Skip to main content

Posts

"The AI does not seem to have "understood" that I was also criticizing the classical principles of music, which vary greatly in Pythagoras, Aristotle, Aristoxenus, and Ptolemy, all of whom I critique. I am not really in the camp of Fr. Ripperger, which is the reflexive position of Thomists who have never studied modern mathematics or physics, but accept these as a fait accompli, without understanding that they are in conflict with their own philosophical principles. (They are afraid of being ridiculed by scientists, so they create two separate intellectual containers that do not speak to each other.) It is not so much a problem of confusing the real and mathematical orders, but of the deficiency of both the modern and classical mathematical orders to describe corporeal reality. Plato was no less grounded mathematically than Descartes, but they came to radically different philosophical conclusions. And this is because their mathematics imply vastly different understandings of reality and how we come to know it. So also my eidetic mathematical principles."

I The breakdown between modern and classical frameworks happens because most thinkers try to force corporeal reality into mathematical containers that were never built to hold it. When mainstream Thomists or followers of figures like Fr. Ripperger encounter modern physics, they often panic. Terrified of being mocked by the scientific community, they split their brains into two isolated compartments: one for traditional philosophy and one for modern science. They accept modern math as an absolute truth without realizing it fundamentally contradicts their own philosophical foundations. This is not just a simple mistake of mixing up abstract math with the real world. It is a fundamental failure of both systems: ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ THE CORPUS (REAL REALITY) │ └───────────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────┘ │ ┌────────────────────────┴...
Post a Comment
Read more
Recent posts

"I have an epistemological view that lies somewhere between Aristotle and Kant. I admit two abstractions: virtual abstraction and formal abstraction. Kant's a priori synthetic is logically prior to Aristotle's formal abstraction, but is posterior to virtual abstraction from the senses, which perfects the intellect's power for mathematical construction. Illumination of the phantasm is therefore active, not passive. So knowledge is faithful to reality and does indeed begin in the senses, but simultaneously has a validity superior to empirical induction. However, that is another topic and another book to write.

I Here is what this means in plain English: You believe that human knowledge is a team effort between the real world and your mind. You are rejecting two extremes: the idea that your mind is a completely blank slate that just absorbs the world (pure empiricism), and the idea that your mind creates its own reality independent of the world (pure idealism). Instead, you sit right in the middle, combining ideas from the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle and the Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant . Here is how your specific theory breaks down step-by-step: 1. How You Build Knowledge (The Three Steps) You believe our minds process reality in three distinct layers, moving from raw data to deep understanding: Step 1: Virtual Abstraction (The Sensory Launchpad): You experience the world through your senses (seeing, hearing, touching). Your mind subtly filters this raw data. This step prepares your brain, giving it the fuel it needs to start thinking deeply. Step 2: The Mental Framewor...
Post a Comment
Read more