First Cause then First Principle

Part of an on-going long-term work-in-progress.

(Possible necessity to differentiate Causes space and the Principles space and their relationship)

Stated more generally; if A solely-and-causally brings about B, then all true propositions about B that does not relate with C, where C is something not solely-and-causally brought about by A [therefore this excludes only C and includes B’s propositions relating with itself, i.e. properties, AND B’s propositions relating with D, where D is something that is not B AND solely-and-causally brought about by A], are products of at most all true propositions about A.

Stated in a stricter sense if the solely-and-causally is also solely-and-causally-and-deterministically [or necessarily], this production of B’s propositions [except B-C proposition] from A’s propositions can be expressed as a derivation. Therefore, it is legitimate to say that B’s propositions [except B-C] are derived from A’s proposition.

Else, if the solely-and-causally is solely-causally-and-not-deterministically [this includes solely-causally-and-freely AND also solely-causally-and-randomly], this production of B’s propositions is still produced by A’s, but cannot be expressed as a derivation from A’s proposition. Then it is legitimate to call B’s propositions [except B-C] as expression of A’s propositions.

In the solely-causally-deterministically, we can easily call propositions of A as the principles (first-er principles) of propositions of B [except B-C]. Similarly, although more contestably, in the solely-causally-deterministically, we can also call propositions of A as the principles (first-er principles) of propositions of B [except B-C]. Here we expand the word Principles to include the two.

Therefore, if God is the First Cause of all that there is [First cause meaning God is solely-and-causally brings about X, where X is all that there is apart from God], then God must be the First Principle of all that there is [i.e. all propositions about all that there is, of course including propositions about God, can be derived from and/or be an expression of the propositions about God]. All Theists, Deists, and Pantheists would agree that God is the First Cause. Since if God is the first cause of all that there is, it would be impossible for Cs to exist, and all that there is are either Bs or Ds. Here we denote C as Nothing. Therefore, all non-God propositions are either Bs propositions or Ds propositions, and all are produced by God’s propositions. God is the First cause then God must be the First principle.

Stated in Systematic terms, A theistic, a deistic, or a pantheistic system must include or only-include God as the First Principle or Axiom of that system. Also as also proven above (earlier part of the whole, not in the post), the proofs of God in those systems are necessarily circular.

Is Loving Yourself Worth It?

I was just watching a movie, feeling bored, when a friend of mine suddenly messaged me and asked quite a weighty question: Do you consider yourself as someone who loves herself? I felt that it was quite apt to post my thoughts and the answer I gave him here because this blog is for and about the questions that we ask and the journey of finding out the answer.

Let me start with the superficial first. When one says that she loves herself, most of the time it meant that they accept their outward appearance, their hair, face, body, legs or whatever can be judged by the measure of outer beauty. For years I have been struggling with this superficial loving yourself thing. I hated how my legs look. I hated my frizzy hair. I hated any flaw I could find on me. Why? Cause I'm scared that those are the only things people focus on when they talk to me and I'm scared of what they think of me after. Only when I grew older that I realised that people are actually self-centred beings. They focus on themselves, while other people, in reality, don't care. Since people don't really care, then why should I be afraid? Why should I hate my hair, legs, or whatever...? I see that my reasons to hate myself is invalid. And I started looking myself in the mirror and I see a gift. As for why I will explain it later.

Other than just outer appearance, it is also important for you to love what is inside you. What I mean by it is to learn to be more forgiving towards yourself. People make mistakes, often. And it is crucial for you to forgive yourself when something didn't go your way. However, this does not negate the fact that when you did something wrong, you just let yourself do it. This is not what loving yourself is. When you love yourself, you ought to want yourself to be really pretty in conduct, not just visually. Pretty in conduct means that you want to do good, like the way God wants you to act. If I find that I lack in those things, I will try to better myself. To make myself more of the image of God as I once was created as. To be what I was once was. The idea of loving yourself is still accepting yourself as you, and still wants to improve yourself every single time.

When I said what is basically a summary of these two paragraphs to my friend, he said that this kind of thinking is quite different than those posted on the internet. I asked him, how, and he said most of the time they just say: you should accept yourself. That's it. I then think about why I was able to see it that way. Why do I need to better myself? Why isn't accepting myself enough?

This is where the idea of me--my body and my life, being a 'gift' comes. Imagine you were given a present for your birthday. And it is something that you have been wishing for God-knows how long. I'm pretty sure that you will cherish it as much as you can. You will dust it off daily to make sure it doesn't get dirty. You will try as hard as you can to make it like how it once was when it was given to you. I, too, am a gift. As a Catholic, I know by heart that I was created by God in His image. I ought to love myself; to love the life that has been given to me by God. I'll say it again: My life is a gift from God to me; this life, this body, is a present. And for God to love me, when I am so flawed and imperfect, is amazing and awesome. And just like your present, I need to keep it clean and as new as possible by improving myself because throughout my life I have made it dirty by sinning. I was given it in its most immaculate and perfect state and I ought to cherish it and keep it that way. It is not right to soil something so precious, don't you think?

Then why is it so hard for other people to see this when it felt so common sense to me? I may sound a bit radical and you may judge me all you want, but they don't see any value in valuing themselves because they never see value in the life they own in the first place. Because for them, everything happens not because of a Higher Being wants them to live, but because of chance. Big Bang happened and we happened to live on Earth that coincidentally allows us to live on it. Then, how much value can you put in chance? How much can you put value in your life if it all exists because of chance? Loving ourselves is worth it because we are worth so much more and because God gives us our worth that is beyond us. Imperfect as we are, He still calls us His children. Flawed as we are, He still love us without needing a reason other than the fact that we just are. For He is so loving that He let us live, breathe into us new life each day. How can you not love the most amazing thing you have? How can it not be worth it?

Thinking Purely

To think purely is to disregard emotions, biases, our will, etc. However, what is good about disregarding our natural abilities in trying to achieve the truth? Maybe there is something good about it, maybe not.

Regardless, to think purely is a good exercise. If we see our rationality as a faculty that we can improve upon usage, it would be good to improve this faculty. Just like our physical muscles, we improve this quality by using them; using them in a particular way, in a pure way. An analogy is fitting here. Consider how we train our swimming, first we only use our leg to propel ourselves through the water to build up our leg techniques. Then we only use our hands when we train our hand techniques. Only then when we have mastered both can we swim skillfully. This is an example of a 'pure' training. Such training allows us to focus on a particular aspect of the thing that we want to learn. The same goes for thinking, when we detach our emotions from our thinking, we are essentially just training our thinking muscles without interruption from our emotions, such that our thinking techniques may be perfected before we synthesize it with everything else.

Perhaps a pure exercise of emotions may also be conducted. Such exercises are surely more complex and abstract, but I could think of an example. Try being moved by an art form without any thought.

Thus, here I am not proclaiming the supremeness of thought but I am merely advocating pure exercises for thinking and for emotions.

Beauty?

One can appreciate beauty without dissecting a work. But it is by dissecting, the details of an object of appreciation is made known to Man. If appreciating beauty involves appreciating each intricate details, then inevitably, beauty can only be appreciated in its entirety by dissection. But can Man really appreciate beauty in its entirety after it is dissected? After all, when Man at last desires to capture beauty in its wholeness, Man needs to take a step back from his dissection and assemble it all back together. Yet beauty cannot be captured still, since human restoration ironically can never restore an initial state, let alone the initial beauty. In the mind of Man, the work is no longer a whole but a mutilated corpse. How can we see the corpse as a man with individuality, conscious life and freedom?

The highest appreciation of beauty is without dissection. Without dissection and yet every intricate details must perceived all at once in an instance together with the whole. Only a true artist can perceive beauty with such perspective, not the art theorist.

Mathematics?

Let us consider the view that mathematics is discovered. This does not necessarily mean that mathematics is the language of nature (or reality) or that abstract (mathematical) objects exist, but it can also mean that mathematics is discovered not from reality but from our psychology.

Consider two possibilities. First Platonism in one of its forms may be true and mathematics is just discovered truths about some of these abstract objects. This cannot be proven or disproven I suppose.

The other alternative is that mathematics is a discovery of our psychology, of our rational nature. This can be illustrated by a particular example. Suppose mathematics started with counting, cavemen had a bunch of apples and they started to invent words to count, one, two, three and so on and hence there was numbers and summation, and maybe most mathematics proceeded from this. If this is the case it may seem like mathematics is an invention of these cavemen, but It would still not be an invention per se. Prior to the invention of words to describe quantities and a system of operations, there exist independent ideas in the cavemen's mind which is not derived from observation. Discreteness, hence an apple can be said to be one, categorization, hence we can add apples (things of the same category/kind), are just two examples of such ideas which exists in human's psychology (mind).

Could mathematics be the truths regarding the relationships of these ideas in human's psychology, and by discovering mathematics, we discover our psychology?