03-25-2012, 04:10 PM
Hi Roy, thanks for the comments.
"If the good on earth be the slightest reflection of heaven
then this must be only the slightest shadow of Hell,
***
The entire poem, taken bulkly is one major premise and
one minor premise in an Aristotelian syllogism of the
First Figure, Mode AAA-- figure and mode optional
(I chose the simplest).
Of course this is a poem more along the lines of "Job", and less as a philosophical treatise. If anything it would be more along the lines of the Socratic dialogue, rather than in the form of the anal pseudo logic of Aristotle who I personally despise for screwing of philosophical thought for the next, well I was going to say, next 2400 years, but we never really have gotten over his mucking things up, case in point "reductionism". Of course without him we probably wouldn't have and/or gates, and thus no computers, so one takes the good with the bad.
Were I writing a philosophical treatise I would probably have phrased it thus:
It is posited here that if Heaven and Hell actually exist as generally laid out in Christian theology, the following relationship between the two realms and their causal relation to earth would have a high statistical correlation with the following argument, with an ancillary acknowledgement that such conclusions are only valid as they relate to personal experience, and have no reality in terms of external objectivity.
The good that a person perceives and/or seems to experience during life on earth, must be like a weak reflection of what one would suppose one would experience/perceive in heaven where one would encounter, by definition, absolute good, and if that correlation is true, then the converse would also be true. That those characteristics of which hell is composed must also be only weakly represented in ones apprehension of them as experienced during life on earth. Of course, the validity of such an argument rest on whether one at a personal level concedes the actual existence of such places as heaven and hell as traditionally define within Christian theology. What is equally true is, that in order to come to any kind of comprehension of either such realms, a certain amount of Cartesian dualism is necessary because understanding comes only by comparison and contrasting with the other. Thus what becomes apparent is, although heaven could exists without hell and vice versa, no understanding of either can come about without at lest supposing the existence of the other. However, the initial example does not just include these two realms alone, but also posits life on earth as a fulcrum between the two. This quite naturally puts the idea of heaven in the role thesis, hell as antithesis and earth as synthesis, thus the language, often misapplied to Hegel, in this instance becomes at the least representative of the form of the argument.
Thus refuting the idea that this argument follows the pattern of an Aristotelian syllogism of the mode AAA, or any of the 24 variations, and commits no existential fallacy as it is completely self contained, and based upon a defined premise that is presupposisitional for the sake of this discussion and constitutes the philosophical "ground" for the argument, i. e., "Heaven and Hell" as defined in Christian theology. As it is acknowledged that said argument is based solely upon this predefined premiss, and that for the sake of said argument such premiss is taken as a given, there is no legitimate discussion that can involve the legitimacy of said premiss, as this argument needs show that it is consistent within the conditions set forth in the premiss, and need not demonstrate that the premiss has any provable validity.
The above is of course tongue in cheek, but thanks for the opportunity to play pseudo philosopher. I haven't gotten the chance to pontificate in such a totally obnoxious way in some time and it is much enjoyed...well, at least by me
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Only owing to the fact that we are never without
the presence of God could one believe such an inanity.
***
One must define 'belief.'"
As stated above the poem is conducted within the realm of Christian theology, as it's backdrop is Milton' Paradise Lost, thus belief is defined within that system. So to believe means to take as factual.
I am not saying this is my personal view of reality, I am merely using the most convenient and well known setting as a backdrop for playing the scene out. The pro side of that is it allows one to do a whole lot less set up, the negative is that one is forced to work within those constraints.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A difficult poem."
No doubt. Made more so by the clumsiness of the writing at times. I will endeavor to make it less difficult after the next rewrite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for taking the time to slug through the thing. I probably should have gotten it in better shape before posting it, but it has been around a long time, and I was tired of it, so I thought I would let someone else tire of it
Dale
"If the good on earth be the slightest reflection of heaven
then this must be only the slightest shadow of Hell,
***
The entire poem, taken bulkly is one major premise and
one minor premise in an Aristotelian syllogism of the
First Figure, Mode AAA-- figure and mode optional
(I chose the simplest).
Of course this is a poem more along the lines of "Job", and less as a philosophical treatise. If anything it would be more along the lines of the Socratic dialogue, rather than in the form of the anal pseudo logic of Aristotle who I personally despise for screwing of philosophical thought for the next, well I was going to say, next 2400 years, but we never really have gotten over his mucking things up, case in point "reductionism". Of course without him we probably wouldn't have and/or gates, and thus no computers, so one takes the good with the bad.
Were I writing a philosophical treatise I would probably have phrased it thus:
It is posited here that if Heaven and Hell actually exist as generally laid out in Christian theology, the following relationship between the two realms and their causal relation to earth would have a high statistical correlation with the following argument, with an ancillary acknowledgement that such conclusions are only valid as they relate to personal experience, and have no reality in terms of external objectivity.
The good that a person perceives and/or seems to experience during life on earth, must be like a weak reflection of what one would suppose one would experience/perceive in heaven where one would encounter, by definition, absolute good, and if that correlation is true, then the converse would also be true. That those characteristics of which hell is composed must also be only weakly represented in ones apprehension of them as experienced during life on earth. Of course, the validity of such an argument rest on whether one at a personal level concedes the actual existence of such places as heaven and hell as traditionally define within Christian theology. What is equally true is, that in order to come to any kind of comprehension of either such realms, a certain amount of Cartesian dualism is necessary because understanding comes only by comparison and contrasting with the other. Thus what becomes apparent is, although heaven could exists without hell and vice versa, no understanding of either can come about without at lest supposing the existence of the other. However, the initial example does not just include these two realms alone, but also posits life on earth as a fulcrum between the two. This quite naturally puts the idea of heaven in the role thesis, hell as antithesis and earth as synthesis, thus the language, often misapplied to Hegel, in this instance becomes at the least representative of the form of the argument.
Thus refuting the idea that this argument follows the pattern of an Aristotelian syllogism of the mode AAA, or any of the 24 variations, and commits no existential fallacy as it is completely self contained, and based upon a defined premise that is presupposisitional for the sake of this discussion and constitutes the philosophical "ground" for the argument, i. e., "Heaven and Hell" as defined in Christian theology. As it is acknowledged that said argument is based solely upon this predefined premiss, and that for the sake of said argument such premiss is taken as a given, there is no legitimate discussion that can involve the legitimacy of said premiss, as this argument needs show that it is consistent within the conditions set forth in the premiss, and need not demonstrate that the premiss has any provable validity.
The above is of course tongue in cheek, but thanks for the opportunity to play pseudo philosopher. I haven't gotten the chance to pontificate in such a totally obnoxious way in some time and it is much enjoyed...well, at least by me
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Only owing to the fact that we are never without
the presence of God could one believe such an inanity.
***
One must define 'belief.'"
As stated above the poem is conducted within the realm of Christian theology, as it's backdrop is Milton' Paradise Lost, thus belief is defined within that system. So to believe means to take as factual.
I am not saying this is my personal view of reality, I am merely using the most convenient and well known setting as a backdrop for playing the scene out. The pro side of that is it allows one to do a whole lot less set up, the negative is that one is forced to work within those constraints.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A difficult poem."
No doubt. Made more so by the clumsiness of the writing at times. I will endeavor to make it less difficult after the next rewrite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for taking the time to slug through the thing. I probably should have gotten it in better shape before posting it, but it has been around a long time, and I was tired of it, so I thought I would let someone else tire of it
Dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.