r/Metaphysics

1. Physicalism claims that all reality is physical
2. Cognitive states exist in reality
3. Cognitive states are physical
4. Physicalism claims that there is a mind-independent physical reality
5. Physicalism claims that physicalism can be known to be true
6. Knowledge claims are cognitive states, and therefore physical
7. Therefore, to know that physicalism is true, a cognitive state must accurately map onto the mind-independent reality it is about
8. Therefore, physicalism requires that at least some mind-dependent cognitive states accurately correspond to mind-independent physical reality
9. That mind-dependent cognitive states accurately correspond with mind-independent reality is not automatically justified
10. Any justification used to establish this correspondence is itself another cognitive state
11. Therefore, the justification is itself another physical cognitive state
12. Therefore, physicalism must rely on a physical cognitive state to justify the claim that physical cognitive states reliably track mind-independent physical reality
13. This is circular, as it presupposes the point in question
14. Therefore, physicalism cannot non-circularly justify the claim that cognitive states accurately represent mind-independent physical reality
15. Hence, physicalism cannot justify access to reality beyond mind-dependent states
16. Hence, physicalism cannot justify the claim that all reality is physical
17. But physicalism claims that physicalism can be known to be true
18. Therefore, physicalism contradicts its own claim to knowledge
19. Therefore, physicalism is false

——

By 15, physicalism leads to epistemic solipsism

By physicalism, I mean ontological physicalism. Agnosticism to what mind-independent reality is like is not compatible with physicalism.

This argument is agnostic to what epistemological framework you use. Corresponding to an external physical state is NOT the correspondence theory of truth. It means regardless of what you call it, the cognitive state behind the knowledge claim and what the knowledge claim is about are both physical states. Hence, physicalism has to justify why the former accurately maps onto the latter. They can’t do this without circularity.

The only way to avoid this is by asserting as a brute fact that some cognitive states accurately map onto physical reality. Not only is this circular (presupposes physicalism is true), it leads to panpsychism when taken to its logical conclusion.

Edit: Title better fit as Argument: what you don’t know proves Ontology

Many have been trying to define ontology by going smaller and smaller (QFT, string theory, information theory) to the point where many point out, we aren’t even talking about something physically “real” anymore. Take our current understanding of physics: electrons have mass only in relation to the Higgs field, making them inseparable from it on an ontological standpoint; there is no ontological pure electron floating out there. Same thing with the relationship between space and matter. They’re just details of a bigger whole. So what is the fundamental reality that we know isn’t just a detail of a bigger whole?

-

I’ve been thinking recently about just how important not thinking is to epistemology. And perhaps what we don’t think about— or don’t know— is the best proof we have for ontology. Maybe instead of discovering new details we can prove ontology in a different way:

• If you were to spit out a piece of gum and stick it on the bottom of my shoe— until I notice it— that gum had simply ontological backing from my perspective. I am unaware of it until the time comes where I inevitably notice it and scrape it off of my shoe, moving ontology from the “star” of the show, to the backbone of my epistemology. The fact that the gum traveled with me without my knowledge is the proof of ontology.

Edit: Notice how I am saying just “ontology” and I originally said “ontology of the gum” before which was incredibly misleading. Ontology wouldn’t draw boarders between the gum and my shoe at all, however there is still a unique expression happening to prove ontology here.

In other words, knowledge is proof that something was expressing on its own, or on its “unknown” before we knew it.

Edit: This post comes from a materialist monist perspective.

If consciousness were shown to be ontologically fundamental rather than emergent, how would that change the central questions of the philosophy of mind?
I’m interested in the metaphysical implications rather than the empirical evidence. Would treating consciousness as fundamental significantly alter debates about personal identity, causation, intentionality, and mental causation, or would the same philosophical problems simply reappear in a different form? I’m curious how this would reshape the broader landscape of metaphysics.

From an aristotelian and neoplatonic perspective, I genuinely don't understand this at all!

The most basic formation as I see it is;

A exists due to B existing

If B dies, so does A.

But what is this link? This transmission? The reasoning as to why A must die if B does too?

It feels completely arbitrary as to why A must depend on B.

Human-created mathematical tools and physical formulas are products of human thought. They function as instruments for describing certain classes of phenomena. Although they can achieve increasingly accurate approximations, they can never be identical with reality itself.

In mechanics, for example, the concept of “force” originally arises from human sensory experience. The first step is to quantify this feeling and correlate it with measurable quantities (such as volume, resistance, or displacement). In this way, force is spatialized and connected with numbers, making it calculable. We can see that every step of this process involves human practical activity.

Similarly, time is associated with phenomena such as planetary rotation, revolution, or even frequencies of light. In doing so, the internal subjective sense of time is transformed into an externally measurable and spatially representable structure, allowing time itself to be expressed and computed in graphical or mathematical form.

From this perspective, so-called “objective laws” are, from beginning to end, laws of human practical activity. Only because certain regularities are extremely stable do we come to regard them as a purely “objective” reality independent of human beings.

At the same time, I have always believed that any claim we make must be grounded in the fact that we are human. Anything beyond human existence is, for me, ultimately unknowable, and therefore indistinguishable from nothingness.

On the one hand, I tend to think that the so-called “objective laws” independent of human consciousness are something quite abstract and almost metaphysical, somewhat similar to Kant’s notion of the “thing-in-itself”: if something is fundamentally unknowable, then it is effectively equivalent to nothing.

On the other hand, any “objective law” that can be clearly articulated and understood is already a manifestation of human consciousness; it cannot exist independently of human cognition.

Although I have not deeply studied Hegel’s philosophy, I am inclined to understand “objective laws” as a dynamic process arising from the interaction between human consciousness and material reality in practice. In this process, consciousness first becomes aware of its own limitations and continuously sublates (aufhebt) them. It is therefore an ongoing, dynamic process of development.

I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this.

The Continuity Principle: A Theoretical Framework for the Illusion of Death
Thesis
This thesis proposes that death is not the absolute termination of the self but rather a transition in the continuous process of biological and informational existence. The central premise is that absolute nothingness cannot exist; therefore, the complete disappearance of conscious existence is logically impossible. If the universe never reaches a state of absolute nonexistence, then consciousness must remain part of an unbroken chain of physical and informational continuity.
Rather than treating the self as an isolated entity, this framework defines personal identity as an emergent process generated by the human brain and preserved through the ongoing continuity of life. Because genetic information, biological organization, and causal processes continue through successive generations, the conditions that produced consciousness never completely vanish. Individual awareness may cease in one biological organism, yet the larger process from which awareness emerges continues.
This perspective challenges the conventional assumption that death represents an absolute endpoint. Instead, it argues that death is an apparent boundary created by the limits of individual perception. From the viewpoint of the universe, life exists as a continuous chain of matter, energy, information, and biological inheritance rather than as disconnected individual events.
The theory therefore advances the Continuity Principle:
If absolute nothingness is impossible, then complete existential discontinuity is also impossible; therefore, consciousness exists within an unbroken continuum of physical reality, making death an emergent illusion rather than an absolute end.
This thesis does not claim to have experimentally proven survival after death. Instead, it presents a logically structured hypothesis intended to connect philosophy, mathematics, neuroscience, information theory, and evolutionary biology into a unified framework for investigating the nature of consciousness and personal identity.

Whenever you argue that the universe is strictly deterministic, someone will inevitably bring up qm. The classic objection goes like this: "The universe can't be deterministic because at the quantum level, it's completely random. Look at empty space;;'virtual particles' randomly pop in and out of existence from absolute nothingness all the time!"

It sounds like a great argument, but it relies on a extreme cognitive error: the human assumption of "Nothingness."

We intuitively think of "empty space" or "a vacuum" as a physical, dark, empty room waiting to be filled with stuff. But "nothingness" is strictly a biological illusion. Our brains evolved to detect differences in energy (like a hot fire against cold air or a solid rock against gas). If an area of space lacks these sharp energy spikes, our sensory organs don't register any actionable data. Our brain formats this lack of incoming data as "empty space" We assume then that because we don't detect anything, the energy value of that space must be exactly zero.

But modern qft proves this biological assumption is completely wrong.

The universe is completely saturated by continuous quantum fields. What we call a "vacuum" is simply the ground state (or baseline standby mode) of these fields. Not an empty void. And here is something even more interesting: the mathematical laws of the universe strictly prohibit this baseline state from ever equaling exactly zero.

According to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, a continuous field cannot simultaneously possess a fixed energy value of exactly zero and a fixed rate of change of exactly zero. To maintain mathematical compliance and prevent a state of absolute zero, the baseline energy of the field is structurally forced to continuously fluctuate.

This is where "virtual particles" come from;; which some presupposes are magical objects randomly popping out of a void for no reason. But the reality is that they're spontaneous, mathematically mandatory fluctuations of the field's baseline energy. The field borrows a tiny fraction of energy, spikes into a "virtual particle" and is mathematically forced to instantly annihilate and return the energy to balance the ledger.

You can thinks of it like an automated bank account that is strictly programmed to ensure its average balance stays at zero at the end of the day. To keep the software running, the system might momentarily fluctuate (flashing +1 and -1) before instantly reconciling back to 0. It looks chaotic, but it's not;;it only following a strict, unbreakable mathematical accounting rule.

Therefore virtual particles do not violate determinism and they definitely do not prove that the universe is fundamentally random. They prove the exact opposite. They prove that the continuous fields of reality are so perfectly, mathematically structured that they will continuously vibrate just to prevent a mathematical paradox.

The universe doesn't roll dice in the dark

We often treat “existence” as if it were a primitive fact—either something is real or it is not. But in Ontology, this assumption becomes questionable once we try to specify what kind of fact existence actually is.
When we say that something exists, are we identifying a property that objects possess independently of cognition, or are we applying a conceptual filter that stabilizes certain patterns of experience into “things”? If existence is a property, it seems unlike other properties: it does not describe how something is, but whether it is at all. Yet if existence is not a property, then what exactly are we attributing when we affirm it?
This raises a deeper tension. It may be that “existence” is not a feature of entities, but a feature of our ontological framework itself—a way of organizing reality into candidates for reference. In that case, being would not precede our categorizations; rather, our categorizations would partially constitute what we mean by being.
So the question becomes: is ontology discovering the structure of reality as it is in itself, or is it mapping the conditions under which anything can count as “real” in the first place?

When you flip a coin, you instinctively think there are two physical possibilities: it could land on heads or it could land on tails. We navigate our entire lives this way, treating the future as an open menu of unactualised potentials. Because our brains constantly calculate these "what ifs" to make daily decisions, we naturally project this habit onto reality itself. We assume that "possibility" is an objective, structural feature of the cosmos;that the universe is actually hovering in a state of indecision.

But let’s look closely at that coin flip. The universe isn't actually waiting to decide what happens. The exact kinetic force of your thumb, the air resistance, the gravity and the coin's mass mathematically guarantee exactly one outcome from the split-second it leaves your hand. The "50/50 possibility" doesn't exist in the physical air; but exists strictly in your head. Why? Because as localised biological organisms, we possess severe limitation in processing power. You physically don't have the data or the computing speed to calculate all those complex variables in real-time.

Because we operate under a severe data deficit, our brains have to compensate so we can function. We run internal predictive simulations. We imagine multiple different outcomes, weigh them against each other and label them as "alternatives." But an alternative is purely a psychological placeholder used to manage missing data. Taking this internal survival tool and projecting it onto the external universe is a formal category error (what philosophers call the Reification Fallacy). The universe isn't pausing to offer us a menu of divergent paths nor is it branching into parallel worlds. We just don't know which single path it's already on.

At its foundation, reality is a completely determined, structurally complete system. Because the fundamental architecture of the universe is already fixed and mathematically complete, it mechanically lacks the capacity to harbour unactualised potentials. A physical state in the universe does not possess a status of "could be"; it strictly and exclusively "is" Therefore modality (or the philosophical idea of things being contingent or merely possible) is entirely an epistemic illusion.

"Possibility" is nothing more than the human brain's biological label for its own structural ignorance.

I believe that the Dao can be seen as the cause of all things and their laws, rather than a physical entity. Yin and Yang are merely the way the Dao operates, or rather, the Dao is reason itself.

I’ve been thinking about whether ontology should begin with individual entities or with the relations that make entities intelligible in the first place.
If every object is defined by its relations—to space, time, causality, observers, or other entities—can we meaningfully speak of an entity existing independently of those relations? Or is being itself fundamentally relational rather than intrinsic?
How would different ontological frameworks (e.g., substance ontology, process ontology, structural realism, or idealism) answer this question, and what implications would that have for our understanding of reality?

A recent post claimed that there is no "real possibility" in the world because fundamentally physics is deterministic (and the world is fundamentally non-contingent). The example was throwing a coin because fundamentally physics tells us that the event is completly deterministic. (Of course additionally determinism is independent of modality. Physical determinism says nothing about what is possible or necessary because those quantify over possible worlds and not about our factual physical world. Are the laws of physics necessary or contingent; are the initial conditions necessary or contingent? But thats not my main concern) A lot of commentors responded by an appeal to quantum mechanics and its supposed indeterminancy. I think this is seriously misguided. By doing this, they admit ontology as the study of the fundamental, turning this discussion into a discussion about fundamental physics (of course physicalism, especially the fundamental kind, is highly speculative in of itself but thats not the point here - Ill allow it to make my point) which is wrong to begin with as there are different levels of reality.

Possibility (and randomness to pick up a related notion) is real whether or not fundamental physics is deterministic. Even physics is pluralistic. Take for example the conflicting theories of the atom: only all of them together give us the best picture of the "atom entity". But fundamentally they are not compatible. An appeal to a "true explanation of the atom" does not help as the practice of pluralism in physics is a fact and needs to be explained realistically right now. The most straightforward way to do this, is by admitting different levels of reality. Take special sciences like biology. Clearly they do not operate on a fundamental level but they do describe law-like macroscopic patterns in the world. One should not confuse "real-ness" with fundamentality. Just because one can reduce these things to the physical level (which is of course highly debatable in of itself) does not make them ficitious - not even epistemic.

This idea has been formalized by Dennetts "real patterns". Dennett uses the game of life as a pretty convincing example. I think mathematics is another good one. Modern mathematics has a logical fundament, yet its ontological objects are not purely logical. Randomness can also be understood as a real patter even if one concedes that it is not compatible with determinism on a fundamental level.

Another way of viewing this is that language games contain what is possible knowledge. This means that the randomness of a coin toss is not an epistemic issue natural laws are simply not admissible in this scenario. If you count cards in a casino you will be thrown out: a laplacian demon would not even be allowed to enter. A way to formalize this is by Richard von Mises definition of probability. With that different stances can be viewed as different admissible informations.

In short: Ontology is not only about existence (that would be trivial) but also not only about what is fundamental (that would ignore the fact that there are plenty of non-fundamental entities that fullfil the role of "ontological entities" in their fields.) Additionally, these higher order ontologies are objective and not subjective. The more difficult thing is deciding what should count as "real practices" that is practices that admit ontological objects.

I’m 16, and I want to explain exactly how I see reality. Most people look at the world as a collection of random, separate objects. They see a tree, a rock, a human, or a planet as independent things. But when I look at the world, I see that **individual objects do not actually exist. Everything is either a system itself, or a needed component within a larger one.**
Here is the exact breakdown of my reality and how the entire cosmos links together:

**1. The Definition of Existence is Interaction**
To understand why everything is a system, you have to realize that to exist means to interact. If an object had no gravity, no temperature, no location, and never touched or affected anything else, it would literally cease to exist. Because forces like gravity cannot be turned off, total isolation is physically impossible. The moment something is real, it is locked into the web of cause and effect. It is a mandatory gear in the machine.

**2. The Illusion of Separation (The Nested Fractal)**
Human beings like to draw imaginary lines around things to make sense of them. We point at a human body and say, "That is an independent person." But that body is actually a massive system of organs, made of a system of cells, made of a system of atoms.
At the exact same time, that human cannot survive for a single second without interacting with the atmosphere, the soil, the sun, and the water. The human body is just a visible knot inside a larger planetary system, which is inside a solar system, inside a galaxy, inside our universe, inside an infinite multiverse. Reality is an endless Russian Doll—a self-repeating fractal shape where every single system is nested inside a bigger one forever.

**3. There is No "Useless" Matter**
People might look at a random piece of space dust or a piece of plastic trash on a beach and think it defies the system because it has no "purpose." But intent doesn't matter to the operating system. That space dust still exerts gravitational pull and obeys orbital mechanics. That plastic trash enters the marine ecosystem and alters the food chain. Even the things we think are "waste" are actively processing data and interacting with the environment around them. Nothing is left idle.

**4. Why This Rules Out Deletion and Chaos**
Because everything is a tightly bound program running on geometry, the system can never truly break or run out of energy:
**No Delete Button:** If you burn a log, the log disappears, but its atoms just change shape into ash, smoke, and heat. The system keeps a perfect record of everything.
**Black Holes as System Cleaners:** When stars die or space code becomes corrupted, the universe doesn't delete it. It uses black holes to quarantine the glitch, crush the matter, and reformat it into clean, blank space so it can write a brand-new star system on top of it.
**Chaos is Factored In:** Even absolute rebellion or chaos (like the biblical concept of Satan trying to defy God's system) is just a force within the master code. You cannot use your existence to fight the system without relying on the very existence the system gave you. The rebellion itself is a gear that keeps the wheel turning.

**5. The Ultimate Conscious Machine**
If everything is a perfectly interconnected system of code, then the network itself is awake. Consciousness isn't a magic trick in our brains; it is a property of the operating system.
Your body is a system made to be controlled, and your invisible mind controls it.
The universe is a system made to be controlled, God) animates and runs it.
We are miniature, finite copies of an infinite cosmic program. We don't look *at* the universe; we are localized pieces of code experiencing the inside of a giant, conscious shape.
If this is all true, and the infinite system doesn't have a delete button, what does that mean for death? If nothing can ever be erased from the operating system, does our consciousness just transfer to a different server when the hardware breaks?

Há alguns anos venho desenvolvendo um conceito ao qual dei o nome de Subplupação.

Mantive essa palavra em português, pois acredito que sua forma original preserva melhor a ideia que procuro expressar.

Ela deriva de três raízes:

Sub: inspirado em submerso e sobre, indicando a relação entre aquilo que permanece abaixo e aquilo que emerge acima.

Plu: derivado de plural, representando a multiplicidade de elementos em relação.

Par: relacionado à unidade, indicando o nascimento de uma nova estrutura.

Subplupar é o verbo que descreve o ato de uma nova estrutura nascer de uma relação.

Subplupação é o processo contínuo desse nascimento.

Ao longo dos anos, comecei a perceber um padrão que parecia repetir-se em diferentes níveis da realidade.

Duas notas em harmonia fazem nascer uma melodia.

As três cores primárias tornam possível o nascimento de todas as outras cores.

Letras formam palavras.

Palavras formam ideias.

Ideias formam civilizações.

Um homem e uma mulher fazem nascer uma família.

O ponto comum entre todos esses exemplos é simples.

Dois elementos, por si sós, apenas se contrastam.

É o terceiro elemento que define a relação entre eles.

Sem essa relação, existem apenas partes.

Com ela, nasce um conjunto.

Foi dessa observação que surgiu uma frase que passou a acompanhar todo o meu trabalho:

A eternidade começa quando dois caminham juntos.

Porque, quando dois caminham juntos, eles deixam de ser apenas dois.

Entre eles nasce uma relação.

E essa relação torna-se uma nova unidade.

Foi então que outra imagem começou a surgir.

3 são 1.

Não porque três deixem de existir.

Nem porque um se transforme em três.

Mas porque três elementos podem constituir uma única realidade.

Da mesma forma,

1 torna-se 2.

Porque toda unidade, ao existir, inevitavelmente entra em relação com outra.

E 2 tornam-se 3.

Porque toda relação faz nascer um terceiro elemento: a própria relação.

Então o ciclo continua.

3 são 1.

1 torna-se 2.

2 tornam-se 3.

E novamente...

3 são 1.

Não como repetição.

Mas como nascimento contínuo de novas estruturas.

Foi essa dinâmica que passei a chamar de Subplupação.

Não como uma teoria concluída.

Mas como uma linguagem em construção para descrever um princípio relacional que, talvez, esteja presente desde as menores estruturas até as maiores organizações da realidade.

3 = 1 → 1 = 2 → 2 = 3 → 3 = 1...

Autor: Tiago da Silva Santos (Nissiel, O Eu Lírico)

If modal possibilities are real in some sense, what determines which possibilities genuinely exist before any become actual? Is possibility a fundamental feature of reality, or does it depend entirely on the actual world? How should we understand modality without simply reducing it to human imagination or linguistic convention?

Recently, I had an extended debate with a "theoretical physics graduate" regarding Quantum Field Theory, the Measurement Problem, and the nature of reality.

The exchange was very revealing;;not because it showcased the sublime of modern physics but because it exposed the hidden unscientific religion operating at the heart of the physics department: Mathematical Platonism.

Modern physicists pride themselves on being hyper-rational materialists. Yet we find that when their probability equations fail to cleanly resolve. You would expect that they question their models or their epistemological limits. But no. Instead, they literally hallucinate infinite, invisible, parallel universes just to balance their math on paper.

This is the foundation of the "Many-Worlds Interpretation" (MWI). Let us explore the sheer absurdity of this position by highlighting a few direct quotes from my interlocutor, demonstrating exactly how a failure of basic epistemology leads to modern mysticism.

> Well unitary evolution of the wave function is just manyworlds lol... There exists a live cat and a dead cat (in the noumenon).

I mean look at this? My interlocutor took the most famous thought experiment in physics (Schrödinger’s Cat) and treated it as literal, fundamental reality. You can't make sure things up.

In the unobserved universe (the Noumenon), there are no "cats". There are no "boxes". And there are certainly no "laboratories." A "cat" is a highly compressed, macroscopic biological formatted output (Interface Theory of Perception). It is a desktop icon generated by the 20-watt biological brain to compress an unreadable density of quantum field interactions.

To claim that a "live cat and dead cat" physically exist in the foundational quantum matrix is as functionally nonsensical as to cracking open a computer tower and looking for a physical paper "folder." MWI takes a localised biological dashboard illusion and pastes it directly onto the fundamental architecture of the cosmos.

> 'Unitary' means no information is lost... It seems to me that you are now denying the existence of live cats? Is that it? ... So its not that you are denying manyworlds, you are denying any worlds?

"In quantum mechanics, "Unitary evolution" strictly means that total quantum data is conserved.

No information is fundamentally deleted.

But my interlocutor assumed that because the mathematical probability for the "dead cat" is conserved, the universe must physically construct a parallel 3D biological mammal to put that data inside.

But what actually happens to the unselected data? When a localised observer interacts with a quantum system, they lack the thermodynamic capacity to read the total global state. The unselected data simply scatters into the surrounding environment as inaccessible thermal noise (Environmental Decoherence).

The data is 100% conserved.

But the data remains exactly what it is: raw, unformatted mathematical structure. It doesn't magically build a parallel 3D biological universe of ghost cats.

> The wave function is mathematical structure. If I'm a realist about that structure (realist about the wave function) then I'm a structural realist... Tools to predict probabilities don't conserve anything... You conflate the noumenon with the wave function.

My interlocutor here commits the ultimate sin of modern pop science.

He quite literally could not separate the mathematical map from the physical territory it is mapping

He presupposed that Ontic Structural Realism (the reality that the universe is a relational matrix) was identical to the Wave Function Realism (the belief that the universe is literally made of human math equations).

That's sheer absurdity.

The universe being made of human invented maths

That is anthropomorphic projection.

The Wave Function is an epistemic map. It is a probability grid used by a localised, structurally ignorant biological processor to calculate potential data exchanges.

When your mathematical probability map outputs a superposition (multiple potential outcomes) and then you take that map so literally that you hallucinate an infinite number of physical, biological parallel universes branching off every millisecond just to satisfy the equation; you have left physical science.

You have become a theologian.

Multiplying a biological dashboard illusion by infinity to balance a spreadsheet is the absolute pinnacle of modern mysticism.

We do not need infinite parallel universes to explain quantum mechanics. We simply need the intellectual humility to admit that the human brain is a thermodynamically restricted localised processor and its mathematical maps are not the absolute substance of the cosmos itself.

(14M) So, I've been studying philosophy for about a year or two, and I've been really interested in philosophical disciplines - metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, etc. - and I see it as the reason why I would like to study philosophy (along with psychology). I started to personally study "objective reality" and I met both Aristotle (as the first Rational philosopher, as they say) and Immanuel Kant, or Ayn Rand (the popular power is not what I've heard). So I'm interested in: can I know objective reality through reason? Or would I have to experience something directly to know it? (if I'm not mistaken, this probably applies to Phenomenology) couldn't I rather experience something (through my subjective perceptions) and then understand, thanks to reason, from the given experience the principle that I should take from the experience?

I apologize if this belongs to another discipline, or if my question is not sufficiently expressed - and I apologize for the bad terminology (I'm working on it heh).

Buonasera a tutti,
da appassionato di filosofia antica avevo ragionato su questo collegamento partendo dall'idea di Aristotele su Dio, che arriva a diventare atto puro e dunque causa finale prima a cui tutto tende.
Gli stoici definiscono la Natura molto similmente come ciò a cui tutto tende e che rende così tutto nella sua migliore forma.
Che ne pensate? E' un paragone troppo azzardato o ci sono effettivamente delle somiglianze nei due ragionamenti?

Qua sopra un articolo scritto da me che prova ad argomentare le cose dette...