD.  THERE'S NO TRUTH WITHOUT THE OBJECTIVE REALITY; THUS CHRIST IS ARISTOTELIAN.]

"Your view is positivistic, not natural law.  [HO HO HO--THERE U GO AGAIN, BABBLING WORDS U DON'T UNDERSTAND--WHAT'S "POSITIVISTIC," GENIUS?  HO HO HO.]

"Yet you call it natural law.  In fact it is naturalism, [WHAT?--AGAIN, USING WORDS U DON'T UNDERSTAND, EH?  HO HO HO HO HO]

"...which has much in common with satanism.  [HO HO HO--SATANISM IS SUBJECTIVISM--U'RE A SATANIST, PRETENDING TO PHARISAISM AND "GOOD."  HO HO HO HO]

"It seems to me like you are angling at the idea that you can be fatalistic [DETERMINISM IS ABSOLUTE CAUSE-EFFECT AND THE ONLY OBSERVATION ONE CAN MAKE FM REALITY--ALL REALITY CONFIRMS.]

"...and not disturbed by your own sin because it is all fated ultimately to have to be that way.  [BY GOLLY, BUT U SURE ARE CLEVER, AREN'T U? HO HO HO HO.  U JUST THINK IT'S GOOD TO BE "DISTURBED," EH?  HO HO HO--U'RE TRULY A GENIUS, WITHOUT DOUBT.]

"It is a philosophical sham justification for a lack of ethics and compassion for others' suffering."  [ETHICS IS LOGIC BTWN MEANS AND ENDS, GENIUS--U LACK SIMPLE INTELLIGENCE, KNOWLEDGE, HONESTY, ETC.--U'RE JUST A PHARISAIC PRETENDING U'RE CHRISTIAN AND THAT U KNOW ANYTHING, HO HO HO HO]

[apollonian]

I think the error here is the choice to adopt the Jewish concept of "good".  The ancients, including Aristotle, had no problem with the idea of objective "good".  Thus, "good" is not in conflict with "truth".  These types of arguments are called "teleological" since the concern the "ends", or telos of a thing.  The natural law is based on the idea of there being self-evident "goods" based on our human nature.  The primary rule of natural law is that the good is to be done, and evil is to be avoided.  The first five precepts are: 1. The preservation of Human Life; 2. Marriage and procreation; 3. Education of the Young; 4. Knowledge of the Truth about God. 5. Live in society.

Jewish thought is worldly, and thus subject to change based on it efficacy on attaining a specific end. Christian moral law is based on the final ends: eternal life with God.  The final ends are never changing, so the natural law does not change. It is objective.

----------------------------------------

Apo commentary in above-copied text, capped, bracketed.

"I think the error here is the choice to adopt the Jewish concept of "good".  [THERE IS NO "GOOD," PERIOD--IT'S JUST EUPHEMISM FOR OBEDIENCE--"JOHNNY IS GOOD BOY AS HE DID WHAT HE WAS TOLD"--GET IT?  "JEWISH GOOD"--IT'S WHATEVER JEWS SAY, WHENEVER THEY SAY, AND IT CHANGES FM TIME TO TIME, SOMETIMES BEING THIS, BUT OTHER TIMES BEING SOMETHING ELSE.]

"The ancients, including Aristotle, had no problem with the idea of objective "good".  [THIS IS FALSE--ARISTOTLE SIMPLY PRESUMED THE GOOD, HE NEVER DEFINED IT.]

"Thus, "good" is not in conflict with "truth".  [U FIRST HAVE TO SAY WHAT IT, "GOOD," IS, WHICH QUESTION/ISSUE U CONTINUE TO BEG.]

"These types of arguments are called "teleological" since the concern the "ends", or telos of a thing.  [HO HO HO--IS IT INDEED? HO HO HO--I GUESS U IMAGINE U IMPRESS ANYONE W. THIS UTTERLY EMPTY AND OUT-OF-CONTEXT STATEMENT, HO HO HO HO]

"The natural law is based on the idea of there being self-evident "goods" based on our human nature.  [HO HO HO HO--JUST MORE GRANDIOSE DECLAIMING AND ASSERTION.  NATURAL LAW IS SIMPLY "NECESSARY RELATION BTWN/AMONG THINGS," AS I UNDERSTAND.]

"The primary rule of natural law is that the good is to be done, and evil is to be avoided.  [U CONTINUE TO BEG QUESTION--THERE IS NO GOOD OR EVIL, AND U CANNOT DEFINE IT, WHICH U DEMONSTRATE W. ALL UR BABBLING HERE AND ELSEWHERE.]

"The first five precepts are: 1. The preservation of Human Life; 2. Marriage and procreation; 3. Education of the Young; 4. Knowledge of the Truth about God. 5. Live in society. [JUST MORE DECLAIMING AND ASSERTION WHILE BEGGING THE QUESTION--AND U DON'T EVEN SEEM TO GRASP UR BEGGING-QUESTION, HO HO HO HO]

"Jewish thought is worldly, and thus subject to change based on it efficacy on attaining a specific end. Christian moral law [U NEED TO GIVE CITATIONS FM NEW TEST., CEASE W. THIS ABSURD AND ANNOYING QUESTION-BEGGING U CONTINUE TO DOING.]

"...is based on the final ends: eternal life with God.  [RIGHT--AND WHAT THEN IS "GOD"?--GOD IS HAPPINESS; CHRIST THE SON IS TRUTH; HOLY SPIRIT IS INTEGRAL REASON AND HONESTY.]

"The final ends are never changing, ["FINAL END" IS HAPPINESS, AND THIS MIGHT BE ANYTHING, ETC....]

"...so the natural law does not change. It is objective."  ["NATURAL LAW" I DEFINE ABOVE, "NECESSARY RELATION," ETC.  WHAT'S OBJECTIVE IS OBJECTIVE, PERCEPTIBLE, DISCERNIBLE, EXISTING IN ITS OWN RIGHT, ETC.]

[Christopher Marlowe]

Comrade: all u do is spam the thread w. MASSIVE crap and babbling, along w. some name-dropping--as if u impress urself w. all this crap and verbiage, so therefore u must be right or what u say must have some real substance in it.

I'm sure I'll probably go back over it (ur mass of crap) and try to piece it together for making any sense, but for now I'll simply pt. out u FAIL to say what "good" is, the premise which makes whatever good.  There is none.

Remember, just asserting something doesn't make it true, adding crap and verbiage and name-dropping doesn't either.  Perhaps u could try to attempt to reduce ur babbling to something that makes more sense.  Otherwise, it's all just laughable crap, spam, verbiage, and babbling--sorry, but that's how I see it.

I should begin by pointing out that your response to my last post is THOROUGHLY PATHETIC.  There is absolutely NO SUBSTANCE to it. You don't reply to any particular point that I made, whereas I was very careful to refute everything you said. Your attitude is insulting, and you don't even appear to have actually read or understood what I wrote.   

You repeated your claim that

u FAIL to say what "good" is, the premise which makes whatever good.  There is none.

First I should note that your premise, as Michael K correctly pointed out, is positivist.  It is strange that you would accuse him of not understanding what the word means when he used it correctly.  In the philosophic sense, positivism is a ridiculous and incomplete idea that it asserts that a person cannot know anything beyond a purely scientific understanding.  "Positive" knowledge is that which is gleaned through a measurable means; it is something that is discerned sensually. [I should point out that I mean "felt by the senses". I used this word in the past on this thread, and some idiot thought that I was referring to a sensual understanding that one might find in a pornographic movie.]

Godel's Theorem demonstrated that philosophical positivism was harmful; a formal system can have a statement formulated in the language of the system that is true, but is which is not decidable by the system. In a more general sense, we can understand that there are "concepts" which can be understood philosophically, but which cannot be discerned sensually [and therefore not "scientifically" measurable].

In a legal sense, positivism says that the law is what the authority says the law is. [Do you see how this is the dog-school path of "obedience"?] Whereas the "Natural Law" school says that practical reason should discern what the law is.  Our whole system of law, the common law, is based on the natural law.  The judge writes a "holding" that describes his reasoning for why the law should be struck down.  For example, in one case a judge struck down a case where a man was going to inherit his father's estate after killing his father.  Even though the "positive" law was properly promulgated, the judge said that this was "unjust" that a man should profit from his own wrongdoing. 

The idea that a judge can overturn a law is contrary to the very basis of positivism.  How does one overturn a law in the positivist sense?  If the law was properly promulgated, then the judge should follow it.  Right? 

A judge has the authority to overturn a law because it is a "bad" law. How is it bad?  We are back to discerning "good" and "evil".  As I pointed out above, if Hume is correct, and that there is no "objective" good or bad, then the law is all a joke.  How can one man be held to account for something when it is only based on custom? 

If you had even bothered to READ my brilliant post you would find that Aquinas answers your question about why something is good.  You asked:

The refutation of ur thesis is WHY something/anything is good--what's the premise which makes something "good"?--there is none.  Ethics is mere logic btwn ends and means.

Why should human life be preserved?--what's premise?--same question goes for all the others, i.e., marriage, education, knowledge, society, etc.

In actuality/reality, "good" merely refers to obedience, which we're taught when young--also taught to dogs.

First, Aquinas' discussion of the first principles includes, notably, an explanation of what it means to be self-evident.  Go back and read that if you can't get your head around the concept that EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT EVER is based on principles that are self-evident. To say that something that is self-evident means that it is so obvious that it cannot be explained. 

Aristotle provided a foundation of natural law, showing how the proper end of something was related to its 'nature'. Generally, all things exist by their 'nature' or by other causes.  Something of a given nature has an impulse to grow or change within itself; e.g. A tree might be cut down and fashioned into a bed by a craftsman, but it has no impulse to change into a bed by its own nature.

"[N]ature is a source or cause of being moved and of being at rest in that to which it belongs primarily, in virtue of itself and not in virtue of a concomitant attribute."

The fact that nature exists is self-evident and Aristotle says is beyond demonstration

"That nature exists, it would be absurd to try to prove; for it is obvious that there are many things of this kind, and to prove what is obvious by what is not is the mark of a man who is unable to distinguish what is self-evident from what is not."

Aquinas establishes his first principles in a specific order, and calls our attention to the logical relation being demonstrated between them. The first universal notion that must be apprehended, says Aquinas, is being itself,

"the notion of which is included in all things whatsoever a man apprehends."

It is upon this first notion, Aquinas adds the principle of non-contradiction, citing Aristotle's Metaphysics:

"It is impossible for the same attribute at once to belong and not to belong to the same thing and in the same relation".

Essentially Aquinas is saying that first of all, we know, "and then secondarily and reflectively know the way we know". Thus, as beings, we first grasp our own being, and then "the good is the first thing grasped by [the] mind in its practical function of directing some operation."

NOTE: you cannot PROVE that you exist.  It is self-evident. You cannot PROVE non-contradiction.  It is self-evident.  It is admitted axiomatically to any logical argument. 

Next Aquinas states that:

"We desire to do what we are actually doing."

This would seem self-evident enough. The other half of this step is provided by the maxim:

"whatever is desired is desired in the form of good"

Do you understand how the second follows from the first?

"We shall...find ourselves talking nonsense if we try to describe a people whose custom it was, when they wanted A's, to choose A's they thought bad and reject A's they thought good."

Certainly, it may be said that a person might be mistaken in desiring something that he only thinks is perfective and fulfilling. But this mistake does not refute the fact that our actions are based on the assumption that the object of our desire deserves the "formality under which it is desired"; i.e. that it is "perfective and fulfilling."

It is the very nature of the 'good' that fills this two-fold role of being both desired and normative:

"The first principle of practical reason is grounded in the knowledge of the notion of goodness: The good is that which all things seek. This is what 'good' is taken to mean, just as 'being' means that which exists. But something is sought insofar as it is completive or perfective of the seeker. Thus 'good' does not simply designate an object of pursuit; it gives the formality under which the object is sought or pursued: as completive, as perfective."

Reviewing these in order, I can derive Aquinas' next principle:

   

1. I exist; it is the nature of existence that a thing cannot both exist and not exist
    in the same way and at the same time;
    2.--> Therefore, the rule of non-contradiction.
    3. It is also in the nature of being that I seek after the 'good';
    4.--> Therefore, "this is the first precept of law, that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.""

It is easy to see that "the first principle of practical reasoning is analogous to the first principle of reasoning".

The remaining precepts of natural law follow from this, and are ordered according to their natural inclination:

1. Preserving human life, and of warding off its obstacles; [I exist. It is the natural end of all life to continue to exist. ]
    2. Sexual Intercourse (Marriage/procreation); [Marriage and procreation are the natural means by which we create life in a rational way.]
    3. Education of offspring; [Teaching the young enables to them to live more easily and avoid dangers, thereby preserving life.]
    4. To know the truth about God; [Aristotle and Aquinas reasoned that life could not exist without a prime mover, which is God. It is therefore vital that God should be well understood as He is the source of our existence.]
    5. To live in society.[Part of human existence is to live in society with other humans.]

All of these precepts of natural law are undeniable and flow from those self-evident principles.  Some degenerates might cast doubt on whether human life is good, but then the question must be posed: "Why don't you kill yourself?"  Obviously the person questioning the value of human life is NOT consistent in his own life. 

The degenerate atheist might say that there is no God. But notice that Aquinas states Item 4: "To know the Truth about God".  If a person is atheist, then he would say (wrongly) that they truth is that God does not exist. But then the question becomes, "Is that important?" If he says yes, then he is agreeing with the substance of #4. If he says, "no", then what does #4 matter? 

Other degenerates might doubt the value of marriage, or procreation, or that the purpose of marriage is for procreation. But a similar response resounds: "Where did you come from?" Everyone was born from procreation.  [Test-tube baby arguments will fail because such a person is the product of human organs; only the insemination is artificial.] That marriage is good is self-evident. It is the nature of children to desire a mother and a father. It is the nature of a woman to nurture her young.  This is all self-evident. 

As a practical matter, the observation is that children without fathers have the tendency to be raised like wild animals, and they end up in prison.  But that last argument is based on the result, i.e. it is contingently fixed.  The beauty of the natural law is that its telos (ends-goods) are antecedently fixed.  The natural law is a moral agent that sits above the positive law, and is used as a means of guidance.  Thus, laws that are offensive to the natural law may be overturned on that basis.  But if the good of the natural law was based on statistical verification, i.e. positivist means of proof, then the natural law would be subject to change.  It would no longer said to be "fixed". 

As you can see, the arguments for the natural law cannot be verified positively as a matter of philosophy. If they were based on such a positivist assessment, they would not be what they are purported to be. The natural law is based on CONCEPTS that are self-evident, and the precepts flow logically from those concepts. Those persons questioning the truth of the natural law precepts have nothing to support their contrary opinions, and even their own existence contradicts them.   

[Christopher Marlowe]

----------------------------------------

Apo commentary in above-copied text, capped, bracketed.

"I think the error here is the choice to adopt the Jewish concept of "good".  [THERE IS NO "GOOD," PERIOD--IT'S JUST EUPHEMISM FOR OBEDIENCE--"JOHNNY IS GOOD BOY AS HE DID WHAT HE WAS TOLD"--GET IT?  "JEWISH GOOD"--IT'S WHATEVER JEWS SAY, WHENEVER THEY SAY, AND IT CHANGES FM TIME TO TIME, SOMETIMES BEING THIS, BUT OTHER TIMES BEING SOMETHING ELSE.]

First off, you should learn to use the SIMPLE quote function rather that your bracketed form. 

Second, you are contradicting me without showing how my reasoning was wrong.  That would require reading what I wrote instead of just repeating your nonsense. 

"The ancients, including Aristotle, had no problem with the idea of objective "good".  [THIS IS FALSE--ARISTOTLE SIMPLY PRESUMED THE GOOD, HE NEVER DEFINED IT.]

Now you are just making things up. Why don't you go and read a little bit instead of telling fables? Aristotle defined "good" in several contexts, like his ethics and politics.  But in this context, as I pointed out, Aristotle defined the natural law argument on the telos, or the proper ends. 

These types of arguments are called "teleological" since the concern the "ends", or telos of a thing.

Generally, all things exist by their 'nature' or by other causes. In answer to 'why' an object of a particular nature comes to be in its state, Aristotle listed four causes:
1) substance (e.g. the bronze of a statue);
2) form (e.g. number; this relates to the 'forms' of Plato);
3) primary or proximate cause (e.g. the father of the child); and
"4) in the sense of end or 'that for the sake of which' a thing is done, e.g. health is the cause of walking about. ('Why is he walking about?' we say. 'To be healthy'  and, having said that, we think we have assigned the cause.)" (See Aristotle, Physics, translator RP Hardie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930) at 192, 194)

"These types of arguments are called "teleological" since the concern the "ends", or telos of a thing.  [HO HO HO--IS IT INDEED? HO HO HO--I GUESS U IMAGINE U IMPRESS ANYONE W. THIS UTTERLY EMPTY AND OUT-OF-CONTEXT STATEMENT, HO HO HO HO]

I was not trying to impress you but merely showing the basis of Aristotle's reasoning, which you chose to make up when it is convenient.   HO HO HO. 

"The natural law is based on the idea of there being self-evident "goods" based on our human nature.  [HO HO HO HO--JUST MORE GRANDIOSE DECLAIMING AND ASSERTION.  NATURAL LAW IS SIMPLY "NECESSARY RELATION BTWN/AMONG THINGS," AS I UNDERSTAND.]

I don't understand what you mean by "grandiose declaiming".  I am using Aristotle's terms.  See my quote above by Aristotle:

"That nature exists, it would be absurd to try to prove; for it is obvious that there are many things of this kind, and to prove what is obvious by what is not is the mark of a man who is unable to distinguish what is self-evident from what is not."

"The primary rule of natural law is that the good is to be done, and evil is to be avoided.  [U CONTINUE TO BEG QUESTION--THERE IS NO GOOD OR EVIL, AND U CANNOT DEFINE IT, WHICH U DEMONSTRATE W. ALL UR BABBLING HERE AND ELSEWHERE.]

You do not dispute that the good is to be done and that evil is to be avoided. You cannot dispute it because it is self-evident.  You merely go on trying to say that there is no "good", but you cannot refute any of its self-evident characteristics.  In other words, you are pretending to refute this point, but just repeating your main, unproven assertion. You are not following the logic of the argument, but just merely continuing to babble.

"The first five precepts are: 1. The preservation of Human Life; 2. Marriage and procreation; 3. Education of the Young; 4. Knowledge of the Truth about God. 5. Live in society. [JUST MORE DECLAIMING AND ASSERTION WHILE BEGGING THE QUESTION--AND U DON'T EVEN SEEM TO GRASP UR BEGGING-QUESTION, HO HO HO HO]

The precepts flow from the self-evident principles, as demonstrated above.

"Jewish thought is worldly, and thus subject to change based on it efficacy on attaining a specific end. Christian moral law [U NEED TO GIVE CITATIONS FM NEW TEST., CEASE W. THIS ABSURD AND ANNOYING QUESTION-BEGGING U CONTINUE TO DOING.]

Anyone who has read the Bible will understand that the OT law promises worldly rewards for obeying the law; that is the basis of the covenant.  The NT covenant promises eternal life for people who remain in Christ.

"...is based on the final ends: eternal life with God.  [RIGHT--AND WHAT THEN IS "GOD"?--GOD IS HAPPINESS; CHRIST THE SON IS TRUTH; HOLY SPIRIT IS INTEGRAL REASON AND HONESTY.]

Your point being that God is NOT good? Or are you just making random, pointless arguments?

"The final ends are never changing, ["FINAL END" IS HAPPINESS, AND THIS MIGHT BE ANYTHING, ETC....]

See? You don't even follow the thread of the argument.  I am saying what the nature of heaven is, I am saying that this end does not change: that a Christian ALWAYS has heaven as the final end.  You are certainly obstinate. 

"...so the natural law does not change. It is objective."  ["NATURAL LAW" I DEFINE ABOVE, "NECESSARY RELATION," ETC.  WHAT'S OBJECTIVE IS OBJECTIVE, PERCEPTIBLE, DISCERNIBLE, EXISTING IN ITS OWN RIGHT, ETC.]
[/quote]
Would you please learn how to formulate a sentence? 

[apollonian]

...
I should begin by pointing out.... 

"Marlowe" Fails Again
(Apollonian, 11 Jun 15)

[/size]

Marlowe: Buddy, u've LOST this debate--u're wrong and refuted (not merely rebutted) as u cannot say what is "good."  Q.E.D.

U just babble and spam and declaim idiotically, patronizingly (which doesn't impress anyone), name-dropping and babbling terminology, and falsely.  Aren't u ashamed of the utter, complete, brainless babbling u do?--in such appalling mass?--doesn't this huge heap of crap by itself indicate u've failed?

U attempt to pretend "good" is explained by crap which u paraphrase fm Aristotle and Aquinas, but it amounts to mere assertion and, actually, circular logic.  For even if it was true for all the crap u talk about Aristotle and Aquinas's contentions, the question still remains as to why.  For actually, Aquinas and Aristotle themselves merely assert and declaim--why should their assertions be accepted, and how is it the essence of "good," a definition properly covering and denoting the essence?  U can't even give the GENUS for good, not to mention the differentia.  U FAIL, buddy--get a clue.

"Good" is whatever we consider will give us happiness, which could be anything, and could change fm moment to moment--it includes death itself when death is considered preferable to life, esp. if life is reduced to torture or bleak imprisonment.

For all reason and observation (science) demonstrates absolute cause-effect, no perfectly "free" will.  Only God has perfect freedom of will, PERIOD.  Humans are sinners (self-interested), hopelessly doomed to fiery flames of heck, needing God's grace and mercy for any hope of salvation, PERIOD.

Marlow: St. Augustine himself rebukes u, as u're mere Pelagian hereticalist, u poor fool.

Finally, Marlowe, it's hist. fact Aquinas wasn't as competent as Aristotle for understanding of concept of axiom and "self-evidence."  Strictly speaking, "self-evidence" merely refers to perception.  Note all reasoning and logic must begin in assumption and ABSTRACTION, (a) idea of objectivity ("immanence") according to Aristotle, or (b) subjectivity ("transcendence") according to Plato--and these are either-or without any middle, and again, these ARE ASSUMPTIONS WHICH CANNOT BE PROVEN.

Aristotelian non-contradiction and logic FOLLOWS fm objectivity.  Neither (objectivity or subjectivity) can be proven, BUT subjectivism can be reduced to absurd, leaving, by process of elimination, the objective nature.  For subjectivism makes us God, existence being dependent upon the subject--which Jews are most consummate practitioners, being COLLECTIVIST subjectivists (which then Immanuel Kant later took up).

CONCLUSION: So look here, Marlowe: u need to STFU if u can't say what "good" is--and to doing this in reasonable brevity, say 100 words or so.  U can't do it (say what "good" is); NO ONE ever has, so cut the crap.  Put-up or STFU.

[apollonian]

...
"Marlowe" Fails Again
(Apollonian, 11 Jun 15)[/center][/size]

Marlowe: Buddy, u've LOST this debate--....

In other words, Marlowe, give us all the genus and differentia for "good," in good old Aristotelian fashion--and do it w. reasonable brevity, say 100 words or less.

[yankeedoodle]

ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho

[Michael K.]

Titus 3 King James Version (KJV)

3 Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,

2 To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.




2 Timothy 2 King James Version (KJV)

2 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.

2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

3 Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.

4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

5 And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.

6 The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits.

7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.

8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

9 Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.

10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

11 It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:

12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:

13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.

21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.


Jude 1 King James Version (KJV)

1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.

3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:

23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

[apollonian]

Titus 3 King James Version (KJV)
...

Moronic spamming the thread--again.

[Idaho Kid]

I'd need a week to digest the material presented, by moronic name-calling, self-declarations of victory, and textese are not particularly persuasive.  Carry on.

[apollonian]

I'd need a week to digest the material presented, by moronic name-calling, self-declarations of victory, and textese are not particularly persuasive.  Carry on.

Objective-Subjective Is Fundamental Issue Regarding Christian vs. Jew/satanist, Don't Doubt

Idaho: ur statement (above) is false and disingenuous--u wouldn't need a week--that's ridiculous.  All u need do is look at my thesis essay at the top, then "Marlowe's" rebuttal, then my reply, for smooth sequential dialectic--it wouldn't take but a minute or two, surely not more than 5 mins.  U'd know thus precisely, exactly what the dialectic is all about.

BUT, ur comment does afford an opportunity herewith to re-capitulate this exciting dialectic/discussion.

Thus Marlowe's third reply begins a prodigy of the TYPICAL "intellectualist"-style obfuscation replete w. jargon and name-dropping, he attempting to intimidate by means of massive, convoluted verbiage.  Marlowe's Pharisaic buddy and side-kick, "Michael K," then adds his gratuitous 2 cents worth just to let folks know who's side he's on.

Afterwards, it gets rather intricate for rebuttals-in-detail, but reply # 11 allows me to re-state and simplify things for the subject of WHAT is "good."  Naturally, we have to allow for utterly irrelevant, even totally meaningless commentary, as for "Yankeedoodle's" note, and then Michael K's spamming.

Overall, it's still not a bad thread long as the spamming is kept minimized--it's important philosophic/theoretic pt. we're demonstrating, I trust u don't fail to note.

[Christopher Marlowe]

I think that an OBJECTIVE observer would see that I have been wasting my time here.  You don't know how to have an argument, but you are merely contradicting.

You make claims that I have proven false. You ask for citations, and then when I give then you claim that they have no value. --For example, you said

[SUBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE CAN HARDLY BE SIMPLER TO UNDERSTAND, AND I FOLLOW ARISTOTLE'S UNDERSTANDING.]

--Then I cited Aristotle's well-known preference for the natural law. To which, you boldly responded by falsely claiming that

THIS IS FALSE--ARISTOTLE SIMPLY PRESUMED THE GOOD, HE NEVER DEFINED IT.

--Then I showed how Aristotle had defined the good in numerous contexts, but most relevantly in the teleological argument. The telos, or end, being the basis of the good.
--But when I originally cited this understanding of the telos to show how this was related to the discussion of the good, you mocked my reference:

HO HO HO--IS IT INDEED? HO HO HO--I GUESS U IMAGINE U IMPRESS ANYONE W. THIS UTTERLY EMPTY AND OUT-OF-CONTEXT STATEMENT, HO HO HO HO]

--Then, having found that Aristotle was not on your side, you decided that you no longer "followed Aristotle's understanding", and threw him under the bus:

For even if it was true for all the crap u talk about Aristotle and Aquinas's contentions, the question still remains as to why.  For actually, Aquinas and Aristotle themselves merely assert and declaim--why should their assertions be accepted, and how is it the essence of "good," a definition properly covering and denoting the essence?

For the answer to your last question, refer back to the discussion of the telos, that highfalutin word you detest so much. Among the four causes for why a thing is caused to exist, the telos explains

the sense of end or 'that for the sake of which' a thing is done

. Man is a creature, and as such, he was created for a certain end, or purpose. Things that are "good" are those things that help us to reach our final end.  That is its essence.

As an example of you undisciplined "argument", you decided to define good:

"Good" is whatever we consider will give us happiness...

Talk about subjective... Do I have to remind you that you have spent all of your time, (and wasted much of mine), thus far, DENYING that there is any such thing as "good"? 

THERE IS NO "GOOD," PERIOD-

The beauty of Aquinas' argument is that it is NOT subjective, but universally applicable. That is why the Natural Law applies everywhere and at all time. Natural law is practical reason, and therefore it is applicable to man because he is a rational being.

I should note here that the most apparent flaw in your entire discussion is that you are purporting to stake out some definition whereby satan uses subjectivity, but Jesus is the Truth.  It is true that Jesus is the Truth, tut then you contradict yourself by deriding the natural law, which prevents law from becoming subjective. (I also pointed out that your position was the classically positivist view, but then you attacked me for too much book learnin and fancy talk...)

Then you start babbling again, and you call me a 'pelagian'.  I deny that I am a pelagian because I know that I am reliant upon the grace of God. But I don't know why you thought it was relevant to call me a pelagian in the first place. 

Then you really get the babble machine going into 4th gear:

Finally, Marlowe, it's hist. fact Aquinas wasn't as competent as Aristotle for understanding of concept of axiom and "self-evidence."  Strictly speaking, "self-evidence" merely refers to perception.  Note all reasoning and logic must begin in assumption and ABSTRACTION, (a) idea of objectivity ("immanence") according to Aristotle, or (b) subjectivity ("transcendence") according to Plato--and these are either-or without any middle, and again, these ARE ASSUMPTIONS WHICH CANNOT BE PROVEN.

You failed to show how your distinction makes any difference, or that Aquinas had a different understanding of "self-evident". Aquinas and Aristotle were in agreement that some things are so obvious that they cannot be proven.  Here is Aristotle:

"There are some who, as we said, both themselves assert that it is possible for the same thing to be and not to be, and say that people can judge this to be the case. And among others many writers about nature use this language. But we have now posited that it is impossible for anything at the same time to be and not to be, and by this means have shown that this is the most indisputable of all principles. [This is the law of Non-Contradiction. It is self-evident, but it is incapable of demonstration. CM] -Some indeed demand that even this shall be demonstrated, but this they do through want of education, for not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education. [Here Aristotle is talking about uneducated people who waste the time of educated people because they don't know how to properly formulate an agument] For it is impossible that there should be demonstration of absolutely everything (there would be an infinite regress, so that there would still be no demonstration); but if there are things of which one should not demand demonstration, these persons could not say what principle they maintain to be more self-evident than the present one. Metaphysics, Book IV, Part IV

Aquinas's understanding is the same because he cites Aristotle on THIS POINT when discussing the idea of "self-evident":

Further, those things are said to be self-evident which are known as soon as the terms are known, which the Philosopher (1 Poster. iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration. Summa, Q2, A1, Obj 2.

[apollonian]

I think that an OBJECTIVE observer would see that I have been wasting my time here. 
...

Yes Marlowe: u're wasting everyone's time, without a doubt, babbling and spamming as is ur stock-in-trade.  I asked u to give the genus and differentia for definition of "good," but we see u just ignore this issue.

Otherwise, my arguments and rebuttals hold-up pretty well, I'd say; folks can see what u're all about--u want to have ur cake and eat it at same time, eh?--pretending to objectivity, yet also to "good" which is necessarily subjective.  And we see also u don't understand metaphysics and the objective foundation, either.

So I'd say this dialectic is success for exposition, people seeing easily enough who makes sense.

[yankeedoodle]

Thanks for the 2-1/2 minutes of most appropriate Monty Python mirth, Mr. Marlowe. 

[apollonian]

Thanks for the 2-1/2 minutes of most appropriate Monty Python mirth, Mr. Marlowe.

"[M]ost appropriate"?--so what?--are u sticking-up for Marlowe?--saying there's an objective "good"?--if so, say what it is, what the criterion would be.

[Michael K.]

Hey (H)Appy:

If there's no objective good, then there is no objective evil, right?

[apollonian]

Hey (H)Appy:

If there's no objective good, then there is no objective evil, right?

Reality Is Objective, Determined, CYCLIC (In Accord With Spengler)
(Apollonian, 13 Jun 15)

[/size]

That's correct, genius (see above quote)--but why couldn't u make a pt., given ur suggested premise?--all reason (hence observation), logic, science and honesty of Holy Spirit tells the honest Christian (or any honest person) that absolute cause-effect necessarily follows fm the objective (hence God-created) reality--there is no instance of anything not following fm cause-effect.  Even "miracles," by definition, follow fm the supernatural cause of God.

"Good-evil" is for children and dogs for purpose of training and making them OBEDIENT--such is purpose of "good-evil."  But after childhood, the human graduates to fullest adulthood, at least for some percentage of the most virtuous, honest of the population.  Most humans, perhaps 90-95%, never advance beyond child-hood, as we see.

Thus, fact is apparent that "good-evil" is mere prejudice retained fm childhood, the foundation surely of a persistent INFERIORITY-COMPLEX (also known as "guilt-complex") by which weaklings and fools, incapable of fullest honesty or knowledge, insist upon such non-existent, non-demonstrable "good-evil."

This pernicious prejudice in favor of "good-evil" fallacy is the basis of Pharisaism and satanic self-righteousness which consummate satanists, esp. Jews, the most organized and collectivistic of subjectivists, prey-upon regarding gentiles.  And this pernicious, absolutely horrific and catastrophic, mass, culture-wide Pharisaism, led and manipulated by the Jew masters at the top, always grows and dominates as the culture and empire matures and the population becomes too great, Spenglerian "Decline of the West," as of the Roman episode, then transpires, the inferiors becoming OVER-POPULATED--as we see presently for hip-hop music and explicit satanism and homosexuality in-ur-face, oppressing the people, destroying the (a) currency, (b) hence the economy, (c) and ultimately the entire culture--as we see now before our very eyes.

Determinist nature of reality is confirmed explicitly by St.s Paul and Augustine regarding human sinfulness--that self-interest following fm the puny will of humanity which is never perfectly "free."  And this hereticalist "good-evil" prejudice is explicitly understood as heresy of Pelagianism fm time of St. Augustine, and revisited by Martin Luther in his disputation w. Erasmus.  Q.E.D.

[yankeedoodle]

"Good-evil" is for children and dogs for purpose of training and making them OBEDIENT--such is purpose of "good-evil."  But after childhood, the human graduates to fullest adulthood, at least for some percentage of the most virtuous, honest of the population.  Most humans, perha   

This is true.  And, the jews are dictating what is "good" and what is "evil."

For people to "wake up" requires that they shift their thinking from the jew-dictated "good" to the jew-dictated "evil," hence the seeming impossibility of the task of getting people to "wake up."   

[apollonian]

"Good-evil" is for children and dogs for purpose of training and making them OBEDIENT--such is purpose of "good-evil."  But after childhood, the human graduates to fullest adulthood, at least for some percentage of the most virtuous, honest of the population.  Most humans, perha   

This is true.  And, the jews are dictating what is "good" and what is "evil."

For people to "wake up" requires that they shift their thinking from the jew-dictated "good" to the jew-dictated "evil," hence the seeming impossibility of the task of getting people to "wake up."   

Keep In Mind Spirit Of Dear St. Constantine The Great
(Apollonian, 13 Jun 15)

[/size]

Thanks for ur comment: I think ONLY and best possible strategy for patriots, Christians, and gentiles is to emulate the strategy of St. Constantine the Great, early 4th cent. for only hope of reviving what little civilization there's left.

Thus first problem/task is to unite, inspire, instruct, and configurate real Christians by means of neutralization of the false Christians and traitors, the "Judeo-Christian" (JC--see Whtt.org and TruthTellers.org for expo) hereticalists who defend Jews and support terror-state of Israel, these JCs the most powerful single interest group among gentiles in Jew S A.  Thus it's merely necessary to define and exposit the real Christianity, worship of TRUTH (hence objective reality, necessary foundation of truth, in accord w. Gosp. JOHN 14:6) above all/any other precepts, including "love," "faith," "peace," or "good."

Of course, otherwise, we must also "go w. the flow" for economy and culture as it now evermore rapidly dis-integrates, the sheer disasters by themselves persuading people of the perfidy, corruption, and malevolence of Jew-masters and their flunkies like Alexei Jones (InfoWars.com).  Currency is obviously and plainly collapsing ever-faster, and the top master-minds will evermore fall-out among themselves, there being at least 3 main sub-groups, all Jew-dominated:

(a) The "left" Jews led by figure-head Obola featuring world gov., "climate-change" and Agenda-21 genocide of gentiles, etc.

(b) The "right" kikes of Israel and "neo-cons" who cavil w. the "left," willing to keep the goys alive and around so as to continue slavery thereof, but still intensively engaged in warfare against kike's enemies, like the mooooooooslims.

(c) And, not least, probably most of the lesser kikes of "middle-class" sort who are yet amazing rich, still, these led by such as Ron and Rand Paul, Alexei Jones, Jesse Ventura, et al.

We can and should by-pass all these, above, by means of the REAL Christianity which is un-compromisingly anti-semitic, featuring the objective, determined, CYCLIC reality, there being NO "good" Jews anymore than "good" psychopaths, satanists, or Christ-killers.

And note there are simple, obvious means, methods, and measures we can easily and immediately take, i.e., re-institution of primacy of local and state gov., commodity-based money, separation of races (virtue and utility of which majority of all races understand and acknowledge anyway, despite the "liberal" prop.), etc.  Thus we keep example of St. Constantine clearly in mind.

[Michael K.]

...Thus it's merely necessary to define and exposit the real Christianity, worship of TRUTH (hence objective reality, necessary foundation of truth, in accord w. Gosp. JOHN 14:6) above all/any other precepts, including "love,"

Does your positivistic knowledge of God so surpass St. John's revealed knowledge that you offer a different Gospel from that which we received from him?  Can you profess that there is a greater truth than Love and be a true Christian?


1John 4, KJV:

4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.

12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.

18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

19 We love him, because he first loved us.

20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

[apollonian]

...Thus it's merely necessary to define and exposit the real Christianity, worship of TRUTH (hence objective reality, necessary foundation of truth, in accord w. Gosp. JOHN 14:6) above all/any other precepts, including "love,"

Does your positivistic knowledge of God so surpass St. John's revealed knowledge that you offer a different Gospel from that which we received from him?  Can you profess that there is a greater truth than Love and be a true Christian?
...

There u go again, genius, using words ("positivistic") u don't know meaning of.  And further, u obviously don't understand allegoric nature of Christian, New Test. literature.  U're actually, really just a child w. a child's ignorant, childish brain, mind, and understanding, only fit to be seen but not heard.  It's really hard to take a "genius" like u seriously.

For saying God is love is obvious, gushy, even foolish, metaphoric balderdash--that's how it is w. literature in general, including New Test.  God is happiness, and Christ the Son is TRUTH, the only way to this true and proper happiness (Gosp. JOHN 14:6).

So go ahead and be a "true Christian" as u imagine that should be, BUT BE WARNED--if u get in the way of us true, serious Christian soldiers in our business of exterminating anti-Christ satanism, u cannot blame us for the consequences of ur treason, penalty for which is well-known.  Beware, sucker.

"Think not I came to bring peace; rather, I come to bring a sword."  (Gosp. MATT 10:34)

[Michael K.]

You have explained almost everything now.  But one question I still am not sure that I understand:

I understand the part where all there is this TRUTH, which means whatever is objectively so self-evident after reading Oswald Spangler, or something like that.

And then there is no such thing as good or evil, because that would mean living out the TRUTH would subject one to a judgment that one is perhaps evil, when the fact is that you've got no choice about all the traitors you have to kill.  It's their fault if you stomp them and torture them, or just kill them outright.

But I still don't see where Jesus Christ fits in.  I mean, if the Bible is an allegory, like say The Lord of the Rings, or the Ring of the Niebellung, and the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is like Zeitgeist or some shit, why bother with the man at all.  It seems like your TRUTH is all sufficient without weakening it with mystical suffering Jews clad in loincloths.

[apollonian]

You have explained almost everything now.  But one question I still am not sure that I understand:

I understand the part where all there is this TRUTH, which means whatever is objectively so self-evident after reading Oswald Spangler, or something like that.

And then there is no such thing as good or evil, because that would mean living out the TRUTH would subject one to a judgment that one is perhaps evil, when the fact is that you've got no choice about all the traitors you have to kill.  It's their fault if you stomp them and torture them, or just kill them outright.

But I still don't see where Jesus Christ fits in.  I mean, if the Bible is an allegory, like say The Lord of the Rings, or the Ring of the Niebellung, and the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is like Zeitgeist or some shit, why bother with the man at all.  It seems like your TRUTH is all sufficient without weakening it with mystical suffering Jews clad in loincloths.

----------------------------------------

Apo commentary in below-copied text fm above, capped, bracketed

* * * * * * *

"You have explained almost everything now.  But one question I still am not sure that I understand:

"I understand the part where all there is this TRUTH, which means whatever is objectively so self-evident after reading Oswald Spangler, or something like that.  [NOT "AFTER READING .  . . SPENGLER"--CHRIST IS TRUTH, ONLY WAY TO GODLY HAPPINESS, THIS THEN REQUIRING THE OBJECTIVE REALITY AS CRITERION FOR TRUTH--AGAINST THE "MIDRASH" "INTERPRETATION" OF PHARISEES, WHO MADE GOD'S LAW OF "NONE EFFECT," REMEMBER, (A)--AND THIS DOESN'T REQUIRE SPENGLER, IT BEING PRETTY CLEAR SIMPLY FM THE TEXT.  (B) OBJECTIVITY THEN REQUIRES DETERMINISM, ABSOLUTE CAUSE-EFFECT, NO PERFECTLY "FREE" HUMAN WILL, HENCE NO CHILD'S "GOOD-EVIL" NONSENSE.  (C) THIS DETERMINISM THEN LEADS TO CYCLIC NATURE OF HISTORY--ACCORDING TO SPENGLER.]

"And then there is no such thing as good or evil, because that would mean living out the TRUTH would subject one to a judgment that one is perhaps evil, when the fact is that you've got no choice about all the traitors you have to kill.  It's their fault if you stomp them and torture them, or just kill them outright.  [LOOKS LIKE U BASICALLY HAVE IT RIGHT FOR THIS STATEMENT OF URS--CONGRATULATIONS.]

"But I still don't see where Jesus Christ fits in.  [WELL, THAT'S NOT MY FAULT, IS IT?]

"I mean, if the Bible is an allegory, [IT'S LITERATURE, HENCE LARGELY AND MUCH ALLEGORY--IT'S GREAT WORK OF ART--SOME OF IT IS PRETTY STRAIGHT-FORWARD, BUT SOME OF IT'S ALLEGORY, AND SOME OF IT IS UN-FORTUNATE METAPHOR GONE A LITTLE WILD--SURE CHRIST WANTS HIS FLOCK TO "LOVE" ONE ANOTHER, BUT THE SCUM NEED TO BE EXTERMINATED, ALL IN ACCORD W. GOD'S JUSTICE AS LAID OUT IN MOSAIC LAW AND TORAH, WHICH CHRIST DEFENDED, SEEKING TO CHANGE NOT EVEN A "JOT OR TITTLE" (WHATEVER THAT IS).]

"...like say The Lord of the Rings, or the Ring of the Niebellung, and the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is like Zeitgeist or some shit, why bother with the man at all.  It seems like your TRUTH is all sufficient without weakening it with mystical suffering Jews clad in loincloths."  [NOT SURE WHAT U'RE TRYING TO SAY HERE.  NOTE CHRIST = TRUTH, PURE AND SIMPLE--THAT PART IS PRETTY STRAIGHT-FORWARD, GIVING US THE PHILOSOPHIC LESSON OF ARISTOTELIAN OBJECTIVITY, AS I'VE NOTED.  REMEMBER: SATANIC PHARISEES SAY TORAH/MOSAIC LAW ONLY MEANS WHAT THEY SAY ("MIDRASH" AND "ORAL LAW TRADITION," SUBJECTIVISM), THUS THEY CONSPIRED TO MURDER TRUTH (= CHRIST), BUT THE TRUTH CANNOT BE KILLED, JOKE IS ON PHARISEES WHEN TRUTH TRIUMPHANTLY RESURRECTS AS AT EASTER, HOLIEST OF CHRISTIAN HOLY-DAYS, DEMONSTRATING TRUE GODLINESS OF TRUTH (= CHRIST).]

[Christopher Marlowe]

"I mean, if the Bible is an allegory, [IT'S LITERATURE, HENCE LARGELY AND MUCH ALLEGORY--IT'S GREAT WORK OF ART--SOME OF IT IS PRETTY STRAIGHT-FORWARD, BUT SOME OF IT'S ALLEGORY, AND SOME OF IT IS UN-FORTUNATE METAPHOR GONE A LITTLE WILD--SURE CHRIST WANTS HIS FLOCK TO "LOVE" ONE ANOTHER, BUT THE SCUM NEED TO BE EXTERMINATED, ALL IN ACCORD W. GOD'S JUSTICE AS LAID OUT IN MOSAIC LAW AND TORAH, WHICH CHRIST DEFENDED, SEEKING TO CHANGE NOT EVEN A "JOT OR TITTLE" (WHATEVER THAT IS).]

"...like say The Lord of the Rings, or the Ring of the Niebellung, and the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is like Zeitgeist or some shit, why bother with the man at all.  It seems like your TRUTH is all sufficient without weakening it with mystical suffering Jews clad in loincloths."  [NOT SURE WHAT U'RE TRYING TO SAY HERE.  NOTE CHRIST = TRUTH, PURE AND SIMPLE--THAT PART IS PRETTY STRAIGHT-FORWARD, GIVING US THE PHILOSOPHIC LESSON OF ARISTOTELIAN OBJECTIVITY, AS I'VE NOTED.  REMEMBER: SATANIC PHARISEES SAY TORAH/MOSAIC LAW ONLY MEANS WHAT THEY SAY ("MIDRASH" AND "ORAL LAW TRADITION," SUBJECTIVISM), THUS THEY CONSPIRED TO MURDER TRUTH (= CHRIST), BUT THE TRUTH CANNOT BE KILLED, JOKE IS ON PHARISEES WHEN TRUTH TRIUMPHANTLY RESURRECTS AS AT EASTER, HOLIEST OF CHRISTIAN HOLY-DAYS, DEMONSTRATING TRUE GODLINESS OF TRUTH (= CHRIST).]

So we can all see now that your "philosophy" is complete nonsense.

You say that you are for "objectivity", but you deny any objective means of discerning good from evil. 

Then you deny that there is any such thing as good or evil, and that only children hold this 'false' distinction.

Then you state that the whole Bible is merely allegory, so you really are not even a Christian.

Although you state that you are against the Jews, you are really batting 100% for BEING a Jew, Objectively speaking. 

Your take on Jesus makes a mockery of everything He taught.  For example, this passage becomes meaningless:

Mt 12:31-35Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. [32] And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. [33] Either make the tree GOOD and its fruit GOOD: or make the tree EVIL, and its fruit EVIL. For by the fruit the tree is known. [34] O generation of vipers, how can you speak GOOD things, whereas you are EVIL? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. [35] A GOOD man out of a GOOD treasure bringeth forth GOOD things: and an EVIL man out of an EVIL treasure bringeth forth EVIL things.

You should take a note from Isaiah 5:20-24

Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. Woe to you that are wise in your own eyes, and prudent in your own conceits. [22] Woe to you that are mighty to drink wine, and stout men at drunkenness. [23] That justify the wicked for gifts, and take away the justice of the just from him. [24] Therefore as the tongue of the fire devoureth the stubble, and the heat of the dame consumeth it: so shall their root be as ashes, and their bud shall go up as dust: for they have cast away the law of the Lord of hosts, and have blasphemed the word of the Holy One of Israel.