Reddit mentions: The best metaphysics books

>You espouse nothing but poor reasoning

You can't espouse poor reasoning. You can however espouse an idea supported by poor reasoning. Assuming this is what you meant, I still haven't done it. You have no examples for how my arguments rely on poor reasoning, you just keep insisting that they do. This is due to your own reliance on specious reasoning.

>You're an apologist. You've chosen that position and it's an ugly one.

Sigh.... You know what an apologist is right? Lets use the term in a sentence... "The christian apologists tried to defend their beliefs using reason, thinking that belief in god could be found through logic." Hmm... Maybe a definition would still be useful.

Ya... I'm not an apologist. I'm not arguing in defense of a belief. I'm arguing against a belief in moral realism. You, my friend, function as the apologist in this debate. Please stop using words without knowing how to use them.

>My morals are quite measured and I do not follow them blindly, with faith. I quoted this because this is all you do. You make stupid and baseless attacks because you have no defense.

Watch this: "My belief in God is quite measured and I do not follow him blindly, with faith." Just because you use reason to justify things after the fact does not make the original assumption true, or any less "faithful."

You seem to have a complete lack of knowledge when it comes to moral theory and what is possible through moral theory. Sam Harris, while an interesting individual, and right about many things, is fundamentally wrong when it comes to what science can do with regard to morals. Not in the sense that his moral system is untenable, but rather in the sense that you can't get his moral system strictly through scientific study—which he claims we can. Assumptions must be made before you can even begin the study of well-being and suffering, and even more must be made in order to say that you should promote one and avoid the other.

A person's insistence on the existence of universal objective morals is best termed as a FAITH. There is no evidence of universal objective morals, and they are fundamentally unscientific entities in the same sense God is—even if we wanted to, we could never find evidence of them. At best they are commonly assumed entities—like God is for most people.

And I repeat, because you seem to think I am some sort of moral heathen, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT MORALS ARE USELESS OR THAT WE SHOULD LET PEOPLE DO WHATEVER THEY WANT BECAUSE THERE ARE NO OBJECTIVE MORALS. Your feelings about me being somehow deficient are the same feelings a religious fundamentalist would have toward both of us due to our lack of belief.

That you think a bit of pop-science is somehow "important" for me to read is laughable. If what you know of morals comes from that book, I feel sorry for you. I understand that many atheists will praise anything that comes from the "canon" writers on atheism like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, however, being a fan of someone does not make all of their work good, or even relevant. At best, Sam Harris is simply endorsing the naturalistic fallacy. At worst, he's willfully ignorant of what the naturalistic fallacy is, and simply wishes to push his view as a "counterpoint" to religious morality.

Since you so kindly left me a link to a book, allow me to do the same, by linking you to the most important books in moral theory for you to read, some of which argue directly against me, but at this point the idea is to get you educated, not to get you to agree with me:

Alisdair MacIntyre — After Virtue

Nietzsche — Beyond Good and Evil

Nietzsche — The Genealogy of Morals

Kant — Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals

Aristotle — Nicomachean Ethics

G.E. Moore — Principia Ethica

I've done my best to find the best editions of these books available (I myself usually default to the Cambridge editions of works in the history of philosophy). You may also want to check out some Peter Singer, along with Bentham and Mill, if only to know what it means to be a utilitarian. After that, read John Rawls, because he'll tell you one reason why utilitarianism is so controversial in ethical theory.

I hope to hear back from you about the results of your studies. I figure you can easily find pdfs of these books (though perhaps not the same editions I linked) somewhere online. Given about a month or two to read them all (I'm not sure how much free time you have... maybe more like three months) you should be up to speed. Hopefully I'll hear back from you after the new year. At that point, I don't expect you to agree with my view on ethics, but I at least expect you will understand it, and be able to argue your own position somewhat more effectively than you are at the moment. If nothing else, think of this as a way to learn how to "stick it" to people like me.

Maybe by then you'll have gotten beyond the whole "I'm taking my ball and going home" disposition you seem to have when confronted with someone who's better than you at debating ethics. I can only hope.

If you take ethics seriously at all, do this for yourself: study the shit out of ethical theory.

Anyone who specializes in this, please correct me or nuance this out.

>The criterion which we use to test the genuineness of apparent statements of fact is the criterion of verifiability. We say that a sentence is factually significant to any given person, if, and only if, he knows how to verify the proposition which it purports to express -- that is, if he knows what observations would lead him, under certain conditions, to accept the proposition as being true, or reject it as being false. If, on the other hand, the putative proposition is of such a character that the assumption of its truth, or falsehood, is consistent with any assumption whatsoever concerning the nature of his future experience, then, as far as he is concerned, it is, if not a tautology, a mere pseudo-proposition. The sentence expressing it may be emotionally significant to him; but it is not literally significant. (Ayer, Language, Truth, and Logic, p. 16)

So important here is that:

• Verification is a principle used to talk about statements / propositions.
  
  
• In order to be literally significant (or factual), they need to have some sort of connection to experience in an empirical sense.
  
  He also later goes on to distinguish between "practical verifiability" (p. 16), which is more direct verification by experience; we could take steps to verify the proposition in relation to experience, and "verifiability in principle" (p. 16) says that there would be some sort of empirical experience that could be relevant to the proposition (even if we can't take steps to verify it now). He gives the example of mountains being on the far side of the moon. Back then they didn't have rockets to get there, or satellite telescopes, etc. But you can see how the matter of "There are mountains on the far side of the moon" could be decided by experience.
  
  He also distinguishes between strong verifiability (p is strongly verifiable if and only if we can decide its truth based on experience) and weak verifiability (p is weakly verifiable if and only if we can decide its probability based on experience) (Ayer, LTL, p. 18). And it is this weak sense of verification that he takes as most important because it seems to him more usable (p. 147; see also Appendix The Principle of Verification, p. 171 ff).
  
  This quote, though, probably gets to the heart of your question:
  >Thus, while I wish the principle of verification itself be regarded, not as an empirical hypothesis, but as a definition, it is not supposed to be entirely arbitrary. It is indeed open to anyone to adopt a different criterion of meaning and so to produce an alternative definition which may very well correspond to one of the ways in which the word 'meaning' is commonly used. And if a statement satisfied such a criterion, there is, no doubt, some proper use of the word 'understanding' in which it would be capable of being understood. Nevertheless, I think that, unless it satisfied the principle of verification, it would not be capable of being understood in the sense which either scientific hypotheses or common-sense statements are habitually understood. I confess, however, that it now seems to me unlikely that any metaphysician would yield to a claim of this kind; and although I should still defend the use of the criterion of verifiability as a methodological principle, I realize that for the effective elimination of metaphysics it needs to be supported by detailed analyses of particular metaphysical arguments. (Ayer, LTL, Appendix, pp. 184-5)
  
  So when we look at the principle of verification itself, it seems like it's not under the domain of itself. He was applying the principle of verification to statements. And the principle of verification is a criterion of meaning. It's because of Ayer's empirical commitments elsewhere that he adopts the principle of verification. I also think he sees verification as importantly allowing one to correctly predict future events or expectations (see p. 23).
  
  TL;DR: Verifiability is a criterion and not a statement, so it doesn't need to pass the test. Moreover, it's through predictive success and methodological rigor (through empiricism) that the criterion can be justified.
  
  Also, I think he might have later modified his stance on these issues very heavily. For more on this approach, see something like C.J. Misak's Verificationism.

I'm in a similar boat as you; interested in continental, but surrounded by a lot of analytics.

Hegel is notorious for being dense and difficult to read, and while he was incredibly influential on many later continental thinkers, I don't think anyone who really wanted to help you get into continental philosophy would have you start on Hegel, unless they were committed to reading through it with you.

Heidegger's maybe a bit less obtuse at times, but he can also be confusing if you don't have a professor or more experienced student guiding you along. I asked a professor where I should start, and he recommended his published lecture notes from The History of the Concept of Time, which I admittedly haven't finished yet, but he spends a lot of time in it explaining Husserl's philosophy of phenomenology, which is crucial for understanding Heidegger, as well as a number of other continental thinkers.

As for some easier continental-esque thinkers, there are some that I think are a bit more accessible. Bear in mind that there isn't exactly a group of thinkers who all signed a document saying they were continental philosophers, but there are a number who seem to run in the tradition, and many others who were at the very least related to them.

To begin, I'd recommend some Kierkegaard. He was a Christian philosopher, and is often considered to be one of the earliest existentialist philosopher's. He did a number of works on concepts of faith, anxiety, dread and other elements of the human condition, adding his own angles on them to apply them to Christian philosophy. He wrote under a number of pseudonyms in order to create a number of different perspectives, although underlying all the chaos was a desire to get you to start thinking for yourself. A good place to start with him would be Fear and Trembling. Many of his ideas were influential on continental thinkers such as Heidegger, Jaspers and Sartre.

To go in a very different direction, Nietzsche is another thinker who was very influential on many continental philosophers. The self-declared Anti-Christ, he basically believed that we are about to enter a post-God world, with his writings often either trying to burn our bridges back to the Church or trying to point us in a new direction. Like Kierkegaard, he doesn't always say what he means directly, but much of his philosophy is ultimately aimed at getting you to start thinking for yourself. I'd recommend this anthology, as it contains a number of pretty crucial writings of his.

If after this you're still interested in Heidegger, I don't have as much background there, although I've read a few of his Basic Writings, which is a collection of essays of his. In one of my classes, we also read an essay from his Pathmarks which wasn't terribly dense, so that might be a nice place to start as well. Being and Time is generally considered to be his most important work, but it's renowned for being dense and difficult, although there are a number of commentaries on that book alone that may prove useful.

For one final recommendation, I'll throw in Kaufmann's anothology of existential writings, which has a number of essays on existentialism, which was heavily tied to many core continental thinkers.

And I wouldn't worry about your roommate.

I've yet to come across a definition of existentialism that seems to do justice to the variety of figures put under the term, although I did come across a nice little tidbit a couple weeks ago:

>"Existentialism" is not a precisely defined term. It refers to to a movement or a set of issues. It is, moreover, as much a literary sensibility as it is a set of philosophical ideas...they share a reaction to the philosophical tradition that precedes them. They regard is as overly focused on the achievements of cognition and as offering little insight that can touch the lives of individuals. It is also characteristic of existentialism to regard everyday human life as something of a sham, as a distortion of a more distressing underlying truth. This truth, once exposed, can serve as a springboard for personal liberation, however, and that makes confronting it worthwhile. Page 4.

Kierkegaard does assert that human beings have a sort of eternal essence, something later existentialists, most notably Sartre, strongly push against. However, he emphasizes the weight of being human in a way Sartre and many of his peers also would, exploring themes like anxiety, depression, choice and authenticity, all of which would be picked up by Heidegger, Sartre, Beauvoir, Camus, Jaspers and many others in a variety of ways. While some would try and say that people can live without eternal truths (or that we have to whether we can or not), Kierkegaard seems to think that we're incomplete without something firm to ground ourselves upon, as he says in The Sickness Unto Death of the person who doesn't ground themself in the eternal,

> The self is its own master, absolutely its own master; and exactly this is the despair, but also waht it regards as its pleasure and joy. But it is easy on closer examination to see that this ruler is a king without a country, that really he rules over nothing; his position, his kingdom, his sovereignty, are subject to the dialectic that rebellion is legitimate at any moment. Ultimately it is arbitrarily based upon the self itself. Page 100.

The problem your question points to is really more about Kierkegaard's reception that it is with Kierkegaard himself. While I think that it's great many atheists and more secular thinkers took Kierkegaard seriously, I do think that there's been a problematic emphasis on his existentialism and psychology, often to the detriment of his spiritual and and religious thought. While you can read Kierkegaard well as an atheist or existentialist, Kierkegaard's central problem was not existentialism; it was how to become a Christian in Christendom.

If you're interested, Anthony Rudd has a book on the topic, and while it is expensive, it does a good job of explaining Kierkegaard's view of the self as being one that requires some sort of eternal truth. He does point out that this doesn't necessarily mean you pick up Kierkegaard's religion, as Kierkegaard himself often talks about our need for 'the Good' as opposed to 'God' (although for Kierkegaard, the terms are obviously going to be largely synonymous) in works such as Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing. Rudd develops Kierkegaard as being situated largely in the Platonic tradition where people, in order to flourish fully, need to be oriented towards some objective Good, and I don't see a reason a more secular person couldn't pick this theory up, even if it does mean picking up the idea that humans have something of an essence. He also does a good job of contrasting Kierkegaard's view of the self compared to fatalists who overemphasize our immanence over our transcendence (Schopenhauer) and existentialists who overemphasize our freedom to the detriment of our given selves (Sartre).

Sorry if this comment is a bit unclear; I'm reading Sickness now, so I'm admittedly working my way through some of these questions and haven't quite organized all my thoughts, but hopefully somewhere in the mess above something works well enough to help you out.

I think the best route is to trick her into being interested in books. I think I just might have a trick for that.

Send her the wikipedia article for "trolley problem", and then send her the wiki article on judith thomson's violinist argument in favor of abortion. Then send her a link to parfit's transporter thought experiment. It's ideal if you can find versions of these online which are easy to read and presented in a cool manner. (blog entries are ideal for this. Here's a blog entry on parfit's teletransporter: http://twophilosoraptors.blogspot.com/2010/07/teletransporter.html)

Then buy her What If...collected thought experiments in philosophy off amazon or ebay. A used one will be cheap, or take it out from the library and renew it online while she uses it. If she got intrigued by the above thought experiments, and is intrigued by strange paradoxes about truth, like the liar paradox, or leibniz's law, then she will absolutely love this book. It's full of one-page, easily consumable versions of thought experiments, and then the page next to that one contains elaboration on the experiment and current work on it. One of my favorites in there is Max Black's two spheres, which seem to violate leibniz's law. A fun alternative to this, with bite sized philosophy things is "plato and a platypus walk into a bar".

If she continues to show interest in these, you can feed her new information about them via blogs like peasoup and thoughts, arguments, and rants, by googling the name of blogs like these next to a particular paradox or thought experiment, e.g. "thoughts arguments and rants moores paradox". This will lead you to new work by contemporary philosophers on the subjects, which may feed her interest into what it is that philosophers actually do. Eventually this may prompt her to want to read a full book on philosophy, to have a more mature understanding of how these paradoxes and TE's work, then you could get her the very interesting Think by simon blackburn, which is a general intro to philosophy, or the shorter very short introduction books. You can work up to more advanced, interesting work from there (like David Lewis' On the plurality of worlds, which opens the trippy possibility that all possibilities are realities).

Hope she enjoys her reading!

Thanks for the response. I'll give a sparce reading list, as I find it pretty extensive.

Zizek:

• The Puppet and the Dwarf
  
• The Fragile Absolute
  
• The Neighbor
  
• The Idea of Communism
  
• Paul's New Moment
  
• The Monstrosity of Christ
  
• Theology and the Political
  
  Zizek has plenty of essays and talks floating around as well, but these books are probably the best--the first and second are the most sustained, the third is a lengthy essay making use of theological resources. The fourth contains essays by Eagleton, Vattimo, and Badiou. The fifth is one where he dialogues with theologians about St. Paul. The sixth is a debate with a theologian about theology. The final is a great collection of people all across the board, mostly Marxists, dealing with theology.
  
  Vattimo:
  
  
• Hermeneutic Communism
  
• After Christianity
  
  Eagleton:
  
  
• Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate
  
• The Gospels: Jesus Christ (Revolution)
  
  Eagleton also specializes in short and helpful articles.
  
  Badiou:
  
  
• Saint Paul: The Foundations of Universalism
  
  Misc. Authors too extensive to list:
  
  
• Jean-Luc Nancy
  
• John Milbank
  
• Graham Ward
  
• Simon Critchley
  
  
  Secondary Literature:
  
  
• Christ and Postmodern Philosophy
  
• Any of the "so-and-so and theology" texts. I know Badiou and Vattimo both have one.
  
  Hopefully someone comes by and expands this list. I've gotta get back to work.

I had a comment in here giving a reason for he post, though that's not an explanation.

> Note: may not be the best place to post, but I needed to post somewhere in order to link it in Dr. Feser's open thread today, which he only does a couple of times each year. I've been working through his books since early this year, and developing this concept map as I progress.

By way of explanation, this is a work in progress to visualize the relationships between the concepts brought to bear in the philosophical advances of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas. Beginning for the fundamental argument for the necessary reality of the distinction between actuality and potentiality, the concept map walks through the conceptual divisions of act and potency. Notably, the divisions of act arrive at a core conception of God as Pure Actuality, Being Itself, utterly devoid of any potentiality or passivity. This is not a proof of God, but rather simply serves to define God's role as the First and Unmoved Mover and Sustainer of all things.

The divisions of act and potency expand to the right of the map, where you see how actuality and potentiality come together as Form and Matter to produce concrete, material things.

Branching off of from the soul (here defined as the substantial form of a living substance), there is a section which details the powers or capacities of the different levels of living substances, which are hierarchically related, with respect to the corporeal order.

For now, the section on the Four Causes is placed on its own, as I still haven't decided where best to tie it in, since many topics make use of this principle. Particularly, Final Causation (defined as the end, goal, purpose, directedness or teleology of a thing) is essential to understanding the concept of objective goodness, which carries into the section on ethics (which, in this view, amounts to an understanding of the directedness of the will).

Also included, but not yet connected as well as it could be, is a section on the divine attributes, along with a brief explanation of how we can know them.

There is much more that can be included. As mentioned elsewhere, this was posted here so that I could link to the WIP. I had hoped that I could catch Edward Feser's attention in the comments of his open thread, which he posted on his blog site yesterday, and which he does only a couple times per year. This concept map is the result of my learning from his books:

• Aristotle’s Revenge: The Metaphysical Foundations of Physical and Biological Science
  
  
• Aquinas (A Beginner's Guide)
  
  
• Philosophy of Mind (A Beginner's Guide)
  
  
• Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction (Scholastic Editions – Editiones Scholasticae)
  
  I am still working my way through this last one, and when done I intend also to read:
  
  
• Five Proofs of the Existence of God

You probably should have a basic background in history of philosophy, and should at least be somewhat familiar with people like Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Hegel and Husserl. You don't necessarily need to read their work directly, but at least read some overviews and stuff.

I'd strongly suggest reading Being and Time alongside some secondary literature. William Blattner's book is very good as a guide. I come from a more analytic background, and I found Mark Okrent's book to be the most clear and helpful presentation of Heidegger's ideas. Hubert Dreyfus also has lectures online. He's hugely influential in contemporary Heidegger scholarship, but I'm honestly not particularly fond of his take on B&T.

There's actually a rich history of debate in philosophy about the role of intuition generally, and using conceivability as a measure of possibility in particular. (Gendler and Hawthorne edited an excellent volume on the topic.)

There are a few things to say in this particular case. One is that Parfit isn't relying on intuition. He's actually making a stronger claim: that the notion of there being two identical people is logically inconsistent. If that's the case, then either you accept the conclusion that this is impossible, or you reject foundational principles of logic (e.g., non-contradiction). (Graham Priest famously does the latter, though for very different reasons.)

Another point is that thought experiments like this might be thought of as mapping out how we conceive of the world, rather than carving nature at its joints. I'm not sure Parfit would accept this, but it does give him more latitude.

Finally, one might think that these sorts of thought experiments are necessary steps in uncovering the truths about things like personal identity. I'm not sure how, even in principle, one could design an experiment to test any of these hypotheses. But even if there were a way, it seems that thinking through possibilities like Parfit does would help clear the way for designing such experiments.

BlackdogLao's suggestion is excellent. I can't express how enthusiastically I'd like to suggest that course of action to you. However, you're going to have to broach the subject of philosophy, logic, or critical thinking, with a lot of rhetorical delicacy as well; these can be a charged terms in some circles, regarded as code-words for atheism indoctrination. You might want to try saying you want to teach her the trivium, which has positive associations in lots of Christian home-school circles. That said, here's a few things you may find useful in perusing this path:

Google search for the trivium (if you don't know about it, also proof for my claim about Christian-associations:)
http://tinyurl.com/7s9wj2w

Set of critical thinking books for Middle-school/High-school students. There's also, in the bookstore, books for younger and older learners:
http://www.criticalthinking.org/store/products/junior-highhigh-school-teacher-thinkeraeurotrades-guide-set/317

A history of philosophy in the form of a novel. Very readable.
http://www.amazon.com/Sophies-World-Novel-History-Philosophy/dp/1574530011

Collected thought experiments, which can be quite fun to puzzle over for an evening, and are great as paper-subjects.
http://www.amazon.com/What-If-Collected-Thought-Experiments-Philosophy/dp/0321202783/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342456932&sr=1-2&keywords=thought+experiments

Also, here's my favorite aggregator of online educational resources, Open Culture. Make sure to check out itunes u as well. It'll be awhile before she can use the university level material below, but there's a ton of stuff you can use to educate yourself so you can educate her, and also a lot of videos and stuff that might be appropriate.
http://www.openculture.com/freeonlinecourses

The best online math education website. Try to show her math's fun, and it'll do wonders for her thinking and her grades later on.
http://www.khanacademy.org/

You also need to pay very close attention to her history education. Your ex-wife may destroy her understanding of early american history if she's a bad fundie.

Lastly, TRY as hard as you can not to counter-indoctrinate. You don't want a mom-vs-dad dynamic set up. This might sneak in, due to the emotionally charged nature of the situation. Be alert about your feelings while you educate! Try frank but delicate about the differences in your opinion, and, when possible, encourage her to weigh the sides herself and make her decision. There is a sense that all education before a certain point is indoctrination, however. If your ex-wife is straight up mis-representing the facts, there's going to be a degree of "well, Daddy thinks Mommy's wrong..." but that should be qualified by "but Daddy wants you to choose for yourself, and he loves you no matter what."

I don't want to seem patronizing - I'm sorry if I do. I'm just moved by the difficulty of your circumstances.

You're welcome! Another piece of advice I have is that while I firmly believe conversion is a result of grace, breaking down intellectual barriers to belief is absolutely critical for many atheists. I found I had a lot of baggage and bad history/bad philosophy in my overall worldview previously. I didn't know what I didn't know or believe in. To me, God was a silly, antiquated idea used for control and comfort. Things like classical theism, divine simplicity, act/potency, essentialism, forms, four causes...were either completely foreign to me or unintelligible.

The first part of getting past that was classical philosophy, as I previously mentioned. I don't just mean Catholic thinkers like Aquinas either (though he's the mastermind!). It was studying the metaphysics of Aristotle, the forms of Plato, Ockam's pre-nominalistic, how enlightenment philosophers shifted the thinking towards epistemology and metaphysics; that I think really broke those barriers for me. It turned out that the materialism, reductionism, naturalism, and empiricism that I took for granted...were not on the strong ground I thought they were. Indeed, philosophers like Ed Feser, David Oderberg, Peter Kreeft, GEM Anscombe, Roger Scruton, Bernard Lonergan, James Ross, and even Thomas Nagel (himself an atheist!) have been articulating strong arguments against those things for years. I never knew the power of logic, deductive reasoning, and philosophy. I took the view of scientism as the default truth without ever challenging it. But just knowing how strong the intellectual arguments are against atheism/materialism are, and for theism; has helped immensely in growing in God's grace. And that is to say nothing for my moral realism, courtesy of Alasdair MacIntyre and C.S. Lewis, that was the initial crack in my previous worldview.

For those of us who are more head than heart, like I suspect you and your wife are, this kind of deep dive into philosophy is a crucial aspect of conversion. If you can articulate the strength of theism and weaknesses of atheism from just a purely intellectual standpoint, you may at least get her to be more understanding of your shift in thinking. I think reading this book is a good start and that this one is slightly more thorough. Feser isn't the world's greatest philosopher but he is very articulate. This book of his helped me greatly in beginning to solidify and defend my own epistemology and metaphysics.

Real essentialism is demonstrated through the fixed laws governing the relationships between the sides and angles of a triangle. You can’t “invent” a triangle whose interior angles add up to whatever you want, because the concept of a triangle is something we discover rather than invent. Are you familiar with Oderberg? https://www.amazon.com/Essentialism-Routledge-Studies-Contemporary-Philosophy/dp/041587212X

> Where is it?

Essences are immaterial.

> I've read most of it and have a fairly good understanding of what Aquinas says on a lot of important subjects

Im calling bullshit if you aren’t even passably competent in his metaphysics to articulate the difference between essentially and accidentally ordered cause and effect relationships.

> Aquinas believes that people "assent" in faith about propositional objects because their "truth" is directly revealed (obviously divinely) by God. He claims the will disposes the intellect (i.e human reason) in accepting those truth claims, because they come from God. This all relies "the basis of testimony carrying divine authority" to use Aquinas's words.

Not quite correct.

“To be sure, a part of theology (what is generally called “revealed theology”) is based on what Aquinas regards as truths that have been revealed to us by God. To that extent theology is based on faith. But “faith,” for Aquinas, does not mean an irrational will to believe something for which there is no evidence. It is rather a matter of believing something on the basis of divine authority (ST II-II. 4.1), where the fact that it really has been revealed by God can be confirmed by the miracles performed by the one through whom God revealed it (ST II-II. 2.9). In any case, there is another part of theology (known as “natural theology”) that does not depend on faith, but rather concerns truths about God that can be known via reason alone.”

-Ed Feser Aquinas (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00O0G3BEW/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1)

So no, I still don’t think you actually understand what you’re talking about.

> religious people now decide that the Bible is still true, it just not literal.

Well, evolution could be God's method of creating humans. There is more potential for nuance here than most believers would admit. Nicolas of Cusa and others claimed that God's creation was complete, meaning he created everything that could logically exist. This entails an infinite creation that exhausts the extent of possibility. Transitioning our language to modern science, that is compatible (I did not say it predicted) an inflationary multiverse in which every possible world, and every possible version of life, is created, over and over.

I'm not arguing that we have reason to believe in God. I'm an atheist. I'm merely arguing that some variants of theology are compatible with modern cosmology and evolutionary theory. I'm basically attempting to build a bridge from Nicholas of Cusa and Giordano Bruno to modern inflationary cosmology. The bridge is for those who see the world through theology, not for the atheists to come over to the dark side. I started fiddling with this idea while reading the fascinating book The Great Chain of Being.

Again, I'm not arguing for God. I'm just trying to persuade some people who do believe in God that there are some variants of theology that are compatible with modern cosmology and evolutionary theory.

Sorry. I doubt merely mentioning that I wrote a book could be castigated as "self-promotion", but actually offering a reference or link certainly could be seen that way, and I can never figure out out to navigate reddit's anti-self-promotion quagmire. I just can't figure out what the rules are on that issue, since it is so mod-specific (or mod-dependent).

My understanding is that once someone explicitly asks, I can then offer all the relevant information...as you just did, so here you go! :-)

A Taxonomy and Metaphysics of Mind-Uploading

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0692279849

It's a book I wrote over the spring and summer. The first section just collects and organizes mind-uploading thought experiments. The second section walks through my philosophy of mind (which is essentially a "psychological" model in which identity is tied to memory). The point or main argument of the book is that any minds resulting from an uploading procedure should receive equal primacy in their claim to the original identity.

Thanks for your interest.

Cheers!

It's not so much a return to religion as it is the evolution and adaptation of Marx and Feuerbach to today's left. Additional analysis and review is always beneficial, though it's clearly not the religious analysis of its forefathers. In my mind, religion in communist thought can be broken into three basic streams:

• Marx/Feuerbach's religion. Emancipation from illusory and psychological oppression is a prerequisite for our emancipation from real oppression:
  
  > Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
  
  AND
  
  > My only wish is to transform friends of God into friends of man,
  > believers into thinkers, devotees of prayer into devotees of work,
  > candidates for the hereafter into students of the world, Christians
  > who, by their own procession and admission, are "half animal, half
  > angel" into persons, into whole persons.
  
  
• Zizek's interpretation: Religion, devoid of the supernatural, is essentially communist in that most religions tend toward peace/equality.
  
  
• Eagleton's interpretation: Communism is only possible through religious thought. Left to the devices of man, corruption is rampant. (Insert anti-Stalin remarks here.)
  
  Basically what I'm saying is that the new analyses of religion in communist thought exist to add more options so as not to exclude the religious and agnostic.
  
  NOTE -- I don't know why I wrote anything after this point. It's basically a book/theme review. I spent time on it, so I left it here. Maybe someone will enjoy it.
  
  Eagleton's flops around quite a bit. Literary Theory spends the majority of its time bashing postmodernism but his later After Theory narrows the argument to defining absolutes (the human body) and a need for an objective morality that sounds an awful lot like humanism. As far as contributing to communist studies, I don't consider Eagleton an authority on the subject. For example, Why Marx was Right makes no rational or coherent economic arguments for communism. His communism is a result of his faith, not the other way around. Obviously there's a strong moral argument to be made for communism but if that argument is to be made from any other standpoint than humanism I would count it as counterproductive.
  
  As for Zizek, he's clearly not religious and enjoys adapting the Marx/Feuerbach analyses to (post)modern thought. He's sort of the anti-Eagleton in that regard. His work on religion in particular ranges from interesting to absolutely fantastic.
  
  From The Puppet and the Dwarf:
  
  > It is possible today to redeem this core of Christianity only in the
  > gesture of abandoning the shell of its institutional organization (and
  > even more so, of its specific religious experience). The gap here is
  > irreducible: either one drops the religious form, or one maintains the
  > form but lose the essence. This is the ultimate heroic gesture that
  > awaits Christianity: in order to save its treasure, it has to sacrifice
  > itself -- like Christ, who had to die so that Christianity could emerge.
  
  Zizek's analysis of religion isn't always directly from a communist standpoint, though Freud/Lacan are acceptable substitutes in a pinch.
  
  As for Vattimo, I've yet to read Hermeneutic Communism even though I've had it sitting around for a while. His previous work on religion has been very solid. That being said, if you're not one for postmodernism it really isn't something you'll enjoy.
  
  BONUS: If you're interested in reading any of the material listed by these authors, please PM me. I have PDF/MOBI copies available. If I don't have it, I'll help you find it.
  
  I'll post a comment in reply to this one with links to all the files I upload as not to have duplicates.

SECTION | CONTENT

--|:--
Title | Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered? (Closer to Truth - Season 4, Episode 9)
Description | Mathematics describes the real world of atoms and acorns, stars and stairs, with remarkable precision. So is mathematics invented by humans-like chisels and hammers and pieces of music? Or is mathematics discovered-always out there, somewhere, like mysterious islands waiting to be found? Robert's Book: The Mystery of Existence: Why Is There Anything At All? https://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Existence-Why-There-Anything/dp/0470673559
Length | 0:26:47


SECTION | CONTENT

--|:--
Title | Do schools kill creativity? | Sir Ken Robinson
Description | http://www.ted.com Sir Ken Robinson makes an entertaining and profoundly moving case for creating an education system that nurtures (rather than undermines) creativity.

TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers are invited to give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes -- including speakers such as Jill Bolte Taylor, Sir Ken Robinson, Hans Rosling, Al Gore and Arthur Benjamin. TED stands for Techn...
Length | 0:20:04






****

^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^Info ^| ^Feedback ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)

As far as secondary lit goes, William Blattner's Reader's Guide to Being and Time is very clear and straightforward. I also think that Steven Mulhall's Routledge Guide is great (though, to my surprise, the amazon reviews weren't that good).

If you want a more exciting and inventive commentary which will tie Heidegger closely to recent analytic philosophy, I cannot recommend John Haugland's Dasein Disclosed enough. Unfortunately it was unfinished (published posthumously) and so the commentary is mostly D1, but it's a fantastic book, and there's essays of his as well in there to fill in the blanks.

As far as understanding terms go this glossary is very thorough. I'm not a huge fan of how it puts things, actually, but I know it was really helpful to a few people in my classes.

Well, it depends on what you want to study. If you want to go for religious experience, phenomenology, and epistemology, Yandell's "The Epistemology of Religious Experience", Otto's "The Idea of the Holy", James' "Varieties ...", and Alston's "Perceiving God" would be good.

For Medieval philosophy you really can't beat Aquinas. Since the SCG and ST are pretty hefty, it'd be good to start with Aristotle's metaphysica and physica (late late late edit: not just that, but read his works on souls as well as his other works). McKeon's "The Basic works of Aristotle" is an okay translation. There's a better one, but the name eludes me. After that, Aquinas' "On Being and Essence" is a must-read for metaphysics. Then either flip through the SCG or ST, or even better, find a companion for the two works (Peter Kreeft, Feser, and Sir A. Kenny are all decent). Beyond Aquinas, and a bit earlier than him, are Augustine and the Church fathers. I can't really say much on them because I'm not too familiar-- I fell in love with the Medieval philosopher-theologians before I converted, I didn't really pay much mind to those earlier than them in the Christian tradition. However, Augustine is usually the man I've heard recommended.

Beyond the books, philosophy papers between, say, Bergmann, Pruss, Almeida, et al. are wonderful. Almeida's "On Vague Eschatology", "A New Cosmological Argument Undone" (in response to Pruss), Almeida's refutation of Rowe's new evidentialist argument from evil, and his reply to Alston's skeptical theist response to Rowe's new evidentialist argument. Usually these will be followed by a response, and counter-response, etc.

For Oderberg, and in general for the Neo-Aristotelians, Tahko's collection of essays by varying neo-Aristotelians in "Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics", Oderberg's "Whatever is Changing...", and Oderberg's "Real Essentialism" are not explicitly Christian or related to the philosophy of religion (except the second, that is explicitly about the First Way of St. Thomas Aquinas) but implicitly related via the essentialists (particularly the Aristotelians) in the Christian tradition.

edit: Question for you: Which works of Plantinga? Also, by Zacharias, you mean Ravi Zacharias? I've never read much on him but I've heard he's okay. What is your take on him?

>If the computer copy of their mind will be destroyed, they would still exist. Thus, the computer copy of their mind is not actually them--rather, it's merely an exact copy of them.

At the exact time that the mind is copied, then there are two of the minds in the universe.

There's no logical reasons why there can't be two or more exact same minds existing at the same time. "You" exist in both of those states. This is part of the multiverse interpretation of quantum physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse. So your use of the word "thus" does not make sense.

From then on, the two identities branch, and they will never be the same, because of the path dependence of mind states.

I recommend that book first because it is shorter, but there is also a book available: https://www.amazon.com/Taxonomy-Metaphysics-Mind-Uploading-Keith-Wiley/dp/0692279849

>Also, I'll take a look at that article. Thanks for sharing it with me!

Sure thing. =)

Google hasn't been very helpful, but I found a few contradictory answers. Perhaps it wasn't opposed so much as considered theologically unnecessary?

A Reformation500 article on natural beauty says no. Also, Protestantism after 500 Years by Howard & Noll claims that Luther's 2-kingdom theology contradicts it. Meanwhile, The Protestant Temperament says yes, at least for Protestant "moderates". (Though among the "moderates" it quotes Winthrop, who was anything but one.)

Edit: Apparently there's an entire book devoted to the history of the idea. Searching through the Google Books version with terms like "Reformation" doesn't turn up much of anything.

Hey, sorry I never replied to this! Aquinas is who I read, primarily. And the philosophers in his tradition who come after him. I think he probably presents the strongest arguments, but to consider them for what they actually are, you have to have a basic understanding of Aristotelian metaphysics. You're probably not looking for this, but I would recommend these books, in this order:

The Last Superstition

Aquinas (A "Beginner's" [quotes mine; not all that beginner-ish imo] Guide)

Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction

The first one is a polemic, so beware. But it lays out a pretty decent modern cultural context for Scholastic metaphysics. That last one is especially good if you're interested in how science plays out in Thomism. The second one (and the bulk of the last one) though is kinda meaty technical stuff. But I think that series prepares you to understand the arguments of all different sorts of metaphysicians quite well.

It is a lot of work though. I won't deny that. It sort of pissed me off at first, but truth doesn't necessarily have to be easy to comprehend. Of course that's not to say that the difficulty of all this is meritorious or anything in itself.

I wish I had more info for you. Hopefully someone else reading this can chime in. I can only recommend the [translation I read.] (https://www.amazon.com/Being-Harper-Perennial-Modern-Thought/dp/0061575593/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8), Macquarrie & Robinson. This is a more recent translation and I don't speak German. The classic version was the [Stambaugh] (https://www.amazon.com/Being-Time-Translation-Contemporary-Continental/dp/1438432763).

Those are the two main ones as far as I know. Once again, I'm sure there are people far better qualified to speak to this than me reading.

I think you will learn the most by reading five textbooks, such as A History of Philosophy, volumes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; or something like Metaphysics: The Fundamentals, The Fundamentals of Ethics, Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, and An Introduction to Political Philosophy.

If what you have in mind is more of a "Great Books" program to get your feet wet with some classic works that are not too difficult, you could do a lot worse than:

• Plato's Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo, often published together under the title The Trial and Death of Socrates. Socrates is so important that we lump together all Greek philosophers before him as "the Presocratics," and this cycle of dialogues is a great window on who he was and what he is famous for.
  
• The Basic Works of Aristotle. "The philosopher of common sense" is not a particularly easy read. Cicero compared his writing style to "a flowing river of gold," but all the works he prepared for publication are gone, and what we have is an unauthorised collection of lecture notes written in a terse, cramped style that admits of multiple interpretations. Even so, one can find in Aristotle a very attractive system of metaphysics and ethics which played a major role in the history of philosophy, and holds up well even today.
  
• René Descartes, Discourse on the Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. Descartes is called the father of modern philosophy, not so much because modern philosophers have widely followed his particular positions (they haven't) but because he set the agenda, in a way, with his introduction of methodological scepticism.
  
• David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. I think Elizabeth Anscombe had it right in judging Hume a "mere brilliant sophist", in that his arguments are ultimately flawed, but there is great insight to be derived from teasing out why they are wrong.
  
• If I can cheat just a little more, I will lump together three short, important treatises on ethics: Immanuel Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, and Anscombe's paper "Modern Moral Philosophy".

My suggestion would be to find introductory books to the three main 'branches' of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.

Here's one: http://www.amazon.com/Metaphysics-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0199657122

The others are probably searchable as well. My reasoning is that it would be difficult to find one book that 'dips' into each branch of philosophy for the same reasons it would be difficult to find one book that 'dips' into each branch of language. There are books out there, but it's hard to recommend them because they require a strong commitment to the work.

Instead, my suggestion is this: read a short book (under 200 pages?) of each branch of philosophy that interests you, and then let your mind be the 'book' that makes a 'dip' into each branch that you read about.

The Kybalion is a wonderful introduction. (Whatever some people seem to say of it.)

I can also highly recommend a much lesser known work on Egregores by Mark Stavish. This is an extremely important concept that is complementary to what is essentially a master key embodied by the principles elucidated in the Kybalion.

If you are interested in either of these two works and aren't able to peruse of them via Amazon, let me know.

Edit: See my other comment.

Try checking out the Kybalion it's free and I was told it's a great introduction to the occult and it's principles. I'm currently going through it myself. Welcome, brother/sister.

I don't think classical metaphysics is that popular today in philosophy at least in analytic philosophy as far as I can tell. I think for the most part this is true because most people don't know what Aquinas said. However, that really shouldn't by itself that classical metaphysics (at least the one that Aquinas argues for) is false. You basically gotta look at the arguments for classical metaphysics written by defenders in the past and today. One good book is called "Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction" by Feser (http://www.amazon.com/Scholastic-Metaphysics-Contemporary-Introduction-Scholasticae/dp/3868385444/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1463600373&sr=8-1&keywords=scholastic+metaphysics). Also the title is a bit misleading and should honestly be renamed Thomistic metaphyics. Not all Scholastics are Thomists and Scholastics in general have a lot of diversity in their views like Scotists, Ockamists, etc.

I finished reading the book, but I plan to go back to it relatively soon and take notes on and really digest it. Honestly I think his arguments are pretty good. He really fleshes out the details and defends many of the background stuff.

A big point about the stuff I read from the book, is that the metaphysics it is arguing for is true primarily because of the existence of change. I'm painting with a very broad brush and ignoring many important details, but basically its 1) Change exists 2) Change can only exist if potentiality and actuality are truly distinct otherwise change would not exist (insert argument by Parmenides for the non-existence of change) 3) the distinction between potentiality and actuality imply much of classical metaphysics like teleology, substance metaphysics, and some other stuff. So basically Feser is saying that classical metaphysics is necessarily true as long as change exists (and I'm not talking about the argument from motion about God).

Edit #1: Also I think most people don't know about Aquinas and other Scholastics, primarily because they just don't read their stuff. Its not that people have rejected classical metaphysics because they investigated. Its like how I have not tasted a meal from certain restaurants. I can't tell the meal is bad because I haven't tasted it. And I in a way "reject" the restaurant because I just ignore or just don't even know it exists.

I should also add that by most people I mean philosophers today.

You should have posted a trigger warning! ;o)

I remember freaking out the first time the all-encompassing self-negating vastness of this question hit me. Nothing is what one should expect, in a manner of speaking. It's the simplest of all possible realities and the only one requiring no explanation. Why anything exists requires an explanation. G‑d's absolute and unparalleled unity is key. The oneness of HaShem means that His existence and essence are the same thing:

> So, whatever else we say about the ultimate cause, source, or explanation of things ... we are going to have to regard it as absolutely simple or non-composite, as pure actuality devoid of potentiality, and as being itself rather than something that merely instantiates being. We are also going to have to regard it as immutable and uncaused, because only what has potentiality capable of being actualized, or parts capable of being combined, can be caused or undergo change, and the source or cause of all things must be devoid of potentiality or parts. Feser, standing on the shoulders of Maimonides

This is a wonderful book on the subject. (No, he doesn't "get" classical theism, but Holt's interviews with different thinkers gives this an existential gonzo feel.)

This one, too, is recommended. (But again, there's an almost a priori dismissal of a straw man version of theism.)

The boy's final question is addressed here. Notice how he starts out with a Cosmological inquiry and shifts to a Teleological (or anthropic) one. I agree with the Rabbi that the latter is harder. Luke Barnes' blog is essential. Fortunately, if the Cosmological Argument works (and it does) you don't need the Teleological one. Thank G-d.

Geez, I was just having a quiet evening until I read a simple comic.

There's lots of them, so I think one should start in the area they're most interested in and then branch from there.

Here' a general survey of the areas of philosophy.

The areas usually have their own articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy with extensive bibliographies (e.g. Modal Logic). Same goes for particular problems from these areas, like Truth, and some of the philosophers themselves (e.g. Bertrand Russell). There's also the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

For less technical and more structured introductions, there are plenty of textbooks, like Logic, This is Philosophy of Mind or The Fundamentals of Ethics. Books from the Very Short Introductions series are sometimes decent (e.g. Metaphysics), and they really are short.

The textbooks usually have further reading recommendations, some of which are compiled readers like The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness or The Ethical Life: Fundamental Readings in Ethics and Contemporary Moral Problems. I think these are good starting points as well.

Most of the books are going to be available on libgen of course.

And then there's of course podcasts. Some of the good ones I like:

• Philosophy Bites – very concise episodes with experts speaking on singular subjects
  
• Elucidations – basically the above, but with longer episodes
  
• Very Bad Wizards – a philosopher an a psychologist meme a lot and then discuss some ethics
  
• The Panpsycast – meant as beginner introductions to various subjects; kinda hit-and-miss for me I guess, but the eps where they invite experts to speak are good
  
• History of Philosophy without any gaps – they mean the title
  
  Lastly, Gregory B. Sadler is a big guy.

You'll have better luck with quality books than youtube videos for the most part. Although iTunes University has free Oxford course lectures. One is "Philosophy for Beginners" and includes a lecture on Metaphysics and Epistemology. That might be a good place to start.

Metaphysics: A Very Short Introduction isn't bad, but definitely not detailed enough.

The Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics is probably what you're looking for. A good library near you should have it.

>Also, where can I read more about Natural Law?

Edward Feser is very good at explaining it. Here's a blog post to get you started: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/10/whose-nature-which-law.html

And if you want to read more, I'd recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Scholastic-Metaphysics-Contemporary-Introduction-Scholasticae/dp/3868385444/ref=pd_sim_b_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=1PQZCBY62513VPV3H3SE

Short answer: no. Without reading it (which I haven't done in full), you will be helped very little by synopses. But there are definitely some good reading guides, I found this one interesting, but it's written for a newspaper audience:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jun/05/heidegger-philosophy

Also try Dreyfus's podcast: http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978475

Finally, the most helpful ones are the full-length reading guides. Blattner's is the most recommended, I think: http://www.amazon.com/Heideggers-Being-Time-Readers-Guides/dp/0826486096/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1300394473&sr=8-6

Either way, though, I would say, if you want to read it, you're in for a long, tedious trip. And, I think I disagree with you, OP--Heidegger is a lot less clear than Kant, in my opinion.

Feser is great. Chapter 0 of his Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction also does a great job of refuting New Atheism.

Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction will certainly cover it, but from a definitely Thomistic point of view. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy, and don't know much about the argument, save I'll probably agree with Aquinas because he's larger and easier to hide behind.

A recent work by David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God is well worth reading (it is more philosophical than its title lets on).

Ed Feser's The Last Superstition is good and I would also recommend his Scholastic Metaphysics.

I think S. Blackburn's Think is an excellent introduction to some of the major areas in philosophy. You might also what to look at some of the philosophical books in the "Very Short Introduction" series, for example the Philosophy, Metaphysics, Ethics, Philosophy of Science and Free Will ones, which as you can guess are good places to start.

A book I quite enjoyed as an introduction to the great philosophers was The Philosophy Book, which not only gave clear descriptions of each of the philosophers' views, but also often gave a clear flowchart summary of their arguments.

You should check out Edward Feser's books. He's a philosopher who specializes in Thomism and he has written several books about Thomist philosophy. His book Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide is a pretty clear introduction to Thomas Aquinas' work. If you're interested in the metaphysical aspects specifically, check out his book Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction.

http://www.brainpreservation.org/links/

and as a bonus

https://www.amazon.com/Taxonomy-Metaphysics-Mind-Uploading-Keith-Wiley/dp/0692279849

I think I win

>"you can not just metaphysics god into existence"

I agree, and nobody is doing anything like that.

>Constructing an entirely abstract philosophical argument which can not be falsified in any way

It can be falsified.

>The fundamental problem I see here is that you seem to be acting unreasonable, asserting that one particular philosophy is true almost just by argument of it being obvious

Aristotelianism is sometimes called "sophisticated common sense."

>philosophers like to hear something with a little bit more substance

It would take a book. Here's a good recent one.

This book is an excellent introduction to contemporary metaphysics. It gives you enough coverage of the history (i.e. the Greeks) and where metaphysics stands in contemporary literature. Highly recommend.

http://www.amazon.com/Metaphysics-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0199657122/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1452885902&sr=1-8&keywords=introduction+to+metaphysics

Hopefully someone more versed in Sartre will be able to help you out. But based on my studying him at undergrad, the idea is that what's special about the for-itself is that it's able to think of things that don't exist (nothingness), and imagine possibilities for itself that aren't realised. So, I as a conscious human can imagine myself being other than I am, for example, as flying through the air even though I'm sitting. A stone, though, an in-itself, doesn't have this gap between what it is and what it can think itself as being.

So then I'd want to say 'nonself-identical' just means something like 'has consciousness and thus lacks any defined once for all essence because is able to contemplate alternate possibilities for itself' and 'internal negation' is the distance between oneself considered as in-itself and as for-itself brought about by this ability.

But I'm not a Sartre expert, and also personally I think looking too hard for precision here is a mistake. The textbook we used (https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Phenomenology-Dermot-Moran/dp/0415183731) wasn't too complimentary about Sartre's technical ontological skills, and I agreed with it, though you might check out https://www.amazon.com/Sartres-Being-Nothingness-Readers-Guides/dp/0826474691 and https://www.amazon.com/Commentary-Jean-Paul-Sartres-Nothingness-Reprint/dp/0226096998/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=JZ8S92AXKWP0FC21AAB7 for more sympathetic readings (I haven't read the former but guess it's good).

There are a lot of really, really ignorant posts ITT. This is why you should actually read the various Austrian economists instead of listening to "internet Austrians."

For one thing, the Austrian approach doesn't reject empirical evidence. Look at all the actual Austrian economists and then see what their opinions were. Hayek is best interpreted as a member of the classical British empiricist school of thought, in the vein of Adam Smith, Hume, etc. Even for Mises, who followed Kant, the entire point of theoretical economics was to use it to interpret empirical reality.

For another thing, empirical knowledge simply isn't the only type of knowledge. This isn't even controversial in philosophy. Mises was the most explicit in attempting to ground the fundamental propositions of economics-- the so called "pure logic of choice"-- in neo-Kantian synthetic a priori statements. Kant is one of the most highly respected philosophers in history, so it would be absurd to condemn Mises simply because he took a Kantian approach to the fundamentals of economics.

And for what it's worth, a lot of Mises' views are defensible anyway. He starts with the action axiom, i.e. we engage in purposive behavior. You can agree with this proposition or disagree with it. If you agree with it, that's fine, Mises has his starting point. If you disagree with it, that disagreement itself would have to be categorized as an instance of purposive behavior-- i.e. you're disagreeing with the axiom to prove some purpose, for instance-- and so you've refuted yourself. So the notion that people engage in purposive behavior cannot be coherently denied (not that sincere seekers of truth would deny it in any event).

Mises argues several important implications follow from the action axiom, especially w.r.t. basic propositions of economics, e.g. choice, opportunity cost, uncertainty, and psychological profit / loss. But we can ignore that and focus on another purely philosophical implication to see his methodology. Hopefully this will draw light to the validity of Mises' general method without unduly focusing on purely economic propositions.

Take causality, for instance. Some philosophers-- to be sure, a minority-- would argue causality is an illusion and is merely a function of how we interpret the world. Given the action axiom, though, this cannot possibly be true: as was argued, it's incoherent to deny the fact that people act. But the ability of people to act in some sense presupposes they have some ability to interfere with, or change, the real world. Yet this logically implies they have some causal connection to it, so the a priori of action implies causality. That's a very philosophically significant argument if it works.

Lest anyone thinks this is a mere verbal trick-- or even worse, that Mises was ignorant w.r.t. philosophy-- it's worth pointing out some very respected philosophers today make similar arguments. Take Stephen Mumford, for instance. He's highly regarded as a philosopher of metaphysics and ontology, i.e. the study of being as such, to such a degree that Oxford commissioned him to write their introduction to metaphysics.

Yet, as respected as he is, Mumford gives an a priori argument for causation here that is very similar to the argument implicit in Mises' conception of human action. I think this serves to show Mises was no hack, and he was deeply on to something when he conceived of the a priori of human action as an important starting point.

I deliberately choose causation because I feel it's not as controversial on this subreddit as some of the propositions of mainstream economics. Yet it's clearly a solid philosophical argument of the same type Mises uses to justify certain economic propositions, and so it's absurd to say Mises is wrong without actually engaging his arguments. To say Mises' methodology is different from other people and is therefore wrongly simply begs the question, which is a straight up logical fallacy. If you'd like to read more and attempt to understand the Misesean view, see this paper.

/u/Hurrah_for_Karamazov, I'm still following the discussion, and I'm impressed, I'm already looking forward to buy this book to start somewhere on this topic of metaphysics.

Do not feel bad or hurt by the unnecessary and pointless mean things this folk writes in some paragraphs of his replies or get impressed by the things written to play the victim card, as you may know already, it only shows how much he needs Christ in his life (because, some happy person wouldn't use such resources in a discussion; obviously there is something wrong with the anger of this friend). This folk should be keep in our prayers.

Please do not give up! I'm learning a lot of things with this discussion!!

Being and Nothingness is very dense but if you read it alongside some commentary it can be a lot of fun. Just don't assume the commentary is the correct interpretation.

He has a new book coming out soon - http://www.amazon.com/Scholastic-Metaphysics-A-Contemporary-Introduction/dp/3868385444 - so it might be a good opportunity to get people exposed to his work and get those book orders rolling in.

Ok, this article has convinced me to read a copy of this book. Is there anyone else here who is familiar with this or any other book by Feser?

Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction by Edward Feser is a great place to start.

>One could claim that you were also taught to parrot that particular line as part of being Catholic. But that alone isn't grounds for validating/invalidating something, surely?

It's absolutely a justified reason for dismissing an argument if no reasoning is given.

>Also isn't "metaphysical grounding" an oxymoron? Metaphysics is anything but grounded.

I don't think you know what metaphysics is.

Start here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

Good textbook on contemporary analytic metaphysics: https://www.amazon.com/Metaphysics-Fundamentals-Philosophy-Robert-Koons/dp/1405195738

In reading an excellent thesis on Mind Uploading (https://www.amazon.com/Taxonomy-Metaphysics-Mind-Uploading-Keith-Wiley/dp/0692279849/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1501597553&sr=1-1&keywords=mind+uploading), there was an attempt to streamline arguments for and against the possibilities of mind uploading and full brain emulation. The concept that stuck out to me, and that creates a solid counterargument to the one presented in this article, is the idea of a future procedure wherein nanobots are deployed your brain, and bit by bit, replace the original biological structure with a synthetic structure immune to breakdown/degeneration. This cuts out the need for two brains to be existing at the same time/one after the other.

This Translation is going to become the next translation of record. Also try reading it with the Zollikon Seminars. This is a very different language. Enjoy the reading and remember to ask questions this is a wonderful book to think along with.

Different philosophical traditions will approach metaphysics differently. If you're talking about the kind of metaphysics that you would learn about in a philosophy course at most English speaking colleges, then these books might be helpful.

Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction by Michael J. Loux

Riddles of Existence: A Guided Tour of Metaphysics by Earl Conee and Theodore Sider

Metaphysics by Peter van Inwagen

Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics edited by John Hawthorne, Theodore Sider, and Dean Zimmerman

The Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics edited by Michael J. Loux and Dean Zimmerman

Not exactly an answer to your question, but you may be interested in Prof. Edward Feser's weblog:

• http://edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/search?q=final+cause
  
  He wrote the book/s on A-T for more contemporary audiences:
  
  
• http://www.amazon.com/Scholastic-Metaphysics-Contemporary-Introduction-Scholasticae/dp/3868385444
  
• http://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Edward-Feser/dp/1851686908/
  

Keith I have just read deeper and seen that you have published a book on this subject https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0692279849/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
I have just ordered a copy of it I will read it as soon as it arrives to gain a deeper understanding of your position.
Steve

You can get the Gregor translation for about £10. Gregor is widely accepted as one of the top translations.

Edit: Found a better one.

Luckily Thomism is on the rise.

I would recommend anything by Edward Feser but specifically this

and I would check out Eleonore Stump on this page [here] (https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_2_12?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=eleonore+stump&sprefix=eleonore+stu%2Caps%2C218&crid=1Q51KVUYQ9E1V)

This is one of the primary reasons I enjoy Edward Feser's writings so much.

I almost always suggest this one: Michael Loux - Metaphysics

http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0415401348

It covers a variety of topics that are laid out in detail and is a good introduction for beginners.

The "Very Short Introduction" series is usually high quality stuff. They can all be read in a sitting and are written by different authors who specialize in whatever the topic is. Some authors will skip the details to make it easy to read, others will make it denser than usual to cram everything into a short package. The overview is enough to understand works referencing the topic, while also teaching you enough to know what else to read for a deeper dive.

Metaphysics

Epistemology

Postmodernism

Michael Loux has a good introduction to metaphysics: http://www.amazon.com/Metaphysics-Contemporary-Introduction-Introductions-Philosophy/dp/0415401348

• The Empiricists: A History of Western Philosophy
  
  
• Four Decades of Scientific Explanation
  
  
• The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a really great resource
  
  
• Verificationism: Its History and Prospects
  
  
• Fundamental Problems and Readings in Philosophy

Bishop Barron would push forward Thomas Aquinas for this, but that is far too extensive to type out his natural theology here. This is an argument from pure philosophy to Catholicism. Not starting with a belief in God, and Catholicism in particular, but building to this truth from philosophy to theology to catholicism.

I would suggest starting with this: http://dhspriory.org/thomas/DeEnte&Essentia.htm

Then read this: https://www.amazon.com/Scholastic-Metaphysics-Contemporary-Introduction-Scholasticae/dp/3868385444

Finally(if you are still with me) there is about 1000 pages of this to go through: http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles.htm

I haven't read Subahibi, so I'm just going to take your question as "how do I get into philosophy."

Philosophy is one of the most diverse fields that we currently have. Philosophy is more than just pondering the meaning of life, it also is about uncovering the mindsets on discoveries and how people came about the knowledge we have today. You should start more simple over diving into people's work like Nietzsche so you can get the full picture on why they say what they say.

Epistemology is the study of knowledge, metaphysics is the study of existence (not to be confused with existentialism, which is even more meta and theoretical), Aesthetics is the study of art, Ethics is the study of morality, and there are philosophies of politics, mind, body, religion, and all sorts.

I would shy away from direct writings from philosophers, as contemporary books are the literal collection of all of their knowledge presented in an easier to digest way.

It's very dense, and this is him writing to an untrained audience. Try giving his Scholastic Metaphysics a try sometime.

In this thread: people who have no idea about contemporary issues in analytic philosophy, including (but not limited to)--

• Experimental Philosophy and its empirical investigation into philosophical methodology, cognitive diversity, and demographic variability;
  
  
• The on-going, two-decade old debate about the relationship between intuition, a priori knowledge, and conceptual analysis (e.g., Bealer vs. Cappelen vs. Mallon et al., just to give some examples off the top of my head);
  
  
• How this debate relates to central questions in metaphysics and value theory (say, modality, concepts and reflective equilibrium, moral judgment.)
  
  
• How under-representation of certain groups in philosophy i. hurts the discipline and ii. is a function of implicit bias / institutional discrimination / nepotism - and journal capture and citation networks-- and how this is an ongoing discussion in the professional sphere (not just on blogs - but conference panels, in journals, on hiring committees, and so on).
  
  This subreddit, I swear...
  
  

This may be well off of base, but you may want to start by looking at neo-Aristotelean accounts of real essences (something which would need to exist for any kind of teleology you are looking for). For example:https:

//www.amazon.com/Essentialism-Routledge-Studies-Contemporary-Philosophy/dp/041587212X

Here is a littler overview of teleological talk in modernbiology:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/#nat

I will read that book if you read this book.

Scholastic Metaphysics maybe?

https://www.amazon.com/History-Concept-Time-Prolegomena-Phenomenology/dp/0253207177/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1505395687&sr=1-1&keywords=heidegger+history+of+time

For 1-5, Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction by Edward Feser.

For 6 and anything else related to the basics of the Christian life, Christian history, or the church, I would suggest Introduction to Christianity by Pope Benedict the XVI (Joseph Ratzinger)

Two very recent books on this very question, with essays by philosophers:

The Mystery of Existence

The Puzzle of Existence

Here you go!

> Things are made of behaviors that are made of behaviors

Well this claim is disputable. One might simply reply that science only observes behaviors but has a blind spot on ontological reality. This was a criticism even Russel (and others) raised.

.

>I am pointing out that substance and accidents is a terrible way to describe the world

Terrible why? It highlights the world in a very different way... which might not fit the narrow mechanistic vision we all try to fit everything now, but there is no reason to think such mechanistic view is true, in fact there are good reasons to think it's not correct. Thomas Nagel (not a religious guy at all) presents a good case in his book Mind and Cosmos 1


.

>That distinction doesn't exist. There is no such thing a tree with a tendency to grow. The tendency of parts to grow and behave is the tree. The tree is the tendency, the behavior. Trees are the dynamic result of large scale movements that are the result of small scale movements. There are not separately substances and accidents - there is only one thing, not two. This dualistic idea is wrong because reality is mono. We do not have objects over here and properties of them over there. We do not have trees and their color, or the trees and their behavior separately.


Again you seem confused.
First I think it's pretty clear that the distinction between a table and a tree does exist, since tree grow, but tables are something that are necessarily imposed by humans on a tree.

You are trying to see some sort of dualism here which I am not describing, but definitively that "things = behavior" is a doubtful one. This in fact already breakdown if you think of animals and humans - unless you go the "Dennett route" thinking consciousness is just illusion (and that raises a whole lot more problems)
.

>That is why gold as a "collection of particles" is a substance, but gold nuggets isn't.

This is my mistake, I meant a "pile of nuggets" or something imposed on gold

>Again, I think this is a false distinction. If I gave you a chunk of metal, you couldn't cut down a tree with it. The axe's arrangement and the chunk's arrangement are very similar, and so they behave similar, but the axe has some causal powers that a chunk does not, and giving it a wood handle changes those further. An axe is composed of its parts, but it also does not behave as its individual bits would behave. Any unique arrangement of matter has unique causal powers.

We can agree on the last point you make but the difference is that again an axe structure is imposed externally on the substances.

The "behavior" to be an axe, is not something that exists in metal and wood itself, but something that is imposed on them and that's the difference.

.

>Arrangements are a convenient way of talking, but really nothing about that axe is holding still in a static position - the axe is a dance steel, and the steel is a dance of many different elements, that are dances, all the way down. Get enough steel in one place and hot enough, and it will glow and churn and produce a magnetic dynamo and continental plates on its surface. That is a very different set of causal powers of the axe, and yet they are made of the same steel. Get it hot enough, and it fuses into heavier elements. The macroscopic arrangment of things can force changes at smaller levels.

Yes arrangements are a conveninet way of talking, ans substance theory does not deny that.

And yes, again no disagreement here, the axe has many causal powers beyond that of an axe imposed purpose.. .and such causal powers derive from the powers of the substances the axe is made of.
.

>Don't confuse the map for the terrain. Our mathematical constructs of fields is an attempt to describe reality, but it is reality that is real, of course. That said, quantum field theory is a really close fit. A field is just something that can have a wiggle in it. We know there are wiggles, so we give it a field to wiggle in, but we aren't sure if it is even made of anything. Every thing you consider to be stationary and solid is a dance of dances of dances of wiggles.

Well technically a "field" is a mathematical idea.
A field is any set of elements that satisfies the field axioms for both addition and multiplication and is a commutative division algebra.

A field is called such because centuries ago gravity and electromagnetism were described mathematically as vector fields and now they are still described as such (but not mere vector see, gravity for example is a tensor field).

The "field view" seems to reflect what we observe experimentally, but this does not mean necessarily it is ontologically true and more importantly there are some problems (e.g. the Cosmological constant prediction) that clearly indicate that the theory is missing something...


Right about 120 years ago scientists thought their physical view of the world was complete and done - they even told Max Planck he should not get into theoretical physics because there was nothing to do there - but boy they were wrong on so many levels.

I think it's important to realize mathematical descriptions might work even if they do not actually reflect ontological reality.

.......

In any case, we do not have to agree. If you want know more about substance theory and essentualism I'd recommend David S. Oderberg's "Real Essentialism"

In fact Oderberg can explain (and defend) this much better than I could ever do.

Yeah my understanding is that classical theism doesn't hold much truck with ontological arguments either. I once attended a lecture in which a guy tried to defend Anselm's ontological argument to a room full of Aristotelian Thomists, and the ensuing bloodbath was not edifying.

Definitely check out Feser if you have a background in philosophy. He just came out with a new book for the not-so-much-of-a-layman.

(edit: fixed link)