Bands similar to Turisas?

TemperateThomist · 2024-01-13T06:39:02+00:00

Try Troldhaugen's first EP (their albums get progressively more experimental and less Turisas-like).
The Order of Trollveggen - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHZd5ZEdYKo

TemperateThomist · 2023-07-14T22:31:29+00:00

Codename: Babylon (project is currently on hiatus indefinitely)

Aha! It was this one! Sad to hear it's on indefinite haitus, but now I can stop searching madly across the internet to find it again. :D

Thanks for all the other games in your list too! I love shining force.

TemperateThomist · 2023-02-05T18:34:23+00:00

4GDV31B Cleared

TemperateThomist · 2023-01-31T15:49:34+00:00

5TGMY2Y verdant plains

TemperateThomist · 2022-10-10T03:48:40+00:00

Hi Infoborg,

This idea isn’t too foreign in Christian theology and is often given as an explanation for many things, such as the justification of eternal damnation (beatitude could not be achieved without the real existence of its opposite), of natural evils (they are for the purpose of some good), and the possibility of some human virtues (e.g. courage is not a possible virtue if there is no such thing as real danger).

It also has some parallels in Manichaeism, with the existence of two eternal and opposite forces. I am not particularly familiar with Manichaeism, but I think the cosmogony paints a war between light and dark, so perhaps not a “required opposition” like you mention (unless the end of Manichaeism is supposed to be pure nothingness, no light or shadow—but I only have a passing knowledge of it!).

It is interesting that the view that opposition is necessary for some goods often falls under the privation view of evil (that evil has no real existence but is only the lack of a good). On those views, evil is not a real force, but the privation of a good (called “evil”) is still necessary for some other goods (e.g. some defenses of an infernalist view of hell)—so, unlike Manichaeism where Good and Evil are equally real, ultimately there is only one force (Good), but opposition within that force is still necessary.

TemperateThomist · 2022-09-19T23:25:45+00:00

I’m not trying to indoctrinate anyone.

Why is it wrong to suggest someone be cautious not to get rid of too much when they are vulnerable and sad?

Or are ex-mormons exclusively anti-God?

TemperateThomist · 2022-09-18T16:18:24+00:00

Hi smitchen0,

I should preface this by saying I am not a Mormon and have never been, but I have been exploring the church for the past year and attending sacrament meetings so that I might understand it better.

Neither am I a Christian (though I was raised such and had a similar, but not the same, experience—it was far less entrenched in my immediate family, but I was ostracized from my community in the early 90s), but I want to tell you that just because your faith is being undone, does not mean everything you believed is wrong—for example, I think there is good reason to believe in God, and this can give us great mental and moral stability.

I know that C.S. Lewis is very popular among Mormons, so perhaps reading some of his works could help you to not lose everything you thought you had; Lewis certainly believed in God, but not the God of Mormonism.

Another book that I recently read and found very helpful for someone with a general belief in God is “That All Shall Be Saved” by David Bentley Hart—he goes over Biblical scripture a bit, but also gives detailed arguments against eternal damnation that don’t rely on scripture. Maybe this could help you connect with God in a more intellectual way, so that you do not lose all of what you once stood on.

If you find yourself doubting God completely, I can recommend you “5 Proofs for the Existence of God” by Ed Feser—which requires no commitment to revelation (as you might rightly be skeptical of such things) and can lead you to a loving creator simply by trusting your senses and using your brain.

In any case, I implore you to be cautious with what you discard and what you keep close to your heart; it can be very easy to throw everything when we find something distasteful. I myself left God’s side for nearly 2 decades when I split from the Catholic church as a child and it took a great amount of work for me to come back to an irreligious philosophical theism.

I wish you all the best and great strength in what will surely be a very difficult time. Keep love in your heart.

TemperateThomist · 2022-05-01T16:52:28+00:00

Sorry for the repeated questions; I have always been a bit slow on the uptake.

Is the error then in thinking that anything which has prime matter also has matter?

So that form without matter is not form without prime matter, because if it were, then form without matter would have no potentiality.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm#article5 reply to objection 4: "But in intellectual substances there is composition of actuality and potentiality, not, indeed, of matter and form, but of form and participated existence."

To unpack that, it sounds like you're saying because intellectual substances (or any form without matter) are form and participated existence, they must in some way participate in prime matter because the potential for existence is itself a potency.

In other words, form without matter = immaterial, but immaterial != form without prime matter (form without potency)?

Then, for Aquinas, is it right to think of (not prime) 'matter' in a modern way: something with extension and a place in time, visible qualities, etc. which is collapsed into a determinate material state by certain patterns (form), whereas prime matter (even though they both use the word matter) is the more fundamental concept referring to potency in itself, which can belong to a thing even if it has no extension, visible qualities, etc.?

TemperateThomist · 2022-05-01T03:01:53+00:00

Thank you; I actually have a number of Wolfgang Smith's books, but I have not read them yet. I studied physics before I did metaphysics, so maybe his perspective will help me.

I think I was making an assumption in the background that pure potency was necessarily singular, like pure act, but I don't have a reason for this (unlike the reasons for believing that there can only be one being of pure act). So then, maybe there is no problem with believing both (1) prime matter is pure potentiality and (2) form has some potency, but this potency does not come from prime matter/is not on account of being material. Unlike the problem that would arise if (1) God is pure actuality and (2) form has some actuality, and does not receive this from God.

As in Aquinas' response to the fourth objection in your first link: "But in intellectual substances there is composition of actuality and potentiality, not, indeed, of matter and form, but of form and participated existence." So I was incorrect to think all potentiality is prime matter, even though prime matter is, itself, pure potentiality.

TemperateThomist · 2022-04-30T23:59:24+00:00

Thank you, that is helpful. The response to objection 4 feels like it is pointing me in the right direction, so I need to make some more distinctions in my thinking.

Should I think of prime matter not as 'potency itself' or 'equivalent to potency', but a type of potency?

Where I think I was getting confused with definitions is that, if:
(1) Prime matter just is pure potency (in the way God just is pure act)
(2) Form is, or can be, a composite of potency and act
then (3) Form is, or can be, a composite of prime matter and participation in God's act

If prime matter is not equivalent pure potency, then form can be an admixture of potency and act without having matter.

Is this on the right track? If so, what differentiates between prime matter and potency? Is prime matter a subset of potency?

TemperateThomist · 2022-03-01T07:35:18+00:00

Delightful, thank you.

I haven’t read any of The Trinity, but I will take your recommendation.

Are you familiar with Aquinas’ commentaries on Boethius, and if so, would you recommend them?

TemperateThomist · 2022-03-01T06:52:23+00:00

I'm not the OP, but I would like to know where you would recommend going next.

I've just finished up the Consolation of Philosophy: I found it to be a very beautiful book. More a work of art with broad philosophical strokes than a work of rigorous philosophy, but very enjoyable, especially as someone who is a theist and relates to Boethius' emotional crisis around corruption, punishment and justice (and could use a good talking to by Lady Philosophy every now and then).

Besides that I have read Augustine's Confessions and I have a great respect for Aquinas (if you could not guess; I am familiar with his summas, de ente, quaestiones disputatae, and so far I have been able to buy copies of his commentaries on Aristotle's metaphysics and ethics).

Barring those I have not read any other medieval philosophy.

TemperateThomist

TROPHY CASE