A SCHOLASTIC LIST OF PHILOSOPHICAL AXIOMS

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

tbieter
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

A SCHOLASTIC LIST OF PHILOSOPHICAL AXIOMS

Post by tbieter »

It is profitable to reflect on these axioms now and then.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/cat ... iomata.htm
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: A SCHOLASTIC LIST OF PHILOSOPHICAL AXIOMS

Post by Arising_uk »

Pretty much Aristotle but nice to see them in a list form.
duszek
Posts: 2271
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: A SCHOLASTIC LIST OF PHILOSOPHICAL AXIOMS

Post by duszek »

What can not be sometimes is not.

Only sometimes ?

Is there any way to "save" it ?

I see:

If it is possible for something not to be (est possibile non esse), then it sometimes is not.

Is the "be" meant in the sense of existing ? Or as an auxiliary verb in "being such and such" ?
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3349
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: A SCHOLASTIC LIST OF PHILOSOPHICAL AXIOMS

Post by HexHammer »

tbieter wrote:It is profitable to reflect on these axioms now and then.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/cat ... iomata.htm
Beautiful rethorics, unfortunaly it will mislead more than lead.
Perceiving exists.
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:15 pm

Re: A SCHOLASTIC LIST OF PHILOSOPHICAL AXIOMS

Post by Perceiving exists. »

duszek wrote:What can not be sometimes is not. Only sometimes ? Is there any way to "save" it ? I see: If it is possible for something not to be (est possibile non esse), then it sometimes is not. Is the "be" meant in the sense of existing ? Or as an auxiliary verb in "being such and such" ?
Perhaps, for discussion purpose, quote the number as well (6.25) ? I see; what isn't cant be denied the possibility, much like the white crow. Do i understand your point correct?
HexHammer wrote:Beautiful rethorics, unfortunaly it will mislead more than lead.
Beautiful contradiction, and a pot usefulness comes from its emptiness.. Tell me, is the empty pot put to good use, or is it just taking up space?
1.3 Against a fact you can’t argue.
I assume that this list only consists of actual facts, as much as actual facts never can be in contradiction to each other, just like nature doesn't contradict itself?
Please tell me, before i go and make my point :)
Last edited by Perceiving exists. on Thu Feb 27, 2014 6:31 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3349
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: A SCHOLASTIC LIST OF PHILOSOPHICAL AXIOMS

Post by HexHammer »

Perceiving exists. wrote:
HexHammer wrote:Beautiful rethorics, unfortunaly it will mislead more than lead.
Beautiful contradiction, and a pot usefulness comes from its emptiness.. Tell me, is the empty pot put to good use, or is it just taking up space?
Wauw ...what kind of job does one such as you have?
Perceiving exists.
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:15 pm

Re: A SCHOLASTIC LIST OF PHILOSOPHICAL AXIOMS

Post by Perceiving exists. »

HexHammer wrote:
Perceiving exists. wrote:
HexHammer wrote:Beautiful rethorics, unfortunaly it will mislead more than lead.
Beautiful contradiction, and a pot usefulness comes from its emptiness.. Tell me, is the empty pot put to good use, or is it just taking up space?
Wauw ...what kind of job does one such as you have?
find contradictions and resolve them; define the thin line in between the middle ^^ no, honestly, my job is just to live.
1.1 It is impossible that the same thing be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.
  • 0. Nature never contradicts itself. [nature is shaped by the laws of physics]
    1. If something makes sense, it cannot contradict itself, nor can it contradict some thing else that makes sense, and therefore it cannot contradict nature.
    2. If two 'things' (statements/opinions/facts/events/etc.) dont contradict each other nor nature, they can make sense.
    3. If something makes sense, it doesn't prove anything, for all you think to take into account, might not be all that is of affects, causing the observed effect.
superstition and/or coincidence?
agree and/or disagree?
complete and/or incomplete?
no opinion is an opinion too,
like no choice is too a choice
as much as no reaction is a reaction too?

not understanding is understanding too, like no color is a color[tone] too?
Never is forever, like all is none and none is all;
silence too, must be heard?
Last edited by Perceiving exists. on Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3349
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: A SCHOLASTIC LIST OF PHILOSOPHICAL AXIOMS

Post by HexHammer »

Perceiving exists. wrote:my job is just to live.
Thought so.
Perceiving exists.
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:15 pm

Re: A SCHOLASTIC LIST OF PHILOSOPHICAL AXIOMS

Post by Perceiving exists. »

HexHammer wrote:
Perceiving exists. wrote:my job is just to live.
Thought so.
Do you, really, have a different job?

"wondering is the beginning of wisdom"
- Socrates.

"Wisdom is, understanding that you know little, and wonder a lot, and life is, accepting that you are a little part, of a lot more."

- The cause of life, is greater than life itself.
tbieter
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Re: A SCHOLASTIC LIST OF PHILOSOPHICAL AXIOMS

Post by tbieter »

I recently discovered that the Summary of Scholastic Principles had been reissued in paperback. Although I have a first edition in hardback, I ordered a copy to keep at hand.
http://www.amazon.com/Summary-Scholasti ... principles

A slow attentive reading will give the student an excellent introduction and understanding of this philosophy. And an additional philosophical perspective on contemporary events. Last year to get an additional perspective I read and enjoyed :) some Schopenhauer.
duszek
Posts: 2271
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: A SCHOLASTIC LIST OF PHILOSOPHICAL AXIOMS

Post by duszek »

Perceiving exists. wrote:
duszek wrote:What can not be sometimes is not. Only sometimes ? Is there any way to "save" it ? I see: If it is possible for something not to be (est possibile non esse), then it sometimes is not. Is the "be" meant in the sense of existing ? Or as an auxiliary verb in "being such and such" ?
Perhaps, for discussion purpose, quote the number as well (6.25) ? I see; what isn't cant be denied the possibility, much like the white crow. Do i understand your point correct?
No, I don´t think so.

What you suggest can hardly be a translation of: What can not be sometimes is not.

"What can not be" can mean in English:

1. what cannot possibly be
2. what can possibly not be

The Latin suggests that number two is correct.

Let me try with the white crow:

If a white crow can possibly not be it sometimes is not.

(is = not white ? or is = does not exist in a particular time and space ?)
Impenitent
Posts: 3002
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: A SCHOLASTIC LIST OF PHILOSOPHICAL AXIOMS

Post by Impenitent »

esse est percipi - Bishop Berkeley

out of sight, out of mind - Invisible maniac

it was the purple wombats

-Imp
Perceiving exists.
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:15 pm

Re: A SCHOLASTIC LIST OF PHILOSOPHICAL AXIOMS

Post by Perceiving exists. »

duszek wrote:
Perceiving exists. wrote:
duszek wrote:What can not be sometimes is not. Only sometimes ? Is there any way to "save" it ? I see: If it is possible for something not to be (est possibile non esse), then it sometimes is not. Is the "be" meant in the sense of existing ? Or as an auxiliary verb in "being such and such" ?
Perhaps, for discussion purpose, quote the number as well (6.25) ? I see; what isn't cant be denied the possibility, much like the white crow. Do i understand your point correct?
No, I don´t think so.

What you suggest can hardly be a translation of: What can not be sometimes is not.

"What can not be" can mean in English:

1. what cannot possibly be
2. what can possibly not be

The Latin suggests that number two is correct.

Let me try with the white crow:

If a white crow can possibly not be it sometimes is not.

(is = not white ? or is = does not exist in a particular time and space ?)
hm, weird, let me explain what i mean;

"What can not be sometimes is not." means too, what can not be sometimes is, and for that matter, what seems impossible, what cannot be, is not impossible, for perhaps it might be?
"The Latin suggests that number two is correct." I do agree, but i think the question is, why would someone assume a white crow could not be?
Of course, for if i have never seen a white crow before, i cannot say it cannot exist?

To quote myself a bit different, "what isn't observed, cant be denied the possibility of existing anyways?"
(unless, being contradictionary to something else, like theblack and white contrast in 1.1, like God or no God, a beginning or not, an end etc?)

So i do agree with my first post, and with your post disagreeing on that post..?
can that be,? for;

Logic:
1.1 It is impossible that the same thing be and not be at the same time and in the same respect

with "what isn't" i mean of course the english translation of "What can not be"
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: A SCHOLASTIC LIST OF PHILOSOPHICAL AXIOMS

Post by Arising_uk »

duszek wrote:What can not be sometimes is not.

Only sometimes ?

Is there any way to "save" it ?

I see:

If it is possible for something not to be (est possibile non esse), then it sometimes is not.

Is the "be" meant in the sense of existing ? Or as an auxiliary verb in "being such and such" ?
I think I understand how you've read this, i.e. a thing that cannot be should always not be, not just sometimes, but I can read it as, a thing that is contingent can at times not exist, i.e. even though it does exist it could possibly not be, it can sometimes be just that, not be. Does that make more sense to you?
duszek
Posts: 2271
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: A SCHOLASTIC LIST OF PHILOSOPHICAL AXIOMS

Post by duszek »

You mean that some things exist necessarily and some not necessarily (contingently) ?

In which way do you and I exist ?

Examples for both ways would help.
Post Reply