The "Biola Turn" in Christian Philosophy (Or, a return from relativism)

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by BayouHuguenot, Sep 5, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Graduate

    Legal theory, really. Ok identity over time is a temporal thing we recognize in things over time. Why a substance to sustain that?
     
  2. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Graduate

    What good reasons?? You quoted history and the church fathers as far as I can tell, what reasons?
     
  3. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

    I don't know what the qualifier "a temporal thing" adds to it. Research the Ship of Theseus problem.
     
  4. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

  5. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

    No.
    That's the whole point of the debate. I say it exists.
    And I think you are wrong.
    I am not doing that.
     
  6. TylerRay

    TylerRay Puritan Board Senior

    If essence is what you do, and you do different things at different times, what makes you the same thing/person while you are going about changing what you do? Are you not changing your essence?

    If you and I do different things (and we do), are we different kinds of entities, as far as our very essence is concerned?
     
  7. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Graduate

    Correct, one more problem for SM. Another is if I take a tree with a singular substance and chop it up into many pieces does the singular substance remain or has the substance divided somehow? If so than how? Outside of being a conceptual scheme what more use does it Have? But conceptual schemes can be revised. I prefer Dooyeweerd's aspects as a scheme. It doesn't have the same problems.
     
  8. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Graduate

    Well aware of that problem. In post 31 you say that an essence is "exemplified" by it's properties but in post 33 you say a substance in the thing is the "continuation" of a thing over time. Are you making a distinction between essence and substance? If so what's the difference? They can't be both.
    I prefer Dooyeweerd's scheme for understanding objects. I hope that makes more sense. He was no nominalist and neither am I. But SM ends in nominalism that's my point. That's Hume's point as well.
     
  9. TylerRay

    TylerRay Puritan Board Senior

    Do you believe that there is a constant principle that constitutes your identity through time?
     
  10. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Graduate

    Yes, me. My soul. But now you're calling it a principle. What's the difference between an essence, a substance, or now a principle? But those are just linguistic differences. My metaphysics is an awkward mixture of Dooyeweerd and the later Wittgenstein. Neither are nominalist.
     
  11. TylerRay

    TylerRay Puritan Board Senior

    .
    What makes your soul the same thing today as it was yesterday?
     
  12. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Graduate

    I believe that the soul is mystical in nature beyond our comprehension. But an essence, substance, or principle is an unnecessary assumption to acheive what a certain conceptual scheme labels a problem, there are other conceptual schemes that don't have that problem.
    We must choose the best conceptual scheme that is the most useful and least problematic to think, talk, and make sense of the world. To choose one as the king of all schemes and say we have to go by this, problems and all, or else we're not orthodox is an unhealthy mixture of a particular philosophy and theology.
     
  13. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

    Haeccity. A substance is this essence.
    No, it doesn't. And you haven't successfully demonstrated it. I have rebutted every one of your challenges from Hume. And Hume was a nominalist.
     
  14. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

    Leaving principle aside for now, an essence is the structure of a thing. A substance is the this-ness of that essence.

    This "unnecessary assumption," as you call it, is the backbone of historic Christian metaphysics. Tread at your own peril. To quote Nicholas Wolterstorff, as he denied the historic view of God and time, which he admitted, "Until you have mastered the tradition, don't reject it" (leaving aside the question whether Wolterstorff mastered it).
     
  15. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Graduate

    And I rebutted every attempt, or lack thereof, of yours to show how we know a substance is there. But the explicit and implicit ad hominems keep coming. I've offered alternative explanations for you, ie TA, but you regect that. I think I'm bowing out. Have fun.
     
  16. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Graduate

    I've also offered an alternative conceptual scheme, to which you didn't comment, for this issue. Again bowing out.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page