Main Page: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 300: | Line 300: | ||
Epistemic capacity is the capacity to form, assess, retain and correct beliefs on the basis of perception and reasoning. In plain language, our ability to notice, learn, judge and revise. Successful episodes of knowing manifest capacities of perception, inference and correction. This is a modest inference to an exercised ability rather than to an infallible faculty. | Epistemic capacity is the capacity to form, assess, retain and correct beliefs on the basis of perception and reasoning. In plain language, our ability to notice, learn, judge and revise. Successful episodes of knowing manifest capacities of perception, inference and correction. This is a modest inference to an exercised ability rather than to an infallible faculty. | ||
== 11 Reasoning, spirit and appetite | == 11. Logistikon, thymoeides, epithymētikon (Reasoning, spirit and appetite) == | ||
''al-quwā al-mudrika wa-l-ghaḍabiyya wa-l-shahwāniyya (القوى المدركة والغضبية والشهوانية) • Logistikon, thymoeides, epithymētikon (λογιστικόν, θυμοειδές, ἐπιθυμητικόν)'' | ''al-quwā al-mudrika wa-l-ghaḍabiyya wa-l-shahwāniyya (القوى المدركة والغضبية والشهوانية) • Logistikon, thymoeides, epithymētikon (λογιστικόν, θυμοειδές, ἐπιθυμητικόν) • Hierarchy of faculties • Trilogy of mind • Tripartite soul'' | ||
''“...learn with one part of ourselves, feel anger with another, and with yet a third desire...”'' | ''“...learn with one part of ourselves, feel anger with another, and with yet a third desire...”'' | ||
| Line 309: | Line 309: | ||
=== Cognitive–affective–conative triad === | === Cognitive–affective–conative triad === | ||
Since the human being must possess a capacity by which knowledge, judgement, and discernment are possible (Epistemic capacity), and since this capacity and other capacities, such as feeling and intention, are not identical (Law of identity), the human being is essentially composed of cognition (thinking), affect (feeling), and conation (doing), hence the Cognitive–affective–conative triad. | |||
Dialectical transition: Knowing, feeling and striving can be distinguished analytically, though real mental processes overlap; this modern tripartition should not be equated point-for-point with Plato’s three-part soul. | |||
Cognitive–affective–conative triad is a heuristic differentiation of cognitive, affective and conative psychological functions. In plain language, thinking, feeling and wanting are distinguishable aspects of mental life. Knowing, feeling and striving can be distinguished analytically, though real mental processes overlap; this modern tripartition should not be equated point-for-point with Plato’s three-part soul. | |||
== 12 Intellect and intellection | == 12. Nous kai noēsis (Intellect and intellection) == | ||
''al-ʿaql / al-idrāk al-ʿaqlī (العقل / الإدراك العقلي) • Buddhi (बुद्धि) • Nous / noēsis (νοῦς / νόησις)'' | ''al-ʿaql / al-idrāk al-ʿaqlī (العقل / الإدراك العقلي) • Buddhi (बुद्धि) • Nous / noēsis (νοῦς / νόησις)'' | ||
| Line 320: | Line 324: | ||
=== Noetic discernment === | === Noetic discernment === | ||
Since the human being is essentially composed of the Cognitive–affective–conative triad, and since it must possess a capacity by which knowledge, judgement, and discernment are possible (Epistemic capacity), that capacity is the intellect, hence Noetic discernment. | |||
== 13 Love of truth | Among cognitive powers, intellect is the function that assesses reasons, identifies contradictions and integrates understanding. Its existence does not yet establish that its verdicts are always correct. | ||
Noetic discernment is rational apprehension and appraisal of intelligible relations, arguments and explanatory structures. In plain language, understanding reasons and recognising what follows from them. Among cognitive powers, intellect is the function that assesses reasons, identifies contradictions and integrates understanding. Its existence does not yet establish that its verdicts are always correct. | |||
== 13. Alētheian stergein (Love of truth) == | |||
''Alētheian stergein (ἀλήθειαν στέργειν) • ikhlāṣ / ṣidq / amāna (إخلاص / صدق / أمانة)'' | ''Alētheian stergein (ἀλήθειαν στέργειν) • ikhlāṣ / ṣidq / amāna (إخلاص / صدق / أمانة)'' | ||
| Line 331: | Line 339: | ||
=== Epistemic integrity === | === Epistemic integrity === | ||
Preference for truth over comfort | |||
This disposition is the willingness to subordinate psychological ease, inherited familiarity, social approval, and personal convenience to what one has best reason to judge true. It entails a principled resistance to self-deception, motivated reasoning, sentimental attachment to falsehood, and the refusal to revise one’s position when evidence or argument requires it. Without such a preference, reason becomes merely instrumental: a tool for decorating prior loyalties rather than correcting them. | |||
Preference for truth over comfort is therefore the first moral discipline of the intellect, and the condition of all genuine intellectual integrity. Epistemic responsibility The obligation to proportion belief, action, and authority to truth, evidence, reasoning, and the limits of knowledge. Intellectual honesty; sincerity; ikhlāṣ; trustworthiness; verification; discipline; humility; evidence; accountability. | |||
== 14 Dialectic | Dialectical transition: A truth-seeking project cannot function without a willingness to revise treasured beliefs. This is a chosen conative commitment, not a theorem forced by logic alone. | ||
Epistemic integrity is a disposition to pursue and communicate truth while resisting bias, self-deception and unwarranted confidence. In plain language, preferring what is justified over what is comforting. A truth-seeking project cannot function without a willingness to revise treasured beliefs. This is a chosen conative commitment, not a theorem forced by logic alone. | |||
== 14. Dialektikē (Dialectic) == | |||
''al-jadal al-burhānī / al-burhān (الجدل البرهاني / البرهان) • Dialektikē (διαλεκτική)'' | ''al-jadal al-burhānī / al-burhān (الجدل البرهاني / البرهان) • Dialektikē (διαλεκτική)'' | ||
| Line 342: | Line 358: | ||
=== Dialectic and rational entailment === | === Dialectic and rational entailment === | ||
Because claims must be connected by explicit reasons, inquiry tests hypotheses, seeks first principles and traces consequences. A historically Platonic label names the architecture without assuming that every intended step is deductively proven. | |||
== 15 Reason | Dialectic and rational entailment is a method of rational inquiry through defining concepts, testing alternatives and assessing arguments and consequences. In plain language, working through questions carefully rather than asserting answers. Because claims must be connected by explicit reasons, inquiry tests hypotheses, seeks first principles and traces consequences. A historically Platonic label names the architecture without assuming that every intended step is deductively proven. | ||
== 15. Logos (Reason) == | |||
''al-naẓar al-ʿaqlī (النظر العقلي) • Logos (λόγος)'' | ''al-naẓar al-ʿaqlī (النظر العقلي) • Logos (λόγος)'' | ||
| Line 353: | Line 371: | ||
=== Epistemological rationalism === | === Epistemological rationalism === | ||
Since intellect is the truth-discerning capacity (Noetic discernment), reason is treated as the primary method of judgement, correction, and justification, hence Epistemological rationalism. | |||
Dialectical transition: Reason supplies standards of consistency and inference; observation and testimony supply many premises. Primacy means rational adjudication, not replacing empirical evidence with speculation. | |||
Epistemological rationalism is the epistemological priority of argument and rational justification in judging claims, while permitting observation as evidence. In plain language, using reasoning to make sense of evidence. Reason supplies standards of consistency and inference; observation and testimony supply many premises. Primacy means rational adjudication, not replacing empirical evidence with speculation. | |||
== 16 Inquiry | == 16. Zētēsis (Inquiry) == | ||
''ijtihād / tawāḍuʿ maʿrifī (اجتهاد / تواضع معرفي) • Zētēsis (ζήτησις)'' | ''ijtihād / tawāḍuʿ maʿrifī (اجتهاد / تواضع معرفي) • Zētēsis (ζήτησις)'' | ||
| Line 364: | Line 386: | ||
=== Epistemic fallibilism === | === Epistemic fallibilism === | ||
Finite cognition can err even when it genuinely knows some truths; a method committed to truth must therefore distinguish justified confidence from infallibility and remain revisable. | |||
== 17 Division | Epistemic fallibilism is the doctrine that human beliefs and justification remain open to correction even when well supported. In plain language, being willing to change one's mind when shown better reasons. Finite cognition can err even when it genuinely knows some truths; a method committed to truth must therefore distinguish justified confidence from infallibility and remain revisable. | ||
== 17. Diairesis (Division) == | |||
''Diairesis (διαίρεσις) • taqsīm al-ʿulūm (تقسيم العلوم)'' | ''Diairesis (διαίρεσις) • taqsīm al-ʿulūm (تقسيم العلوم)'' | ||
| Line 375: | Line 399: | ||
=== Methodological domain differentiation === | === Methodological domain differentiation === | ||
Different objects call for different tests: argument for necessary claims, experiment for natural regularities, and source criticism for past human events. This modern method partition is compatible with Platonic differentiation but was not Plato’s own complete system. | |||
== 18 Reason and being | Methodological domain differentiation is the allocation of inquiry to different evidential and inferential methods appropriate to their subject matter. In plain language, use logic for logic, experiments for nature and source criticism for history. Different objects call for different tests: argument for necessary claims, experiment for natural regularities, and source criticism for past human events. This modern method partition is compatible with Platonic differentiation but was not Plato’s own complete system. | ||
== 18. Logos kai ousia (Reason and being) == | |||
''Logos / ousia (λόγος / οὐσία) • maʿqūliyyat al-wujūd (معقولية الوجود)'' | ''Logos / ousia (λόγος / οὐσία) • maʿqūliyyat al-wujūd (معقولية الوجود)'' | ||
| Line 386: | Line 412: | ||
=== Metaphysical rationalism === | === Metaphysical rationalism === | ||
Since intellect can know reality (Epistemological rationalism), reality itself is derived as intelligible rather than ultimately chaotic, arbitrary, or opaque to reason, hence Metaphysical rationalism. | |||
== 19 Cause and explanation | Dialectical transition: The success of intelligible inquiry supports confidence in knowable structure; perfect intelligibility or the absence of brute facts requires a stronger explanatory premise. | ||
''Aitia / logos (αἰτία / λόγος) • al-ʿilla / al-taʿlīl (العلة / التعليل) • Hetu (हेतु)'' | |||
Metaphysical rationalism is the metaphysical commitment that reality has intelligible structure susceptible, in principle, to rational explanation. In plain language, the world is not assumed to be fundamentally beyond explanation. The success of intelligible inquiry supports confidence in knowable structure; perfect intelligibility or the absence of brute facts requires a stronger explanatory premise. | |||
== 19. Aitia kai logos (Cause and explanation) == | |||
''Aitia / logos (αἰτία / λόγος) • al-ʿilla / al-taʿlīl (العلة / التعليل) • Hetu (हेतु) • Explanation • cause • ground • reason why • sufficient reason • causal order • intelligible ground • account • ʿillah'' | |||
''“...a cause is one thing, and the thing without which the cause could never be a cause is quite another thing.”'' | ''“...a cause is one thing, and the thing without which the cause could never be a cause is quite another thing.”'' | ||
| Line 397: | Line 427: | ||
=== Principle of sufficient reason === | === Principle of sufficient reason === | ||
Every real state of affairs has some reason or ground. | |||
Whatever is real is, in principle, intelligible: it has some reason, ground, or explanation for why it is rather than is not, even if that ground is intrinsic rather than external, simple rather than composite, or presently unknown to us. This minimal form of the Principle of Sufficient Reason does not assume that every explanation is easy, exhaustive, or immediately accessible. It asserts only that reality is not brute chaos. | |||
''“And other is always relative to other, is it not?”'' | To affirm intelligibility is to affirm that existence is not finally resistant to reason, even where human understanding remains partial, provisional, or domain-limited. | ||
The demand that reality, events, beliefs, and claims be accountable to explanation rather than accepted as brute assertion. Explanation; cause; ground; reason why; sufficient reason; causal order; intelligible ground; account; ʿillah. | |||
Take as an explicit metaphysical commitment the minimal claim that every dependent fact has an adequate ground. Plato’s search for aitiai anticipates explanatory inquiry, not the complete modern PSR. | |||
Principle of sufficient reason is a grounding principle requiring an adequate explanation of dependent facts rather than allowing dependence to remain wholly brute. In plain language, ask what makes dependent things the case. Take as an explicit metaphysical commitment the minimal claim that every dependent fact has an adequate ground. Plato’s search for aitiai anticipates explanatory inquiry, not the complete modern PSR. | |||
== 20. Heteron (Otherness) == | |||
''al-imtiyāz / al-tamāyuz (الامتياز / التمايز) • Heteron (ἕτερον)'' | |||
''“And other is always relative to other, is it not?”'' | |||
<br />- Plato, Sophist, 255d<br> | <br />- Plato, Sophist, 255d<br> | ||
<br />''“You know that what is affirmed is different from what is not affirmed.”'' | <br />''“You know that what is affirmed is different from what is not affirmed.”'' | ||
| Line 408: | Line 448: | ||
=== Principle of difference === | === Principle of difference === | ||
ince every real fact requires a sufficient reason (Principle of sufficient reason), any real distinction must be grounded in something that makes the distinguished realities different. Two realities cannot be numerically distinct while possessing no differentiating feature, relation, limit, origin, structure, position, state, or mode of existence whatsoever. | |||
The Principle of difference therefore states: | |||
== 21 Becoming and participation | Every real difference requires a real difference-maker. For any realities x and y, if x is really distinct from y, there must be some real respect in which x differs from y and which grounds their non-identity. If no such differentiating ground exists, x and y are not really distinct. | ||
The principle distinguishes a real distinction from a merely conceptual distinction. The intellect may understand or describe one reality through several concepts without thereby multiplying that reality. For example, referring to something as both a cause and an existent does not by itself establish the existence of two separate things. Genuine plurality requires a real basis of individuation. | |||
The Principle of difference therefore excludes brute or groundless plurality. It also supports Ontological parsimony and later entails that an absolutely necessary reality cannot contain genuinely distinct components, properties, states, or internal divisions unless there is some ground differentiating them. Any such differentiating ground would introduce limitation, composition, or dependence and would therefore be incompatible with Necessary simplicity and Absolute necessary simplicity. | |||
Dialectical transition: Once differences can be identified, the stronger claim that every numerical difference has a real ontological difference-maker requires an additional grounding premise. It is stronger than the mere law of identity and faces objections from cases of allegedly indiscernible particulars; it cannot be derived from the PSR without argument. | |||
Principle of difference is a strong metaphysical thesis that numerical distinctions require an adequate real basis of differentiation. In plain language, genuinely different things must differ somehow, if this further principle is adopted. Once differences can be identified, the stronger claim that every numerical difference has a real ontological difference-maker requires an additional grounding premise. It is stronger than the mere law of identity and faces objections from cases of allegedly indiscernible particulars; it cannot be derived from the PSR without argument. | |||
== 21. Genesis kai methexis (Becoming and participation) == | |||
''al-imkān wa-l-iftiqār (الإمكان والافتقار) • Genesis / methexis (γένεσις / μέθεξις)'' | ''al-imkān wa-l-iftiqār (الإمكان والافتقار) • Genesis / methexis (γένεσις / μέθεξις)'' | ||
| Line 419: | Line 471: | ||
=== Contingency and dependent existence === | === Contingency and dependent existence === | ||
Some things exist but could, in principle, not have existed. | |||
== 22 First principle and the unhypothetical | There exist beings whose non-existence involves no contradiction, and whose actuality therefore does not arise from necessity contained wholly within themselves. Such beings are contingent: they are, but need not have been. Recognition of contingency is indispensable because it prevents the mind from mistaking mere actuality for necessity. It marks the distinction between what simply happens to exist and what must exist by virtue of its own nature. | ||
Once that distinction is recognised, the demand for explanation deepens: contingent beings cannot be their own ultimate sufficient reason. | |||
Objects whose existence depends on conditions provide instances of dependent existence. The precise modal claim that they could not have existed requires argument beyond observation. | |||
Contingency and dependent existence is the distinction between a necessary entity or fact and one that depends on conditions and might not have obtained. In plain language, some things exist only because other conditions obtain. Objects whose existence depends on conditions provide instances of dependent existence. The precise modal claim that they could not have existed requires argument beyond observation. | |||
== 22. Archē kai anhypotheton (First principle and the unhypothetical) == | |||
''Archē / anhypotheton (ἀρχή / ἀνυπόθετον) • manʿ al-dawr wa-l-tasalsul (منع الدور والتسلسل)'' | ''Archē / anhypotheton (ἀρχή / ἀνυπόθετον) • manʿ al-dawr wa-l-tasalsul (منع الدور والتسلسل)'' | ||
| Line 430: | Line 490: | ||
=== Non-circular grounding and rejection of vicious infinite regress === | === Non-circular grounding and rejection of vicious infinite regress === | ||
Explanation cannot be self-grounding in a viciously circular sense, nor can it be deferred without end through an infinite chain of merely derivative dependence. A circle explains nothing if each member depends for its intelligibility on the others while none possesses self-sufficiency; likewise, an endless regress of dependent explanations never arrives at an actual ground. | |||
== 23 First principle | For explanation to succeed, a chain of dependence must terminate in that which is not merely borrowed, conditioned, or derivative, but self-sufficient. Without such termination, explanation is only postponed, not achieved. | ||
''al-mabādiʾ al-ūlā (المبادئ الأولى) • Archē (ἀρχή)'' | |||
A circular chain in which every member borrows its grounding fails to explain itself. Whether every infinite dependence chain is vicious requires a separate well-foundedness principle. | |||
Non-circular grounding and rejection of vicious infinite regress is the denial of viciously circular explanation and, under a further well-foundedness assumption, endlessly ungrounded derivative chains. In plain language, a series of borrowed explanations cannot by itself explain why anything is grounded. A circular chain in which every member borrows its grounding fails to explain itself. Whether every infinite dependence chain is vicious requires a separate well-foundedness principle. | |||
== 23. Archē (First principle) == | |||
''al-mabādiʾ al-ūlā (المبادئ الأولى) • Archē (ἀρχή)'' | |||
''“...to enable it to rise to that which requires no assumption and is the starting-point of all...”'' | ''“...to enable it to rise to that which requires no assumption and is the starting-point of all...”'' | ||
| Line 441: | Line 507: | ||
=== Foundationalism === | === Foundationalism === | ||
Since explanation cannot regress indefinitely without grounding (Principle of sufficient reason), inquiry is directed toward first principles, hence Foundationalism. | |||
Dialectical transition: The demand not to rely entirely on unsupported premises motivates searching for foundational commitments; whether all justification must terminate is itself a debated epistemological choice. | |||
Foundationalism is an epistemological approach locating ultimate justification in basic claims or principles not justified by an endless chain. In plain language, reasoning seeks starting points that do not merely borrow support forever. The demand not to rely entirely on unsupported premises motivates searching for foundational commitments; whether all justification must terminate is itself a debated epistemological choice. | |||
== 24 Simple | == 24. Haploun (Simple) == | ||
''Haploun (ἁπλοῦν) • iqtiṣād fī al-furūḍ (اقتصاد في الفروض)'' | ''Haploun (ἁπλοῦν) • iqtiṣād fī al-furūḍ (اقتصاد في الفروض)'' | ||
| Line 452: | Line 522: | ||
=== Epistemic parsimony === | === Epistemic parsimony === | ||
Since inquiry seeks grounded explanation (Principle of sufficient reason and Foundationalism), assumptions should not be multiplied beyond necessity, hence Epistemic parsimony. | |||
Dialectical transition: When explanations fit the same evidence equally well, preferring the one with fewer unsupported assumptions is a defeasible research rule rather than a logical axiom. | |||
Epistemic parsimony is the methodological preference for fewer unsupported assumptions when rival explanations otherwise perform comparably. In plain language, do not add complications that explain nothing. When explanations fit the same evidence equally well, preferring the one with fewer unsupported assumptions is a defeasible research rule rather than a logical axiom. | |||
== 25 Sufficient | == 25. Hikanon (Sufficient) == | ||
''Hikanon (ἱκανόν) • kifāyat al-taʿlīl (كفاية التعليل)'' | ''Hikanon (ἱκανόν) • kifāyat al-taʿlīl (كفاية التعليل)'' | ||
| Line 463: | Line 537: | ||
=== Principle of explanatory adequacy === | === Principle of explanatory adequacy === | ||
A proposed ultimate ground must explain—rather than merely rename—the dependent features it is invoked to ground. The explanatory burden is especially important for consciousness; the ground need not simply instantiate every property of its consequences. | |||
== 26 One and simple | Principle of explanatory adequacy is the demand that an explanation actually account for the features it purports to explain. In plain language, giving a mystery a new name is not solving it. A proposed ultimate ground must explain—rather than merely rename—the dependent features it is invoked to ground. The explanatory burden is especially important for consciousness; the ground need not simply instantiate every property of its consequences. | ||
== 26. Hen kai haploun (One and simple) == | |||
''al-basāṭa / waḥdat al-aṣl (البساطة / وحدة الأصل) • Hen / haploun (ἕν / ἁπλοῦν)'' | ''al-basāṭa / waḥdat al-aṣl (البساطة / وحدة الأصل) • Hen / haploun (ἕν / ἁπλοῦν)'' | ||
| Line 474: | Line 550: | ||
=== Ontological parsimony === | === Ontological parsimony === | ||
Since unnecessary assumptions should be avoided (Epistemic parsimony), ultimate entities, substances, and principles should not be multiplied beyond necessity, hence Ontological parsimony. | |||
== 27 Priority and cause | Dialectical transition: The preference for an explanatorily unified ontology is a defeasible constraint; it does not entail that only one substance exists without further premises. | ||
Ontological parsimony is the ontological preference for positing no more kinds of fundamental entities than explanatory adequacy requires. In plain language, avoid unnecessary fundamental things. The preference for an explanatorily unified ontology is a defeasible constraint; it does not entail that only one substance exists without further premises. | |||
== 27. Proteron kai aitia (Priority and cause) == | |||
''al-taqaddum al-wujūdī (التقدم الوجودي) • Proteron / aitia (πρότερον / αἰτία)'' | ''al-taqaddum al-wujūdī (التقدم الوجودي) • Proteron / aitia (πρότερον / αἰτία)'' | ||
| Line 485: | Line 565: | ||
=== Ontological priority === | === Ontological priority === | ||
Since some realities explain others more basically than they are explained by them (Epistemic parsimony and Ontological parsimony), reality is ordered according to what is fundamental and what is derivative, hence Ontological priority. | |||
Dialectical transition: When A explains B without the reverse dependence, A is prior in grounding, not necessarily earlier in time. | |||
Ontological priority is the asymmetric dependence relation by which something is more fundamental than what it grounds. In plain language, what explains another thing may be prior without being earlier in time. When A explains B without the reverse dependence, A is prior in grounding, not necessarily earlier in time. | |||
== 28 Soul and intellect | == 28. Psychē kai nous (Soul and intellect) == | ||
''al-nafs / al-shuʿūr (النفس / الشعور) • Psychē / nous (ψυχή / νοῦς)'' | ''al-nafs / al-shuʿūr (النفس / الشعور) • Psychē / nous (ψυχή / νοῦς)'' | ||
| Line 496: | Line 580: | ||
=== Non-reductive consciousness === | === Non-reductive consciousness === | ||
Since consciousness is the condition under which all objects, methods, and explanations appear (Phenomenal consciousness), and since ultimate entities, substances, and principles should not be multiplied beyond necessity (Ontological parsimony), consciousness cannot be treated merely as one ordinary object among others, hence Non-reductive consciousness. | |||
== 29 Soul and the intelligible | No third-person description by itself establishes why subjective character occurs; the explanatory gap motivates but does not prove non-reduction. | ||
Non-reductive consciousness is the thesis that phenomenal consciousness cannot be exhaustively identified with a purely third-person functional or physical account. In plain language, describing a mechanism does not automatically explain why experience feels like anything. No third-person description by itself establishes why subjective character occurs; the explanatory gap motivates but does not prove non-reduction. | |||
== 29. Psychē kai noēton (Soul and the intelligible) == | |||
''aṣālat al-idrāk / aṣālat al-shuʿūr (أصالة الإدراك / أصالة الشعور) • Psychē / noēton (ψυχή / νοητόν)'' | ''aṣālat al-idrāk / aṣālat al-shuʿūr (أصالة الإدراك / أصالة الشعور) • Psychē / noēton (ψυχή / νοητόν)'' | ||
| Line 507: | Line 595: | ||
=== Priority of consciousness === | === Priority of consciousness === | ||
Since consciousness is the first datum and the condition of intelligibility (Phenomenal consciousness), consciousness is treated as prior in explanation to what appears within it, hence the Priority of consciousness. | |||
== 30 Being and soul | Dialectical transition: Epistemic priority is immediate; ontological priority is a proposed stronger conclusion requiring an anti-physicalist or explanatory argument. | ||
Priority of consciousness is the proposed ontological or explanatory primacy of consciousness, distinguished from its uncontroversial priority as a datum of inquiry. In plain language, experience is where investigation begins, but that alone does not prove all reality is mental. Epistemic priority is immediate; ontological priority is a proposed stronger conclusion requiring an anti-physicalist or explanatory argument. | |||
== 30. Ousia kai psychē (Being and soul) == | |||
''Ousia / psychē (οὐσία / ψυχή) • waḥdat al-ḥuḍūr wa-l-wujūd (وحدة الحضور والوجود)'' | ''Ousia / psychē (οὐσία / ψυχή) • waḥdat al-ḥuḍūr wa-l-wujūd (وحدة الحضور والوجود)'' | ||
| Line 518: | Line 610: | ||
=== Consciousness–existence non-separability === | === Consciousness–existence non-separability === | ||
Under the proposed model, consciousness is not an accidental property added to an independently intelligible substrate but existence disclosed from within. The identification must be supported independently rather than defined into truth. | |||
Consciousness–existence non-separability is the metaphysical proposal that being and conscious disclosure are inseparable aspects of ultimate reality. In plain language, on this model, existence is not finally something standing outside all awareness. Under the proposed model, consciousness is not an accidental property added to an independently intelligible substrate but existence disclosed from within. The identification must be supported independently rather than defined into truth. | |||
== 31 Intelligible and soul ''Noēton / psychē'' == | == 31 Intelligible and soul ''Noēton / psychē'' == | ||
| Line 1,544: | Line 1,638: | ||
'''Political Sovereignty of Intellect''' is the normative claim that political decisions should be constrained by rational understanding of public welfare. In plain language, governing requires knowledge and judgment, not merely strength or popularity. Political decisions affect welfare and need knowledge of causes and consequences; authority should therefore be answerable to the best available reasons and moral aims rather than arbitrary status. | '''Political Sovereignty of Intellect''' is the normative claim that political decisions should be constrained by rational understanding of public welfare. In plain language, governing requires knowledge and judgment, not merely strength or popularity. Political decisions affect welfare and need knowledge of causes and consequences; authority should therefore be answerable to the best available reasons and moral aims rather than arbitrary status. | ||
== 124 Philosophoi basileusōsin kai politeia (Philosopher-kings and constitution) == | == 124. Philosophoi basileusōsin kai politeia (Philosopher-kings and constitution) == | ||
''ḥākimiyyat al-ʿaql / ḥukm al-ḥukamāʾ (حاكمية العقل / حكم الحكماء) • Philosophoi basileusōsin / politeia (φιλόσοφοι βασιλεύσωσιν / πολιτεία)'' | ''ḥākimiyyat al-ʿaql / ḥukm al-ḥukamāʾ (حاكمية العقل / حكم الحكماء) • Philosophoi basileusōsin / politeia (φιλόσοφοι βασιλεύσωσιν / πολιτεία)'' | ||
| Line 1,863: | Line 1,957: | ||
=== 31. Noēton / psychē (νοητόν / ψυχή) — al-mithāliyya al-taḥlīliyya (المثالية التحليلية): Analytic idealism === | === 31. Noēton / psychē (νοητόν / ψυχή) — al-mithāliyya al-taḥlīliyya (المثالية التحليلية): Analytic idealism === | ||