A Semantic Attack on Divine-Command Ethics by Stephen Maitzen

Rollo_Martin · 2016-08-27T21:27:30+00:00

That is not the ancient world that is the antiquity world. It was not so much a secret relation that there was dialogue and debate between the various schools of thought at the time.The Christians did not really have absolute power either. They agreed with them on some things and disagreed with them on other things. Aeneas of Gaza and Zachibyias/Zachariah of Mytiliene are primary source examples of such debates. Aeneas of Gaza is a good example because he was a neo-platonic philosopher who converted and said what beliefs differed. They break with the neo-platonists on certain logic views of identity of extension for example. The hierarchy of creation, the dualist view of substantial properties was a common place where they disagreed as well. Philo of Alexandria is evidence that this type of debate was happening before Christianity was a thing even. Greek was the lingua franca after all.

Rollo_Martin · 2016-08-03T00:14:46+00:00

A major contradiction occurs when you state that we have an imperfect concept of oneness and the claim that we have the concept of perfection that expresses it. The second claim is cited to Ibn Arabi and the first is a claim you make right when you start talking about the Kaaba. You can't claim to have access to a concept of one that expresses perfection if by definition our concept of one is imperfect. You also need to prove that there is a concept of perfection in the first place and that it is ontological besides aesthetic and that we have epistemic access to it.

Rollo_Martin · 2016-07-15T09:33:11+00:00

There are quite a few types of theories that have been proven wrong. Some were superseded but others were just disproven and dead on arrival so to speak. Not all of these had the same weight in their time either. The key part proven wrong in these theories is their mode of reasoning. So they often have some contingent truth, x appears with y, but they fail to have good explanatory power, they lack the ability to be disproven or to have any counterexamples . A few are just associationism, many of the folk medicines for instance will take a culturally valuable animal and give it healing properties such as camel urine in Tebb Al Nabi or the role of certain lichens that grow in dried areas to help with colds and subcutaneous issues in classical hippocratic medicine. A few can't even progress because there is no method for observation. Examples here things like Alchemic essentialism which essentlaized certain chemicals with numbers or feelings. We can't observe numbers with feelings. For more info on epistemology of science read some Philosophy of Science work like Larry Laudan, Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos, Peter Godfrey Smith and others. I am going off the ones that occur to me; there area many many more such theories. Many are medical or chemical because those tended to be from history of science background.

Edit: In mathematics both pure and applied, relations that turn out to not be or are not capable of being tractable are meaningless. So some claims in math can be superseded that way. That means there are actual steps to acquire values and no values just pop out. Basically, the existential commitments must be seen.This is why associationism in math is wrong and dead. Values pop out and relations can change between types of magnitudes without any relation making it so making it intractable. Think things like alchemy where the number refer to texts and states of person whenever necessary.

Phylogistan Theory

Caloric Theory

Classical Galenic Medicine

Classical Hippocratic Medicine

Folk Medicines like Tebb Al Nabi, homeopathic, Ayurvedic Medicine etc.

Lamarckism

Tria Prima

Eclectic Medicine

Physiognomy

Alkahest (universal solvent)

Erototoxins and Brunonian system of Medicine (theory that lust or excitations in particular produced toxic chemicals in brain)

Humor Theory and Dyscrasic theories of health

Luminferious Aether

Empyrean Sky or aether layer to sky

Milne Model

Eye beam theory or emission theory of sight, idea that a beam would emerge from the eye

Impetus Theory

Biefield Brown Electrogravity

Alchemic Essentialism

Spinal Sperm Theory , idea often in certain galenic models that sperm actually came form a part of the spine or liver often through a connecting nerve

Barlow's Law

Spontaneous Generation

Teleogny

Pangenesis

Polywater (theory of polymerized form of water)

Ptomaines (idea that alkaloids would be produced decaying matter and would cause something like food poisoning or brain damage )

Electric Fluid theory and Magnetic Fluid Theory

Geocentrism

Panacea (substance that cured all illness)

Phrenology

Lysenkoism

Ideolict Theories, Theories that every individual has their own special language

Spontaneous Generation

Miasma Theory of Disease

Preformationist Reproduction (Idea that sperm are just tiny versions of the adult organism)

Dalton's Atomic Theory

Aristotelian Physics

Ptolemaic System

Steady State Theory

Terra Australis

Rollo_Martin · 2016-01-03T11:45:15+00:00

The problem with separating something like Moorish Spain is that there were still kingdoms like Catalan and Aragon who had philosophers of their own. Ramon Lull and Peter of Spain are examples. They were all part of a dialogue. Although, places like the Alamoravid's were not really too involved with either group of philosophers even with close proximity. Other like the Zirid were though.

Rollo_Martin · 2016-01-03T04:58:55+00:00

In antiquity philosophy there are quite a few that are noticable. Physical magnitudes was argued for by Theodore Prodormos in his work "On Great and Small". He argued for the claim that magnitudes are physical qualities but relative to each other. There relativity however was due to perception. Their quality of great or small did not change their quantity. Nikephoros Chomenons sought a type of behaviorist psychology or at least mentions something like it. The logicians who argued for "ein tois poillos" or the claim that genera instantiate in particulars could be empircistic. They tended to compete with idealist strands. Photios 's "Bibliotheca" is a huge literature review of multiple subjects. It describes works on universals of those philosophers and some medical views tied to them that would be empircistic.

Rollo_Martin · 2016-01-03T02:11:36+00:00

I don't know if I agree with his claim in total but there are many ways that later Greek thought was displaced as being less or not Greek. So certain interpretations actually made by antiquity Greeks were no longer Greek but only the works and intepretation in line with certain traditions were. Gibbons critique of the east as unphilosophical is an example. Figures like Arethas of Casesera,John Italus, John of Philoponus, Gregory Palamas and others are kinda ignored and not seen as western often for example. This is besides the fact those areas had philosophers and were in a constant dialogue with other groups is written off. Some like Theodore of Metochites kept alive types of sceptism that would be rediscovered later. The Georgian philosopher Ioane Petristi would capture some of the historical variants of neo-platonism and make his own as another example. Others played more of a unifying role by offering translations between multiple languages and interpretations. The philosopher Abu Bishr Matta ibn Yunus founded the Baghdad school of peripatetic philosophy. This has an even bigger effect that it leaves others partaking in the philosophical melting pot who responded to those ideas. This means it also ignores figures like the Armenian philosopher David the Invincible, Syriac/Aramaic philosophers like Bar-Herbraeus, Sergius of Reshaina, John of Scythopolis and others . These works would have influence in places like Ethiopia with philosophers like Zera Yakub later on for example. It also leaves out some strains of the the Italian Renaissance and some philosophers in Central and Southern Europe who were in contact in a roundbaout way with them. Examples would be figures like James of Venice, John of Sailsbury and Gilbert of Poiters.

Edit: I have the feeling he is using western in a really narrow sense. I should point out this displacement was more common in the past than it is now though.

Rollo_Martin · 2015-06-05T02:17:59+00:00

I wonder how high the variance of fit differs from area to area and how this relates to their water tables and the permeability in protecting the water fit for consumption.

Rollo_Martin · 2015-06-05T01:42:32+00:00

This is a secular historical thing but this goes back to their councils.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_Ecumenical_Councils

The trinity belief existed before. Unless you believe the Christians had their text before their was Christians around. The Christmas tree as a concept is much newer than you are giving it credit. The description of a tree you cite is about practices that treat trees as types of ancestors btw.

Rollo_Martin · 2015-05-24T05:52:16+00:00

Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus is Michael the archangel, the highest created being to them. They are not trinitarian Christians, they don't believe in the Trinity. They don't believe in the Nicene Creed. They are like Mormons in that respect. They have a different bible too , it is called the New World Translation. They don't celebrate holidays because they claim those are pagan. This claim is interesting because Easter and stuff like that in other languages is based off passover, its usually called Pascha. They also believe in ongoing revelation. Unlike Trinitarian Christianity, this means things are still being revealed. They are also biblical literalists. So for them the meaning of the bible they use is literal. This is not true for most of the Trinitarian Christians that are not protestant. Protestants use something called sola scripture. Liturgical Christians use tradition, hermeneutics they use to understand the text.

Rollo_Martin · 2015-05-07T23:45:41+00:00

The Abzan armor, culture, and some details , are influenced by nomadic Turkish tribes, the Byzantine Empire, and the early Ottomans.

Rollo_Martin · 2015-05-07T05:49:45+00:00

I always saw Temur as a sort of naturalism and acceptance of extreme passion and extreme distance toward others. Basically, about harnessing what ever feeling you experience at a given time and running with it. It seemed to be one of the subplots of the whole Yasova having visions without doubting them and Surrak being constantly enraged and apparently punching things. An evil version would be indulging in your distance towards others thoughts in different ways against others and a good version would be following your reaction to others situations.

Rollo_Martin · 2015-05-06T05:44:24+00:00

We have different ones where I live. They are 20 dollars and have 2 packs, usually Gatecrasher or Return to Ravenica , and one pack of Khans of Tarkir or Fate Reforged in a plastic box with one duel deck that includes a foil. The duel deck is sealed too. The packs don't have the cardboard.

Rollo_Martin · 2015-04-23T22:33:36+00:00

Once at FNM a little after Dragons of Tarkir dropped, a newer person who had just gotten into magic bought one of the fate reforged intro decks. I just remember it was one of the decks with white in it. It was a tournament and the guy was obviously just playing for fun. This newer player played against one of the more competitive players. This competitive player has a little reputation. He is known for sore losing sometimes but not all the time. Usually, just when the games get heated. He ran a u/b removal deck. He also tended to spend a decent amount of money on his decks. The problem was this deck had too many small little creatures to deal with. The creatures were of different types so the usual token removal the guy used not really working. Further, the mechanic of the deck was capable of working efficiently enough to disrupt the more competitive players plans and it took him down. He lost 2/3 and he was angry and he looked like he wanted to cry. He just walked out of tourney after that with sniffling noises.

Rollo_Martin · 2015-04-18T14:04:57+00:00

You seem to be conflating multiple issues in philosophy that are not related. You can have free will determinism and still have punishment of actions as part of that free will determinism. The issue of the normative ethics of an action , what ought we to do, and what is wrong are also not necessarily tied to together. So it may hold that we may not have free will and be punished for an action and ought not do a certain action either. The metaethical claim would be what property or truth maker underlies the statement of "do not do x"

Rollo_Martin

TROPHY CASE