I have ever remained firm

I have ever remained firm Post Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 11:01:15 +0000
These each man should follow, and correct the courses of the head which were corrupted at our birth, and by learning the harmonies and revolutions of the universe, should assimilate the thinking being to the thought, renewing his original nature, and having assimilated them should attain to that perfect life which the gods have set before mankind, both for the present and the future. I WOULD here willingly have proceeded to ex hibit the whole chain of truths which I deduced from these pri mary; but as with a view to this it would have been necessary now to treat of many questions in dispute among the learned, with whom I do not wish to be embroiled, I believe that it will be bet ter for me to refrain from this exposition, and only mention in general what these truths are, that the more judicious may be able to determine whether a more special account of them would con duce to the public advantage. I have ever remained firm in my original resolution to suppose no other principle than that of which I have recently availed myself in demonstrating the existence of God and of the soul, and to accept as true nothing that did not appear to me more clear and certain than the demonstrations o the geometers had formerly appeared; and yet I venture to state that not only have I found means to satisfy myself in a short time on all the principal difficulties which are usually treated of in Philosophy, but I have also observed in all that exists or takes place in the world: and farther, by considering the concatenation of these laws, it appears to me that I have discovered many truths more useful and more important than all I had before learned, or even had expected to learn.

Autor of the post: Undefined

redOrbit.com -- Science, Health, Technology Videos
redOrbit.com is a science, health, and technology news and information portal. Learn something new today!
redorbit.com

Recent post:

1. - They are the ejects Post Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:46:29 +0000
Physics, as we have seen, resolves its world into phenomena and underlying grounds or substances. The phenomena are the symbols of the underlying substances or forces, while these are the hidden but uniform and stable forces which are causally related to the phenomenal effects. They are the ejects of the physical world, and the grounds on which science holds them to be necessary are identical with the grounds on which the reflective consciousness asserts the existence of physical ejects.

Autor of the post: Undefined

2. - That the physical eject exists Post Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:30:48 +0000
The reflective basis of our knowledge here is an inference which takes the form of the rationally necessary. But this inference rests on the more intimate and direct certitude of the spontaneous consciousness. That the physical eject exists as real we have the united testimony of both spontaneity and reflec- tion.

Autor of the post: Undefined

3. - And being but an ordinary Post Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:20:20 +0000
The definition of the character of this ejective existence is a matter of inference and analogy. To the dog its nature will express itself mainly in its dogged obstinacy in blocking his way. And being but an ordinary dog, his idea of the nature of the cause of his troubles will contain a great many kyno-morphic elements, just as that of the plain man will reveal elements which are anthropo-morphic.

Autor of the post: Undefined

4. - But in con- nection Post Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:02:55 +0000
It is only in the critical reflection of physics that we find these elements carefully eliminated and the characteriza- tion reduced to the minimum of the necessary. What, then, does modern physics say regarding the nature of these physical ejects? As to their nature as things in themselves, it professes to know nothing. But in con- nection with its scientific aims it is obliged to regard them as the ground-causes of the phenomenal world.

Autor of the post: Undefined

5. - If force, we then emphasize Post Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:52:12 +0000
And while it is in a state of unstable equilibrium on the question whether these physical existences are to be regarded as matter, force, ether, or something beyond its present ken, there is no uncertainty as to whether some ground- causes of a physical character are essential; nor is there any doubt as to what the most fundamental attributes of these must be. If we call them matter, we put the empha- sis on persistence, inertia and stability. If force, we then emphasize agency and causal energy.

Autor of the post: Undefined

6. - And it does this all Post Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:38:27 +0000
If ether, we accent the desideratum of a perfect medium for motion. 1 Physics thus defines its ejects in terms of strict inferential neces- sity, as persistent inert and stable substances ; as mechani- cally acting causes and as perfect media for the initiation and propagation of motions. And it does this all consist- ently with its general profession of ignorance as to the nature of things.

Autor of the post: Undefined

7. - How do we know Post Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:25:45 +0000
For these characterizations are not the results of immediate insight into the nature of the world, but are rather rational inferences from the world of phe- nomena regarded, as physics regards them, as symbolizing something deeper than themselves. We come to the last of our classes of real existences, that of ejects which are other selves. How do we know the real existence of other selves? We have already alluded to Professor Strongs reference of our assertion of other selves to an original race-instinct and we have contended that an instinct which merely registered repeated experiences in the form of habit would not be adequate; whereas, instinct in any other sense would be identical with some form of spontaneous reason.

Autor of the post: Undefined

8. - The symbol is simply Post Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:07:34 +0000
If used in this latter sense we have no objection. The instinct which Professor Strong asserts would then be the immediate causal reference, by the dog in the illustration, of its metaphysical experience to a real existence which as a dog it does not distinguish from the bunch of perceptions standing as its symbol but which nevertheless means something entirely different from that symbol. The symbol is simply the object of the dogs per- ceptions, whereas what the dog cares for and means, is the thing which caused his rebuff.

Autor of the post: Undefined

9. - Let us, in view Post Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:48:10 +0000
The experience as so far denned would be the same, however, whether the rebuffing thing be a tree or another dog, or a man. The distinction of the two species of ejects would arise in connection with a further process of characterization. Let us, in view of this, attempt a further analysis of the dogs experience.

Autor of the post: Undefined

10. - We here come upon Post Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:28:19 +0000
We saw how his idea of the nature of the thing which rebuffed him would be penetrated with kyno-morphic ele- ments which his later experiences with physical things would tend gradually to eliminate. It is highly probable, however, that his first characterization would approximate much more closely to the nature of dogs than to that of trees, simply because the agent of the experiences is a dog. We here come upon what Professor Strong would no doubt call an original instinct of characterization, an instinct the law of which might be stated as follows.

Autor of the post: Undefined