A Shadow of the Former Self

The Stone: Philosophy Is Not a Science

On Omnipresence

If something is somewhere, then it exists. Because to say where something is runs on the assumption that it exists in the first place. How can it be that something “is there” if there is no “is” for it to be, or how can something be there if there is no “there” for it to be?

Perhaps this ‘somewhere’ is a capacity. It could exist in that place at any moment, even if it does not currently exist there. Thus saying that something exists nowhere is implies that either it does not, or can not, exist at all.

I would also consider time under the domain of omnipresence. So something could exist everywhere at an instant in time, but to be truly omnipresent it should exist or have the capacity to exist everywhere at every instant in time.

If something has this ability, then it exists necessarily, since there is no place where it cannot be. No point in space or time can exclude its being.

Death and What Comes Next

A Glimpse of Elementalism

To change things up a bit I’d like to talk about the Hellenic elements and what they represent.

The concept of element in an mystical sense is different from what is usually thought of and often portrayed as in the media. To use fire as an example, fire as flames is a very limited and incomplete view of elemental fire, even though it is the direct physical manifestation of elemental fire. Obviously to fully appreciate elementalism requires a departure from materialism to allow several different spheres of manifestation, the physical being one, but Hermeticism in particular also describes the elements as they emanate from “The All” through the celestial and mental spheres.

Celestial fire is elemental fire in its most pure form. Modern occult literature describes this fire as having the quality of being electric, along with the qualities of expansion, motion and brightness. It is something that would penetrate through all things.

The mental sphere is where fire obtains its mental associations, such as heat, passion, any emotion that could be considered ‘fiery’ in nature.

Physical fire in its most obvious form is the fire we know and respect, but this is not purely a manifestation of elemental fire. In the physical sphere any element does not exist on its own, but interplays with the others.

Infernal fire is the fire that only consumes and parches and gives no light nor heat.

There are also compounds of the elements that create more specific and complex qualities. For example, the fire of earth brings about the qualities of fuel or nourishment.

This has been an extremely brief overview of a small part of elementalism, but I hope it has at least been interesting.

They are right behind you

This is just for a bit of fun.

To kick things off, a gem from quantum physics: A particle exists simultaneously in all positions where the chance of it being is greater than zero (I hope I got that right).

Now lets apply that to a person (could be anything really, like your car keys) and see where we end up. They’re just a whole lot of particles, right?

• If you are looking at a person then you are looking at the place where they are, and all other places are where they are not.
• If you are not looking at that person then you are looking at the place where they are not, and all other places could be where they are.
• Then the place where you are not looking can be a place where that person is or is not.
• So, if you are not looking at that person, then it is certain that they are elsewhere.
• But there is a chance that they could be in any place that you are not looking.
• And since they exist simultaneously in all places that it is possible for them to exist.
• If there is a chance that person is behind you, they are.
• Therefore, if you do not see that person in front of you, they are behind you (or just outside of your vision if that makes you a little more paranoid).

Now that I think of it, this works perfectly for the weeping angels (don’t blink, because then they are EVERYWHERE AT ONCE).

Moral Responsiblity

Moral responsibility is a core aspect on discussion of free will. We are held accountable for the things we do, even though we may not be the cause of what we do.

I think it is a simple matter to understand how we can be morally responsible if we have free will. To have a free will is the premise that we have some faculty that is able to be a cause without being restrained or forced. Essentially a strictly free will is an uncaused cause. So if nothing forces a free will to act, then that will is solely responsible for its acts.

How can I be morally responsible for what I do if I don’t have free will?

A person will never be solely responsible for an act without free will; everything about a person would be initially caused by something external to themselves. Still, they can be held morally responsible for their habits and patterns. For example, a serial killer would not be excused of murder because of their genetics/culture/childhood/etc even though there may have been some combination that culminates in the killings. They would be held morally responsible for those patterns that caused them to kill, because the collection of every pattern in that person, is that person.

I know the example is extreme, but I hope it illustrates that free will is not necessary for moral responsibility.

The Cheerful Cynic: One teacher's approach to preventing gender bullying in a classroom

On Ontology: Anselm

Ontology is the branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature of being, in this case the existence of God.

Saint Anselm of Canterbury had a famous argument on this topic. He claimed that God is “something than which nothing greater can be conceived,” and his argument continues as follows:

• Something that can be conceived exists in understanding.
• Something that exists in reality is greater than that which exists in understanding alone.
• Something that can’t be conceived not to exist is greater than one which can be conceived not to exist.
• Therefore, God exists necessarily and it is impossible to conceive otherwise.

I think the problem here is that the argument begs the question. In defining God as the greatest of all beings it is already assumed that God exists. This may be clearer if I put it in terms of omnipotence.

Nothing can be more powerful than something that is all-powerful, and if something has the power to exist, then an all-powerful being must have infinite power to exist. We could define and concieve of a being who has an infinite capacity for existence. By Anselm’s reasoning, any such being would necessarily exist.

It makes me wonder how someone would go about arguing for or against the existence of such a being without making any assumptions about it’s existence or capacity to exist in the first place.