<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><channel><title>alchemmist — Philosophy</title><link>https://alchemmist.xyz/topics/philosophy/</link><description>Последние записи в блоге alchemmist</description><generator>Hugo 0.163.3</generator><language>en</language><atom:link href="https://alchemmist.xyz/topics/philosophy/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0300</lastBuildDate><item><title>Aristotelian Categories of Causality</title><link>https://alchemmist.xyz/essays/aristotelian-categories-causality/</link><pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0300</pubDate><dc:creator>alchemmist</dc:creator><guid>https://alchemmist.xyz/essays/aristotelian-categories-causality/</guid><description>Prior to the premodern era, it was impossible to draw an absolute distinction between the physical and metaphysical categories of causality, or even between the material and the conditionally “spiritual.” The universe was seen as a complex and even mysterious interweaving of immanent and transcendent mediations and forces. According to Aristotle, we can distinguish four categories of causality:
Material Formal Efficient Final The first is the prime matter from which everything is formed, the substratum, the bearer—like the glass from which a bottle is blown. This material substratum is so undefined that it contains nothing but pure potentiality and is devoid of any actuality.</description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Prior to the premodern era, it was impossible to draw an absolute distinction between the physical and metaphysical categories of causality, or even between the material and the conditionally &ldquo;spiritual.&rdquo; The universe was seen as a complex and even mysterious interweaving of immanent and transcendent mediations and forces.
<img
    src="/images/arisotel_hu_a7b3b8a92dbcb44.webp"
    width="1099"
    height="1007"
    class="content-img" style="width:500px"
    alt=""
    loading="lazy"
    decoding="async"
  />
According to Aristotle, we can distinguish <strong>four</strong> categories of causality:</p>
<ol>
<li>Material</li>
<li>Formal</li>
<li>Efficient</li>
<li>Final</li>
</ol>
<p>The first is the prime matter from which everything is formed, the substratum, the bearer—like the glass from which a bottle is blown. This material substratum is so undefined that it contains nothing but pure potentiality and is devoid of any actuality.</p>
<p>The formal cause is what makes a particular substance what it is, including all the attributes pertaining to that bottle: coldness, static hardness, fragility, transparency, and so on.</p>
<p>The efficient cause is the creating or activating factor that unites form and matter into a single substance—such as the glassblower, together with their artisan tools, using them to blow a bottle from the material, constrained by its properties.</p>
<p>The final cause is the purpose. This is the ultimate goal, the function, and the meaning of a given thing—the existence, use, or good for which it is intended.</p>
<p>This structuring of being is not limited only to human artifacts.</p>
<p>Christian thought could delineate another, quite explicitly defined, type of causality—the ontological cause, which requires no substratum for creation but is capable of creating from nothing. The infinite and eternal source of being, which grants existence to every contingent thing and to the universe, without which even the very possibilities of things cannot exist.</p>
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Briefly About Immortality</title><link>https://alchemmist.xyz/essays/briefly-about-immortality/</link><pubDate>Tue, 15 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0300</pubDate><dc:creator>alchemmist</dc:creator><guid>https://alchemmist.xyz/essays/briefly-about-immortality/</guid><description> (Premise) The world is a unity of opposites. If there is A, then there is not A (Law of Double Negation). If there is temporal, there is eternal; if there is changing, there is unchanging; if there is mortal, there is immortal.
Clarification: This isn’t dividing all things into two categories (“here are changing things, there are unchanging ones”). The changing and unchanging are one (Allegory of the Cave).
Therefore, if something changes, it remains fundamentally unchanged. That is: the changing is unchanging.
Our experience confirms this. The “I” today and the “I” ten years ago may share no common atoms in the body—yet it remains me.</description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<ol start="0">
<li>
<p><em>(Premise)</em> The world is a unity of opposites. If there is <code>A</code>, then there is <code>not A</code> <em>(<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negation#:~:text=In%20propositional%20logic%2C%20double%20negation,is%20equivalent%20to%20A">Law of Double Negation</a>)</em>. If there is temporal, there is eternal; if there is changing, there is unchanging; if there is mortal, there is immortal.<br>
Clarification: This isn&rsquo;t dividing all things into two categories (&ldquo;here are changing things, there are unchanging ones&rdquo;). The changing and unchanging are one <em>(<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave">Allegory of the Cave</a>)</em>.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Therefore, if something changes, it remains fundamentally unchanged. That is: <strong>the changing is unchanging</strong>.<br>
Our experience confirms this. The &ldquo;I&rdquo; today and the &ldquo;I&rdquo; ten years ago may share no common atoms in the body—yet it remains me.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Thus, a <strong>principle of unity</strong> exists, binding all parts into a whole. This principle shapes my body over time while being independent of it. Consequently, it exists beyond time.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>This principle of unity—the unchanging core—is best called &ldquo;<strong>meaning</strong>&rdquo; <em>(<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_%28philosophy%29">meaning as a phenomenon&rsquo;s essence</a></em>. Meaning cannot be destroyed or altered. Even destroying an object while declaring <em>&ldquo;we destroyed it&rdquo;</em> confirms its meaning persists—otherwise, what are we discussing?</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Summary of aspects in every thing:</p>
<ol>
<li><strong>Unity as such</strong> – the world&rsquo;s unity.</li>
<li><strong>Unchanging</strong> – substance, essence, being, ideal, meaning.</li>
<li><strong>Changing</strong> – mode, manifestation, accidents, phenomenon, existence, real, matter.</li>
<li><strong>Unity of unchanging and changing</strong> – the thing itself.</li>
</ol>
<p>Without the unchanging, we could neither think nor derive laws about the world.</p>
<p>The unchanging in humans is often called <strong>soul</strong>. The soul is:</p>
<ol>
<li>Life principle <em>(self-motion—contains cause of motion within itself)</em>.</li>
<li>Principle of bodily form <em>(the aforementioned unity principle)</em>.</li>
<li>Inner world, consciousness. Principle of inner psychic unity.</li>
<li>Purpose-realizing principle.</li>
</ol>
<p>The soul is a synthesis of changing and unchanging: mutable through motion, yet immutable through unifying matter. This synthesis means <strong>change within fixed limits</strong>. Things remain themselves until exceeding their semantic boundary. <em>(A human crossing this boundary becomes superhuman—transcending ontology and losing original meaning, i.e., dying)</em>.</p>
<p><em>Ice example:</em> Molding ice preserves its &ldquo;ice&rdquo; meaning. Melting it into water or steam destroys &ldquo;ice&rdquo; but preserves &ldquo;water element&rdquo; meaning. Why?</p>
<ul>
<li>When ice melts, its <em>meaning</em> remains unchanged—we don’t call liquid water &ldquo;ice.&rdquo; Matter flows between meanings.</li>
<li>Matter embodies broader meanings (&ldquo;water element&rdquo; encompasses ice/water/steam).</li>
</ul>
<ol start="4">
<li>Ultimately, all meanings embody the universal concept of <strong>&ldquo;Being&rdquo; (Сущее)</strong>.</li>
</ol>
<p>This applies only to <em>non-living things</em>, indifferent to their definition—lacking subjectivity to claim meaning as <em>their own</em>. Living nature differs: the soul gathers matter into a specific form (its meaning) and <em>actively maintains it</em>. A living being cares about its definition—thus striving to preserve its form.</p>
<p>Therefore, the soul—whose primary principle is eternity/immutability—seeks to manifest this principle in its material emanation.</p>
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Being Is, Non-Being Is Not</title><link>https://alchemmist.xyz/essays/genesis-exist-oblivion-notexist/</link><pubDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0300</pubDate><dc:creator>alchemmist</dc:creator><guid>https://alchemmist.xyz/essays/genesis-exist-oblivion-notexist/</guid><description>— Thank God. — said Anselm
— But God doesn’t exist. — objected Akuan
— Then what are we talking about now?
— About God. And that certainly doesn’t mean He exists.
— I’m not yet saying He actually exists. But at the very least, as the subject of our discussion here in this dialogue, He is. Otherwise, what would we be talking about? — said Anselm, then added with a Greek accent — Friend Akuan, do you call this shop God?</description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>— Thank God. — said Anselm</p>
<p>— But God doesn’t exist. — objected Akuan</p>
<p>— Then what are we talking about now?</p>
<p>— About God. And that certainly doesn’t mean He exists.</p>
<p>— I’m not yet saying He <em>actually</em> exists. But at the very least, as the subject of our discussion here in this dialogue, He <em>is</em>. Otherwise, what would we be talking about? — said Anselm, then added with a Greek accent — Friend Akuan, do you call this shop God?</p>
<p>— No.</p>
<p>— Maybe this pillar?</p>
<p>— Of course not.</p>
<p>— Then what?</p>
<p>— Some omnipotent being. I suppose that’s the simplest definition. — replied Akuan</p>
<p>— And I agree with that — nodded Anselm and continued — Akuan, doesn’t it seem logical to you that if, even for an instant, such an omnipotent being were to attain Being—in any form: be it at the ocean’s depths, in a star’s core, between protons in an atom, or in some eccentric’s fantasy—if this being is truly omnipotent, that infinitely small moment of time would suffice for it to break free from any confinement, to appear at every point in space, to destroy the entire universe, and to do what we cannot even conceive. A single drop of Being falling on the cold cheek of God sleeping in Nothingness would be enough to awaken Him for eternity. At the very least, today we’ve spilled that drop.<br>
<img
    src="/images/light_hu_6b95b6056e4f11ba.webp"
    width="1083"
    height="846"
    class="content-img" style="width:500px"
    alt=""
    loading="lazy"
    decoding="async"
  /></p>
]]></content:encoded></item></channel></rss>