|
Post by paul on Sept 19, 2011 8:12:03 GMT 9.5
Over to you Tamrin.
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Sept 19, 2011 9:54:45 GMT 9.5
You are asking me to prove a negative
|
|
|
Post by paul on Sept 19, 2011 9:56:00 GMT 9.5
That is your position is it not: that unicorns do not exist?
You are a rational man. You must have reasons for that belief.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Sept 20, 2011 17:38:50 GMT 9.5
This thread is not nearly as interesting as I thought.
Henka and Smithee, both of you have shown a close interest in unicorns.
Would you like to outline the rational position for believing that they do not exist?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2011 17:46:47 GMT 9.5
The onus is on you to prove that they do exist
|
|
|
Post by paul on Sept 20, 2011 18:42:41 GMT 9.5
Unicorns as a concept have been known for several thousand years across different areas of the world. A cautious thinker might be agnostic about unicorns.
But here we have several posters that regard themselves as very rational who have a strong belief that unicorns do not exist.
I ask therefore, what rationale is there for believing unicorns do not exist?
If you guys are having trouble I could suggest a rationale.
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Sept 20, 2011 19:40:35 GMT 9.5
This is from a reply elsewhere to you from 2007 (why are we still going over this nonsense?):
Thus, the non-reality of unicorns was originally one of their essential properties.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Sept 20, 2011 20:32:09 GMT 9.5
So the rationality for believing unicorns does not exist is that they are not real?
That seems a little circular.
If you consider the Arthurian legend of the unicorn, particularly its milk whiteness, the symbolism becomes transparent and the search is on.
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Sept 20, 2011 20:52:32 GMT 9.5
So the rationality for believing unicorns does not exist is that they are not real?
That seems a little circular. By the nature of the origin of the very notion of unicorns, they do not exist! Beside which, as I said earlier, you were asking me to prove a universal negative: A logical impossibility. As Smithee said, the onus is on you to prove your assertion that they do exist. In the meantime, being a skeptical agnostic on the matter may be reasonable, but allowing that the the moon may be made of green cheese is similarly reasonable. If you consider the Arthurian legend of the unicorn, particularly its milk whiteness, the symbolism becomes transparent and the search is on. We have been over this ad nauseum. On the one hand you claim the universal agreement on the properties of unicorns somehow proves their existence. On the other hand you cite example of "unicorns" from around the world which, when considered, are seen to be very different mythological creatures: Some flying, some not; some milky white; some green (or, you claim, black); some with horns, some without; some with silky coats and manes, some with scales; etc., etc. Indeed, their identification as "unicorns" is attributed to Westerners. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Sept 21, 2011 6:16:38 GMT 9.5
I think the issue here is that materialistic scientists require that all proof is in the form of matter.
This obviously is difficult for non-material entities such as thoughts and souls.
Could it be that the unicorn is non-material?
If so, in the absence of an effective non-material science, we must consider the accounts of those who are able to witness the non-physical.
Those who are blind to the inner worlds may well be sceptical but scepticism is not the same as believing that the unseen does not exist.
The rational mind (brain?) however, does not take kindly to being left out.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Sept 21, 2011 6:24:18 GMT 9.5
As for a taxonomy of unicorns, in the Chinese tradition there are 5 categories. Personally I could only support 3 categories.
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Sept 21, 2011 11:42:54 GMT 9.5
Could it be that the unicorn is non-material? A possibility you have not conceded previously, even having claimed there to be physical evidence. Obviously, since its medieval invention, the unicorn has existed as a meme.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Sept 21, 2011 13:22:10 GMT 9.5
... Obviously, since its medieval invention, the unicorn has existed as a meme. Do you discount the Jewish, early Christian and Chinese references to the unicorn. e.g. "For instance, in Contra Judaeos, Tertullian provides a commentary on the unicorn and suggests that the animal's horn is a constant reminder of the atonement, as it represents the upright beam of the Holy Cross pointing towards heaven (Shepard 282). Saint Ambrose writes that the unicorn is "the only-begotten Son of God." In a similar pattern, Saint Basil suggests that "The unconquerable nature of God is likened to that of a unicorn" (Shepard 81)." "One of the most enduring unicorn legends comes from China. The zhi, or xie zhi, was a one-horned mythical beast that could separate the innocent from the guilty. One story tells of a xie zhi who lived in the courts during the early Han dynasty (~200 B.C.) and assisted officials in their trials. It was said that the zhi would spare the innocent, but would gore the guilty through the heart." Note that the concept of purity (innocence) is associated with unicorn in the West and the East. Ambrose's position is most interesting as if the unicorn was theologically so important that it had to be superimposed on the Christ to avoid having 2 saviours.
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Sept 21, 2011 14:19:18 GMT 9.5
So you DO still maintain the material or physical reality of unicorns!?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Sept 21, 2011 14:50:13 GMT 9.5
I distinguish reality from materiality.
The unicorn is as real as the human soul but more profound by far (depending upon the type of unicorn) hence the great esteem by some early Christian fathers
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Sept 21, 2011 15:08:50 GMT 9.5
Direct question: Do you believe in the physical existence of unicorns?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Sept 21, 2011 15:18:24 GMT 9.5
Not the physical of course - but on the inner planes.
You may have observed that humans have energy bodies and if properly refined and trained those bodies are able to operate all the (12?) senses upon each plane and hence interact with the flora and fauna of those planes.
As below so above
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2011 17:41:59 GMT 9.5
Are you saying unicorns do not physically exist but the concept of a unicorn is well known, you think you know what others mean when they speak of unicorns and you can imagine them (as can a child, who can, as Phillip says, discriminate between the real and the unreal and know when they are fantasizing)? I can imagine a million dollars in my bank account, but it is not there. Reality is like that.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Sept 21, 2011 18:54:00 GMT 9.5
Are you saying unicorns do not physically exist but the concept of a unicorn is well known, ... More specifically, the reason that peoples throughout the milliennia have spoken of unicorns is because they have perceived them. And apparently the authority of the unicorns was an issue for the early Christian church hence "Saint Ambrose writes that the unicorn is "the only-begotten Son of God." " This is rather like the concept of the Shekinah in Judaism and the Holy Spirit/Ghost in Christianity. Most orthodox believers do not claim either as physical but certainly regard them as real in the spiritual realms.
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Sept 21, 2011 20:56:47 GMT 9.5
More specifically, the reason that peoples throughout the milliennia have spoken of unicorns is because they have perceived them. I recall how your observation that unicorns are mentioned in the Bible turned out to be due to a mistranslation. Ambrose was one of the Latin fathers of the church, there does not appear to be a Latin word for unicorn, we may reasonably expect this too to be a mistranslation, post Aquinas. In any case, just because millions of people believe in a meme does not make it more than a meme and even if a meme had persisted for millenia would not make it more than a meme. You can imagine a unicorn, big deal, who can't? At least you have made some progress by no longer claiming there to be physical evidence of unicorns!?
|
|