The Vision Of Aristotle And The Buddha

[Legion]

I believe that over two thousand years ago two giants among men, each in their own way, exposed a similar concept which ties the world together. These men were Aristotle of Greece and Siddhartha Gautama of India. I think these concepts are underappreciated, and the similarities between them less recognized still. I am hoping we may here discuss these ideas to our mutual benefit.

 

Aristotle was a philosopher who often concerned himself with nature. Although some people give credit to later thinkers for being the fathers of science, Aristotle is also awarded this distinction by some modern thinkers. The main idea of his I'd like to focus on here is his idea of causes. He did not use this word "causes". He employed the Greek term "aition", meaning roughly, "responsibility". But others have hence called this idea "entailment."

 

Siddharta Guatama, the Buddha, was a spiritual pioneer who concerned himself with human enlightenment. I am less familiar with Eastern traditions than I am with those of the West. However Buddhism has been described by some as being among the first philosophies of the mind. The main idea here I hope to focus on here is that of dependent co-arising, or in sanskrit, pratitya-samutpada.

 

Entailment is the relation between questions "why... ?" and answers "because...". If we ask "why is B true?" or "why does B obtain or exist?" and we are able to answer in part, "because of A" then we have exposed a relation of entailment between A and B. We may say that A entails B, or A causes B, or A is responsible for B. We have thus seen a link, or a connection between A and B.

 

For an exposition of dependent co-arising I'd like to here again quote someone whom I think is better equipped to do it, namely, Thich Nhat Hanh.

 

If you are a poet, you will see clearly that there is a cloud floating in this sheet of paper. Without a cloud, there would be no rain; without rain, the trees cannot grow; and without trees, we cannot make paper. The cloud is essential for the paper to exist... So we can say that the coud and the paper inter-are.

 

If we look into the paper even more deeply, we can see the sunshine in it. If the sunshine is not there the forest cannot grow... And if we continue to look, we can see the logger who cut the tree and brought it to the mill to be transformed into paper. And we see the wheat. We know that the logger cannot exist without his daily bread, and therefore the wheat that became his bread is also in the sheet of paper... The fact is that this sheet of paper is made up only of "non-paper elements." ... As thin as this sheet of paper is, it contains everything in the universe.

 

Thich Nhat Hanh 1988

 

I am gathering that this delightful rendition by Thich is intended to make the concept of dependent co-arising clearer. And I merely note here that he essentially begins by asking "why does this sheet of paper exist?" He then traces through those things which are responsible for its existence and asking in turn, for some of the causes, why the causes themselves exist.

 

So there you have it. I hope I've not made too many egregious errors in this opening post, because this seems like such a critical thing to me. And invite your comments, or questions, or criticisms, or whatever. I am hoping to learn here.

[Kaiser01]

Everything i geuss you can say is interconnected but of course i dont think the sun exist for the paper or the paper exist for the sun. That intertwinment i think is a illusion of cause and effect that influence one another but have no being as the same thing.

[Legion]

Everything i geuss you can say is interconnected but of course i dont think the sun exist for the paper or the paper exist for the sun. That intertwinment i think is a illusion of cause and effect that influence one another but have no being as the same thing.

 

I believe I see your point Kaiser. It would seem somewhat silly to assert that the sun exists so that it may cause trees to grow so that we may make paper from them.

 

You seem to be focusing on final causes here, and I believe this is a very relevant thing on which to focus.

 

There are likely many ways to view final causes. Some of them are likely acceptable in science and some are not acceptable. The issue here I think is the notion of teleology and the idea that final causes exist in nature. The idea that final causes do not exist in nature is commensurate with reductionism. However, I believe final causes do in fact exist in nature, if we view them in the proper fashion.

 

Most of the time when we ask "Why does X exist?", we are inquiring into what entailed X. We are thus asking about its material, efficient, and formal causes. But when we inquire into its final causes we are asking, "what does X itself entail?" That is, what does X give rise to, rather than what gives rise to X.

 

Thus, I reject the assertions of reductionism, and I accept that a certain limited notion of final cause does in fact obtain in nature.

 

I think you've raised an important consideration here Kaiser. Thank you.

[Kaiser01]

Wouldent "what does 'X' give rise to, rather than what gives rise to 'X'" simply be a single incremental step in the chain of reductionism? Maybe I have misread but I don’t see how this does away with reductionism, but is just subjectively singling out one part as the end.

[Legion]

Wouldent "what does 'X' give rise to, rather than what gives rise to 'X'" simply be a single incremental step in the chain of reductionism? Maybe I have misread but I don’t see how this does away with reductionism, but is just subjectively singling out one part as the end.

 

This again seems right on target Kaiser. I can see your mind working. It's cool. I need to think about this further before I directly address it. But let me take what might appear to be a side step here into biology.

 

If we consider an organ in the body, such as the heart, and we ask "why does the heart exist?" then we may answer...

 

because of the muscle cells of which it is comprised.

because of a specific process of growth and development.

 

In my mind these are the material causes in the first answer, and an amalgamation of efficient and formal causes in the second answer. But we also have the answer...

 

because it pumps blood.

 

This answer would be in line with the final causes of the heart. This is its function within the body.

 

Are you aware that some scientists are so steeped in reductionism that they reject this explanation for the heart's existence?

[Kaiser01]

Wouldent "what does 'X' give rise to, rather than what gives rise to 'X'" simply be a single incremental step in the chain of reductionism? Maybe I have misread but I don’t see how this does away with reductionism, but is just subjectively singling out one part as the end.

 

This again seems right on target Kaiser. I can see your mind working. It's cool. I need to think about this further before I directly address it. But let me take what might appear to be a side step here into biology.

 

If we consider an organ in the body, such as the heart, and we ask "why does the heart exist?" then we may answer...

 

because of the muscle cells of which it is comprised.

because of a specific process of growth and development.

 

In my mind these are the material causes in the first answer, and an amalgamation of efficient and formal causes in the second answer. But we also have the answer...

 

because it pumps blood.

 

This answer would be in line with the final causes of the heart. This is its function within the body.

 

Are you aware that some scientists are so steeped in reductionism that they reject this explanation for the heart's existence?

 

I haft to say “because it pumps blood”, in my opinion may be a answer but it by no means is a explanation beyond the philosophical realm. I myself hold reductionism because of its real world practicalities to it and in its answer offers a explanation, though I accept your view on a philosophical plain as well just not as any form of explanation for why. At least satisfactory explanation.

 

I view reductionism as not just smaller parts exist to the greater whole but also how those parts behave to make the larger whole. For example atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons while those are made of up and down quarks, it is not just the fact quarks exist that make the atom exist but how those quarks behave as well. The same applies for everything from the atomic level to the cosmological level.

[TrailBlazer]

There's too much ism in my ology

[Legion]

Wouldent "what does 'X' give rise to, rather than what gives rise to 'X'" simply be a single incremental step in the chain of reductionism? Maybe I have misread but I don’t see how this does away with reductionism, but is just subjectively singling out one part as the end.

 

This again seems right on target Kaiser. I can see your mind working. It's cool. I need to think about this further before I directly address it. But let me take what might appear to be a side step here into biology.

 

If we consider an organ in the body, such as the heart, and we ask "why does the heart exist?" then we may answer...

 

because of the muscle cells of which it is comprised.

because of a specific process of growth and development.

 

In my mind these are the material causes in the first answer, and an amalgamation of efficient and formal causes in the second answer. But we also have the answer...

 

because it pumps blood.

 

This answer would be in line with the final causes of the heart. This is its function within the body.

 

Are you aware that some scientists are so steeped in reductionism that they reject this explanation for the heart's existence?

 

I haft to say “because it pumps blood”, in my opinion may be a answer but it by no means is a explanation beyond the philosophical realm. I myself hold reductionism because of its real world practicalities to it and in its answer offers a explanation, though I accept your view on a philosophical plain as well just not as any form of explanation for why. At least satisfactory explanation.

 

I view reductionism as not just smaller parts exist to the greater whole but also how those parts behave to make the larger whole. For example atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons while those are made of up and down quarks, it is not just the fact quarks exist that make the atom exist but how those quarks behave as well. The same applies for everything from the atomic level to the cosmological level.

 

But, it seems to me that by effectively rejecting this explanation for the heart's existence you are thereby rejecting its raison d'etre.

 

It seems to me that you are rejecting the very notion of function, and with it, any hope that we may understand organization, and the relations between parts and wholes.

 

What sorts of twisted hoops must you jump through in order to deny that the heart exists in order to pump blood?

[Kaiser01]

I dont have to time to reply at this moment legion, but i will latter and will think upon your position.

[Legion]

I dont have to time to reply at this moment legion, but i will latter and will think upon your position.

 

Okay Kaiser, no worries my man. I appreciate your participation in this thread.

[mcdaddy]

I'm staying away from this like Dracula from a cross.

[Legion]

I'm staying away from this like Dracula from a cross.

 

Why?

[Kaiser01]

I don’t think things have a purpose beyond our own subjective desire as humans to organize things into categories and things of similar nature.

 

I didn’t denie functionalism as reductionism includes the behavior of the smaller parts compared to the whole making the connection of functionalism and I think reductionism is necessary to understand the organization of things. The relationship is completely understood in a realistic fashion in reductionism, it is only in our human subjectivity that we try to attribute a sense of “connection through purpose” to the system.

 

The heart does not exist to pump blood this is simply the effect of it existing from material causes and thus it plays a role in the cause and effect process. We attempt to defines the hearts “purpose” as its ultimate goal and connection to the rest of the whole, but only by our human psychology. Seems to me that this “purpose” of things would entail a intelligent designer.

[Legion]

Thank you Kaiser. With your particiaption here, I think we have moved towards some very important issues at the root of tensions between science and religion.

 

I want to think about what you've said here in more depth before I respond though. I think the heart does exist to pump blood. I think this is its primary function. But I want to try and persuade you that "function" need not imply a designer.

[Kaiser01]

Thank you Kaiser. With your particiaption here, I think we have moved towards some very important issues at the root of tensions between science and religion.

 

I want to think about what you've said here in more depth before I respond though. I think the heart does exist to pump blood. I think this is its primary function. But I want to try and persuade you that "function" need not imply a designer.

 

Happy to be involved, im suprised we havent gotten anymore participation from anyone, such a interesting topic.

 

I think i understand what you mean by function and of course it dosent need a designer but i think it opens the door for one to exist becuase of it. I believe your getting at its function of the "whole of everything" if i am correct at your position, but i think this is just an illusion when it comes to human view of cause and effect.

[Legion]

Happy to be involved, im suprised we havent gotten anymore participation from anyone, such a interesting topic.

 

I'm surprised by that too Kaiser.

 

Oh well, I'll try to pick up where you and I left off tomorrow.

[Guest Valk0010]

Since when, does a car, have any significance unless its used and cherished and taken care of. I think the universe is like that.

 

As far as purpose, unless you looking for something more then just the base mechanistic aspect of nature, you can't really say. "X is for B"

 

If your talking about mechanistic causes, then we are really just in a situation of ignorance. Are we to find anything mystical to it? Does it really matter?

[Legion]

Alright Kaiser and Valk, this strikes me as an important juncture in this thread. I suspect I will not be able to do it justice, because we've reached the outer limits of my understanding. But I'm going to give it a shot.

 

It seems to me that what is required here is for us to try and objectify the concept of function. We're examining organized natural systems and we're effectively trying to see the organization. This is the essence of a relational approach in science (as contrasted with a reductionistic approach).

 

Hmm. I believe I'm going to need a bit more time to sort this out. I'm going to look through my resources here, see what I can piece together, and try to return to this thread later today. (I still haven't finished my morning coffee.)

[Ouroboros]

Legion,

 

First off, awesome stuff.

 

I've realized over the years that causality is probably a lot more difficult to understand for us humans than we expect. Personally, I feel I don't understand all the ins and outs of cause-and-effect. So it's an interesting topic.

 

Aristotle was a philosopher who often concerned himself with nature. Although some people give credit to later thinkers for being the fathers of science, Aristotle is also awarded this distinction by some modern thinkers. The main idea of his I'd like to focus on here is his idea of causes. He did not use this word "causes". He employed the Greek term "aition", meaning roughly, "responsibility". But others have hence called this idea "entailment."

Didn't Aristotle present four causes?

 

Entailment, I guess, is best represented in the Final Cause, correct?

 

The material, formal, and moving causes are only the mechanics for a final cause. (If I understand it right) Material=matter. Formal=what shape it's making. Moving (efficient)=process.

 

One thing that is rarely mentioned regarding causation is that there can be many interplaying causes of each category. Material: not only sugar or only water to make sugar-water. Formal: the shape isn't steady, everything changes constantly. Moving: many different independent processes can all together lead to an effect, all co-contributing.

 

Entailment is the relation between questions "why... ?" and answers "because...". If we ask "why is B true?" or "why does B obtain or exist?" and we are able to answer in part, "because of A" then we have exposed a relation of entailment between A and B. We may say that A entails B, or A causes B, or A is responsible for B. We have thus seen a link, or a connection between A and B.

So entailment incorporate all the four causes then? I'm still trying to understand the term.

 

For an exposition of dependent co-arising I'd like to here again quote someone whom I think is better equipped to do it, namely, Thich Nhat Hanh.

I love that quote. It's so true that all things contributed to the effect, the paper. And also, the paper is all interacting and changing as we speak too. Particles fly in and through the paper. Radiation. Breakdown. etc. Nothing is constant. What was the paper one second ago, isn't what makes the paper right now. It's not he same paper. The constant interaction with the environment is being and becoming, at once.

 

I am gathering that this delightful rendition by Thich is intended to make the concept of dependent co-arising clearer. And I merely note here that he essentially begins by asking "why does this sheet of paper exist?" He then traces through those things which are responsible for its existence and asking in turn, for some of the causes, why the causes themselves exist.

True. Each cause is an effect from another cause. (That's what I called a causal-chain in the past.)

 

So there you have it. I hope I've not made too many egregious errors in this opening post, because this seems like such a critical thing to me. And invite your comments, or questions, or criticisms, or whatever. I am hoping to learn here.

I don't think you've made any errors. You opened the can and let's see what's inside.

[VacuumFlux]

Wouldent "what does 'X' give rise to, rather than what gives rise to 'X'" simply be a single incremental step in the chain of reductionism? Maybe I have misread but I don’t see how this does away with reductionism, but is just subjectively singling out one part as the end.

 

This again seems right on target Kaiser. I can see your mind working. It's cool. I need to think about this further before I directly address it. But let me take what might appear to be a side step here into biology.

 

If we consider an organ in the body, such as the heart, and we ask "why does the heart exist?" then we may answer...

 

because of the muscle cells of which it is comprised.

because of a specific process of growth and development.

 

In my mind these are the material causes in the first answer, and an amalgamation of efficient and formal causes in the second answer. But we also have the answer...

 

because it pumps blood.

 

This answer would be in line with the final causes of the heart. This is its function within the body.

 

Are you aware that some scientists are so steeped in reductionism that they reject this explanation for the heart's existence?

 

I have a slight issue with the idea that the heart exists in a human because it is needed to pump blood. That is certainly its function in the body, but that is not the cause in any sense of the word that I am used to (what is the difference between "final cause" and function?). That seems to be ignoring the process of evolution that lead to both the heart and the rest of the body that is dependent upon the heart. So I'd feel more comfortable stating something like "Why does the heart exist? Because we are evolved from an ancestor who had a simpler organ that acted sorta heart-like." You cannot say that the current human heart exists for the sake of supporting the rest of the body any more than you can say that the rest of the body exists to support the heart. They "grew up" together. I might be ok with saying they are each other's cause, because it really does seem that circular to me. Every organ (ok, most; some are ok to loose) is co-dependent on all the other organs.

[mcdaddy]

I'm staying away from this like Dracula from a cross.

 

Why?

 

Above my pay grade!

 

But if you want to talk about something more in my level, say Cap'n Crunch, I started a thread for that.

[Kaiser01]

Wouldent "what does 'X' give rise to, rather than what gives rise to 'X'" simply be a single incremental step in the chain of reductionism? Maybe I have misread but I don’t see how this does away with reductionism, but is just subjectively singling out one part as the end.

 

This again seems right on target Kaiser. I can see your mind working. It's cool. I need to think about this further before I directly address it. But let me take what might appear to be a side step here into biology.

 

If we consider an organ in the body, such as the heart, and we ask "why does the heart exist?" then we may answer...

 

because of the muscle cells of which it is comprised.

because of a specific process of growth and development.

 

In my mind these are the material causes in the first answer, and an amalgamation of efficient and formal causes in the second answer. But we also have the answer...

 

because it pumps blood.

 

This answer would be in line with the final causes of the heart. This is its function within the body.

 

Are you aware that some scientists are so steeped in reductionism that they reject this explanation for the heart's existence?

 

I have a slight issue with the idea that the heart exists in a human because it is needed to pump blood. That is certainly its function in the body, but that is not the cause in any sense of the word that I am used to (what is the difference between "final cause" and function?). That seems to be ignoring the process of evolution that lead to both the heart and the rest of the body that is dependent upon the heart. So I'd feel more comfortable stating something like "Why does the heart exist? Because we are evolved from an ancestor who had a simpler organ that acted sorta heart-like." You cannot say that the current human heart exists for the sake of supporting the rest of the body any more than you can say that the rest of the body exists to support the heart. They "grew up" together. I might be ok with saying they are each other's cause, because it really does seem that circular to me. Every organ (ok, most; some are ok to loose) is co-dependent on all the other organs.

 

Agreed, cause and effect influence one another but are not part of the same being of purpose.

[Kaiser01]

Alright Kaiser and Valk, this strikes me as an important juncture in this thread. I suspect I will not be able to do it justice, because we've reached the outer limits of my understanding. But I'm going to give it a shot.

 

It seems to me that what is required here is for us to try and objectify the concept of function. We're examining organized natural systems and we're effectively trying to see the organization. This is the essence of a relational approach in science (as contrasted with a reductionistic approach).

 

Hmm. I believe I'm going to need a bit more time to sort this out. I'm going to look through my resources here, see what I can piece together, and try to return to this thread later today. (I still haven't finished my morning coffee.)

 

Function in what i see it as, is a cause or effect that creates an effect for somthing else to perform the same motion.

[Kaiser01]

Since when, does a car, have any significance unless its used and cherished and taken care of. I think the universe is like that.

 

As far as purpose, unless you looking for something more then just the base mechanistic aspect of nature, you can't really say. "X is for B"

 

If your talking about mechanistic causes, then we are really just in a situation of ignorance. Are we to find anything mystical to it? Does it really matter?

 

Does the sun only have significance if i apreciate its warmth? I think the car is significant to us in our human subjectivity but ultimatly the car is a product of material causes and effects that are instigated by humans but can we really say that the car has a reason for existance other than what we subscribe. The heart does not exist to pump blood, there is simply the illusion that its origional purpose was to do so rather than just being the product of cause and effect.

[Legion]

Hans thanks for coming in here.

 

This is really frustrating for me. You see, I was educated within the same set of confinements of reductionstic science as you guys were. And I'm now trying to escape that prison. And I've got fellow prisoners here saying, "what's the problem?"

 

I really must make a concerted effort to see organization itself, in the raw, divorced from its particular material embodiment.

 

And biology is not about evolution. It's about organism.

 

Anyway... Kaiser, Hans, VacuumFlux I will try to return to your posts in more detail later. I need some time away.