Discussing the Problem of the One and the Many

[luvroftheWord]

In a previous thread, Paul Manata said:

[quote:ec708ac112]I happen to believe that the one and many problem has haunted philosophy since the greeks. Discussiong that is beyond the scope of this thread.[/quote:ec708ac112]

So I thought, why not start another thread just on this subject? It was only a short while ago (maybe a year) that I got a handle on what the problem really is, and I have since found it to be very interesting, but also confusing.

So I'm interested, Paul, in your comment that you believe this problem has haunted philosophy since the Greeks. Do you believe that fundamental to every non-Christian worldview, regardless of what it is, is a failure to properly relate the unity of the world to its diversity?

 

[fredtgreco]

I think so. Especially considering that the only solution to this is the Trinity.

Craig, if you get a chance and Orlando has the Systematic 1 Tapes of Doug Kelly, listen to his lectures on the Trinity. He deals with this issue well.

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:a12a8fdf9f="Paul manata"][quote:a12a8fdf9f="fredtgreco"]I think so. Especially considering that the only solution to this is the Trinity.

Craig, if you get a chance and Orlando has the Systematic 1 Tapes of Doug Kelly, listen to his lectures on the Trinity. He deals with this issue well.[/quote:a12a8fdf9f]

96.6%![/quote:a12a8fdf9f]

Ok. Be very careful.

Maybe neither of us should talk anymore, lest we drop below 95%

 

[philosopher82]

remember luvroftheword that question was abandoned in it's form right after aristotle but it is none the less a valid metaphysical question. i have learned after 4-1/2 years of study that there is a nice system for analysing philisophical problems. but first i would like to show that the answer the other people gave will not do. heres why, it is guilty of evading the question. remember the question is about reality exclusivly, not God. certanly they have an answer but it is to another question. to further elaborate let's consider the rational conclusions of that answer, this is ultimatly lebienez's method of reductio ad absurdium.
first if we ask a question about reality and we give the answer God than we won't always be in trouble but this particular case is an example of a question God as na answer will not do. God is the ultimate cause of everything but this question is correctly understood to be one asked about how he made the universe, in the sense of it's having an apearence of change and premanence. the answer we are looking for resides in nature, if God were the answer than we would be denying the creator-creature distinction. ultimatly it is an idealist answer because they were pantheists we are not. God certanly has a perfect unified unity/diversity but that still leaves the question open about the realationship of these two concepts in reality. so now that we realize what the question is let show you some possible stratigys for answering.

there are really only 4 methods of solution:
1. the platonic/aristotle method
2. the hegelian method
3. the william james pragmatic answer
4. the wittgenstein psuedo-problem method

what am i talking about you ask? i'll explain. but i'll go backwards in my numbering as i feel the first one is the method we can use to answer the question. wittgenstein said all philosophical problems arise out of a miuse or confusion in language, his first and second philosophy both agreed here but with different concepts of language and method of resolution. but with little consideration we can show how this method can not work because as we have shown this question arises out of reality and it's apearence so it has a physical or metaphysical answer.
the next method we will consider is james'. his pragmatic theory is one of the most misunderstood philosophies in history, though it is his fault. he would say in resolving metaphysical disputes we must grant each side true work out there logical conclusions and see how our expeirence of the world will change if the idea is true. the problem with this method, though i am quite fond of it, is that it revolves us right back around to the question. both theories are expeirencable because they arive from reality, this is the drawback of the pragmatic method it works one way ideas to reality.

now i will deal with the last two together because they are similar but different. hegel would use his dialectic to answer this, but that only deals with absolute contradictions, and their movement into synthesis. this leves us begging the question i don't think he ever answered, how do they resolve themselves if their contradictory? well they can't but if we define them as not contradictory than you can resolve your problem hopefully.
this brings us to the first method which will only be used in general not their specific philosophies but the outlook on the problem they got it mostly right. we must remember that the reason the pre-socratic philosophers could not answer this question is because they took sides of the fence. which naturally begs the question if there is only change than why is there permanence and vice versa. they took sides where plato and aristotle sought to explain reality as having in one sense or parts change and in the other sense or parts permanance. they sought permanence in the metaphysical and change in the physical. i regect their answers because the physical laws are permanence in physicality and time and change logicaly can be represented as change in the metaphysical sense. but they do point out that perhaps if we reduce the extremity of the two definitions and apply them to parts of reality we could answer the question. at this point i'll let you think through this stuff and i'll reply with my answer of the question tommorow, i will have to warn you though it has been two years since i thought about it so it will have to come back to me tommorow at work.