Notes on the Absurd Creation (The Myth of Sisyphus)

(Originally written October 13, 2008 in the Journal)

Notes on Albert Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus

Absurd Creation

To create is to live doubly. They know to begin with and work to enrich and enlarge through examination of what they know.

The absurd man concerns himself with experiencing and describing - not explaining and solving.

Does the Christian explain and solve? Does he do this as an apologist or as a believer? Or does the Christian resolve the conflict through faith (creating a paradox out of an inconsistency) and merely experience and describe?

The universe is attractive, not for its depth but for its diversity (quantity not quality). Explanation is futile, but sensation (experience) remains.

"The idea of an art detached from its creator is not only outmoded, it is false... the artist commits himself and becomes himself in his work" (Camus)

"The work of art is born of the intelligence's refusal to reason the concrete" (Camus)

Art is carnal.

Thought provokes art but the creation of art is the repudiation of the provoking thought.

Art cannot be the end, the meaning, or the consolation of life.

Art is bad when it tries to explain existence in total. Art is good when it is a slice of experience.

"If the world were clear, art would not exist" and "expression begins where thought ends".

To think is to create a world (or to limit one's world, which is the same thing)

Camus desires to liberate his universe of phantoms and focus on flesh-and-blood truths, of which he cannot deny (This sounds a bit Cartesian).

The heart of man is full of stubborn hope.

Kirilov

In Dostoevsky, existence is either illusionary or eternal.

Dostoevsky is convinced that life is an utter absurdity for anyone without faith in immortality.

The independence which Kirilov gains (Dostoevsky's The Possessed) is the independence of serving God, of being god himself - this is a painful independence for him.

Ivan Karamazov (The Brothers Karamazov), like the great assassain of God, Nietzsche end their lives in madness. Camus praises this: "But this is a risk worth running, and faced with such tragic ends, the essential impulse of the absurd mind is to ask - what does that prove?" (Camus).

All is well, everything is permitted, nothing is hateful, dreadful freedom - these are the mantras of the absurd mind.

Dostoevsky, like Kierkegaard, follows out the absurd logic only to metaphysically reverse at the end (there is a God, necessarily). Thus, hope in the eternal, an abandonment of the temporal.

Dostoevsky's works deal with the absurd problem, but are not absurd works. His works offer a reply (the leap); whereas, true absurd works offer descriptions, not replies.

"It is possible to be Christian and absurd. There are examples of Christians who do not believe in a future life" (Camus). [What? Who? This is a contradiction. The entire thrust of Christianity is the eternal life].

Ephemeral creation

The art and artist are inseparable. The entire body of work by the artist is his one creation. Each piece complements, chastises, or corrects one another. (Experience is emphasized in this, a lifetime of experience infused in a lifetime of work).

"From death, for instance, they (the art) derive their definitive significance. At the moment of death, the succession of his works is but a collection of failures. But if those failures all have the same resonance, the creator has managed to repeat the image of his own conditions to make the air echo with the sterile secret he possesses" (Camus).

Art finds its importance in the demands it makes on the creator and the opportunity it affords him of getting closer to his naked self.

Diversity is the home of art.

There is no barrier between being and appearing.

The illusion of another world binds man; hope binds man.

Class Notes on Spinoza and Leibniz

(Originally written February 27, 2006 in Book 22)

Class Notes: Spinoza

God

-has infinite attributes through which his essence can be conceived, but only two of them are knowable by man: mind and body
- mind and body are different but not of different substances
- god is substances. substance has infinite attributes, those attributes have infinite modes of being
-double aspect monism (one substance, two attributes)
-self=the two attributes of god (mind and body) united

Spinoza = 1 Substance (god)
Descartes = 2 Substances (mind and body)
Linehan - a set of (very high) of created substances. This tiny sub molecular substances form together to create a physical object or possibly could the elements be the smallest "substance" and that everything that is, is created by the combining of them. This set number of substances combined in various ways combine with other combinations that combine again, again and so forth to form complex objects like human beings.

Leibniz (1646-1716)

Leibniz accused Newton (and vice-versa) of stealing his invention of Calculus.

Leibniz was an overall genius.

Leibniz was a Christian (pious Lutheran)

Sought to unify the Christian Church and all of Europe to a single state.

Epistemology - distinguishes between two types of truth:
1) Truths of reason (a priori). True in all possible worlds.
2) Truths of fact (a posteriori). True in this world and other possible worlds, but not all.

Primary truths (first truths)
-They fall into both categories

Primary truths of fact

ex. "I exist", "something other than me exists"

True proposition: one whose predicate is contained in the subject, "a triangle is three-sided", "Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 BC"

Leibniz: 2 Sources of Knowledge

1) Senses
- Gives us fluctuating data
- Perceive regularities, not necessities

2) Innate ideas
- From the mind's reflecting on its own operations

Examples: unity, plurality
- Equality, differences, etc.
- "Natural inclinations"
- Contra Locke (mind is not tabula rasa)
- Mind is like "veined marble"

Beyond Good and Evil 11-19

(Originally written August 7, 2007 in Book 16)

Beyond Good & Evil
Friedrich Nietzsche

11

Kant asked, "How are synthetic judgments a priori possible" and he replied by "virtue of a faculty".

His answer is circular and equivalent to "How does opium induce sleep? By a faculty of sleepiness"/

The question we ought to ask is "why is belief in such judgments necessary?" (Nietzsche, 209).

These judgments can be false but belief in them as true is necessary as a perspective for life.

12

We must rid ourselves of atomism especially soul atomism and the belief in the indestructible, indivisible and eternal soul.

But we need not throw out the soul entirely. We can use a "moral soul" hypothesis.

13

All living things seek first and foremost to discharge its strength.

"Life itself is will to power" (Nietzsche, 211).

Self-preservation is only a frequent result of the will to power.

14

Physics is merely an interpretation and exegesis of the world to suit us, not a world-explanation.

15

Our sense organs cannot be phenomena in physiology otherwise we would be left with the absurd thought that:
1) the world is a product of our organs
2) our body is part of the world
3) our organs are a product of our body
4) our organs are products of our organs
5) Our organs are self-caused

(which is absurd)

16

We should free ourselves of the seduction of words and phrases like, "I think" (Descartes), "I will" (Schopenhauer), "immediate certainty", "absolute knowledge", and "the thing itself" because they involve a contradiction in adjecto (contradiction between the noun and the adjective).

17

We cannot say "I think" because a thought comes when it wishes not when I wish it.

We cannot say "it thinks" because this involves interpretation of the process, not the process itself.

18

Refutations of theories add charm to the theory and therefore, make it more appealing.

19

We speak of the will as if it is the most easily known thing to us, but willing is, above all else, something complicated.

The will is a complex of thinking and sensation. It is also an affect. It is the affect of command.

Philosophy of Soul

(Originally written May 8, 2007 in Book 25)

Soul

There are many theories about the soul that are dualistic, but there are a few that are not.

Thomas Hobbes believed that man was purely physical.

Bishop Berkeley believed that the physical nature was essentially soul.

Plato - essence of man is his soul, which is trapped in the body

Descartes
- Dualist, but not as strict as Plato
- Believed the soul and body interacted

Problems: implied that there is a specific center between physical and soul
How can extended and unextended substances interact?

Augustine
- Soul and physical men make up whole man
- somewhat Platonic
- Believed the soul was immortal
- Soul gives life to the body

Nemesius
- Platonic
- Soul not just a part of a composite man
- Soul is an intelligible substance, incorporeal substance

Problem: if man is a soul that uses the body, what is the body?

Bible rules out some theories:
1. Materialism (Hobbes)
2. Spiritualism (Berkeley) [Not Really]
3. Strict Dualism

Aristotle
- Everything has four causes:
1. Final
2. Material
3. Formal
4. Efficient

Man:
- Soul is the formal Cause
- Mom and Dad is the efficient cause
- Flesh & bones is the material cause
- Happiness is the final cause

Soul is the form of man. Soul is inextricable from the body.

Aristotle's theory allows for a separation of mind and body

Aristotle's theory allows for a separation of mind and body

Does not have the Cartesian problems.

Allows man to be physical and spiritual

His theory is Biblically justifiable

Thomas Aquinas

Soul is the form of man, but differed from Aristotle

God: Ideals -> Exemplar Cause:
- Efficient
- Formal
- Material
- Final

Soul distinguish us from animals.
Soul is not the motor of the body
Soul is indestructible (similar to Plato)

Antony Flew objected:

Why is the new Flew better than the original Flew (post-return of Christ/resurrection of the body)?

Thomas' questions

1. Is the soul a body?
2. Is the soul a man or is the man composite of body and soul?
3. Is the soul composed of matter and form?
4. Is the intellectual principle united to the body as a form?
5. Is the intellectual principle multiplied according to the bodies or a single collective mind?

The soul is moved accidentally, but the body is moved essentially.

The soul is the first principle of life.

The soul is not a body, but is the act of a body.

The intellect is the form of the body. It is separate, but it still exists in matter. The intellect can be united with the body but not an act of the body.

How can the soul influence the body?

Way of power relation:

How does the pot hold the clay together? Power relation. There is no mechanism that holds it together, but it does. So it is how the soul influences the body.

Man: Shape, vegetative soul, sensitive soul and rational soul are the form of man

The soul and body are aspects of the single substance that is man.

String Theory?

Philosophy of Religion - Hick: Ch. 9

(Originally written April 20, 2007 in Book 7)

Philosophy of Religion
John H. Hick

Chapter 9 - Human Destiny: Immortality and Resurrection

The Immortality of the Soul

Plato was the first to systematically develop the mind-body dichotomy and prove the immortality of the soul.

The soul (mind) as being conceived of as a simple substance is not an empirical fact, but a metaphysical theory. As such it cannot be used as proof for the immortality of the soul.

Cartesian mind-body theories have declined since WWIII due to attacks by the analytical school of philosophy.

The Re-Creation of the Psychophysical Person

Hebrew theology initially focused solely on the covenant between God and Israel and paid little attention to the individual.  As the breakdown of Israel as a political entity Hebrew theology focused on the individual soul and on the after life.

Judaeo-Christian belief in immortality differs from Platonic belief in that the Judaeo-Christian conception includes a re-creation of the body.

St. Paul's conception of the resurrection concerns God's re-creation of the human psychophysical individual.

The major problem with this is providing criteria of personal identity.

Hell is a major part of the problem of evil. If God is all-good and uses evil for good then what is the purpose of eternal suffering?

Quick note: Hell is not itself evil. The suffering that befalls the men and women in hell is not evil. The torment they suffer is punitive action for the life they chose. Punishment is not evil; it is justice. Justice cannot be evil. Also, hell has a purpose for good. When all is finished and Hell is stalled, then all evil will be trapped and separated from good. As such, evil cannot escape from hell to corrupt what is good. Because evil exists and evil nearly inevitably corrupts good, hell is necessary to protect good from evil.

Does Parapsychology Help?

Spiritualists claims that life after death is proved by well-documented cases of communication between the living and the dead.

This section: pg 127-131 is really strange and obnoxious.

The supposed recalling of spirits from the land of the dead to the land of the living is explainable by a telepathic function of the medium. Mediums posses an ability to derive knowledge telepathically from their clients about whom they are "reaching". Though the medium may even feel this is a genuine connection it is merely a telepathic marvel.

Resuscitation Cases

People that have been resuscitated after being declared dead provide another interesting phenomenal experience.

People experience numerous similar things in the time they are dead. Often they are reluctant to speak about such strange things, but their view of death normally changes after the experience.

All of parapsychology's assertions must be handled with caution. They are not (yet) weighted enough to prove the immortality of the soul.

Cosmological Arguments and Rebuttals

(Originally written March 13, 2007 in Book 13)

Al-Farabi's Necessary Existence Argument

Arabian and Jewish forms of the cosmological argument later influenced Christian arguments

The Islamic Philosopher Al-Farabi distinguished between existence and essence. He argued:

1) There exists beings whose essence is distinct from their existence. These are possible beings.
2) These beings have existence only accidentally. It is not part of their very essence to exist. It is logically possible that they might not have existed.
3) Anything that exists accidentally (not essentially) must have derived their existence from another.
4) There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of existence.
5) Therefore, there must be a first cause of existence whose essence and existence are identical. This being must be a necessary being because the First Cause cannot be a mere possible being since all possible beings do not explain their own existence.

Avicenna's First Cause Argument

1) There are possible beings
2) Whatever possible beings exist have a cause for their being
3) There cannot be an infinite series of being.
4) Therefore, there must be a first cause for all possible things.
5) This first Cause must be a necessary Being because that which is the cause of all possible beings cannot itself be a possible being.
6) Whatever is essentially One can create immediately only one effect (intelligence)
7) Thinking is creating and God necessarily thinks, since he is a necessary being
8) Therefore, there is an necessary emanation from God of ten intelligences (Angels) that control the various spheres of the universe and the last of which (called Agent Intellect) forms the four elements of the cosmos and by which the human mind (possible intellect) is informed of all truth.

Avicenna's God was a necessary being who created 10 gods who created everything else.

The Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) argued for a first mover, a first Cause and a Necessary Being.

He argued that "I AM" implied absolute existence which applied to God alone.

Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove God's Existence

Aquinas' arguments were not entirely new

1) Maimonides had arguments similar to the first three
2) Al-Farabi and Avicenna had the first two
3) Anselm had an argument similar to the 4th argument
4) Aquinas' 5th argument was similar to Thierry of Chartes and William of Conches' adaptation of Plato's Timaeus argument

Aquinas was much more Aristotelian in his thought than any of his Christian predecessors.

He argued from:
1) Motion
2) Efficient Causality
3) Possibility and necessity
4) Gradation (perfection)
5) to a First Cause

Duns Scotus: Argument from Producibility

John Duns Scotus modified Aquinas' argument in two ways:

1) He began with the producibility of being, not merely from produced beings
2) He amplified the argument against an invite regress of dependent causes

Duns Scotus' arg.

1) Some being is produced
a) This is learned via experience
b) This is true independent of experience
c) It would be true even if God had not willed to create anything
2) What is produced is producible either by itself, by nothing or by something else
3) No being can produce itself
4) Something cannot be caused by nothing
5) Therefore, being is producible only by some being that is productive
6) There cannot be an infinite regress of productive beings, each producing the being of the one following it because
a) this is an essentially related series of causes, not an accidentally related one
-where the primary cause is more nearly perfect than the secondary one
-where the secondary cause depends on the primary one for its very causality
-where the cause must be simultaneously present to the effect
b) An infinite series of essentially related causes is impossible because:
-if the whole series is dependent for its causalities then there must be something beyond the series that counts for the causality in the series
-If the infinite series were causing the effect, then there would have to be an infinite number of causes simultaneously causing a single effect, and this is impossible
-where ever there are prior causes there must be a prime cause
-higher causes are more nearly perfect than lower causes and this implies a perfect cause at the head of all other less-than-perfect causes
-an infinite regress of causes implies imperfection. But an imperfect series implies something perfect beyond the series as ground for the imperfect
7) Therefore, there must be a first productive cause of all producible beings
8) This first Cause of all producible beings must be one because:
-It is perfect in knowledge and there cannot be two beings that know everything perfectly
-It is perfect in will, hence it loves itself more completely than anything else
-It is infinitely good and there cannot be two as such because one would be more than infinitely good which is impossible
-It is infinite in power. If there were two that were infinite in power than there would be two primary causes of the same effect, and this is impossible
-Absolutely infinite cannot be excelled in perfection because there cannot be anything more perfect than that which is wholly perfect
-There cannot be two necessary beings because one would possess what the other lacked and if it lacked any perfection it would not be necessary
-Omnipotent will cannot be in two beings because then one could render the other impotent

Ockham's Reservations about the Cosmological Argument

William of Ockham (1290-1350) raised three objections to the cosmological argument:
1) He denied that an essentially related infinite series was impossible
2) He argued that efficient causes are only known via experience. (Causality is "that whose existence or presence is followed by something")
3) He denied that one could prove that there was only one God in the absolute sense of the word. Christian theists insist that the unity of God refers to the "most perfect" Being possible. But the proposition "God exists" is not self evident because a self-evident proposition cannot be doubted and "God exists" is doubted. Since God's unity rests on the proposition "God exists" and it is impossible to know via experience and it is not self-evident there is no way to demonstrate that God is absolutely one.

Descartes' A posteriori Proof for God

Descartes' Proof

1) I am doubting
2) If I am doubting, I am thinking
3) Doubt is an imperfect form of thinking
4) But if I know the imperfect, then I must be aware of the perfect
5) But my imperfect mind cannot be the cause of the idea of perfection that I have
6) Only a perfect Mind is an adequate cause for the idea of perfection
7) Therefore, a perfect mind must exist as the cause of this perfection.

Both Augustine and Descartes have a posteriori arguments for the existence of God which is platonic and has an affinity for the ontological argument.

Leibniz: The argument from Sufficient Reason

Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) provided the most influential form of the cosmological argument in modern times. He argued:

1. The entire world is changing
2. Whatever is changing lacks within itself the reason for its own existence.
3. There is a sufficient reason for its own existence.
4. Therefore, there must be a cause beyond this world for its existence.
5. This cause is either its own sufficient cause or beyond it.
6. There cannot be an infinite regress of sufficient reasons.
7. Therefore, there must be a first Cause that is its own sufficient reason.

Christian Wolff (1679-1754), Leibniz's disciple offered the proof that became the pattern of the cosmological argument for the modern world.

1. The human soul exists.
2. Nothing exists without a sufficient reason why it exists.
3. The reason for our existence must be contained in ourselves or beyond ourselves.
4. The reason for our existence is not in ourselves.
5. The reason for our existence thus lies beyond ourselves.
6. One does not arrive at sufficient reason for his existence until he reaches a being that has its reason for existence within itself.
7. A being that has its reason for existence within itself is a necessary being.
8. Therefore, there must be a necessary being beyond us that is the sufficient reason for our existence.
9. It is logically impossible for a necessary being not to exist.
10. Therefore, this necessary being is identical with the self-existent God of Scripture.

Leibniz's argument (and Wolff's) rests on the principle of sufficient reason which posits itself as a self-evidently true analytic principle.

The argument is a posteriori, but not existential. The necessity of its conclusion is based on a conceptually certainty, not an existential (actual) certainty.

Hume's Skeptical Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument

David Hume (1711-1776) laid down the most fundamental arguments against the cosmological argument:

1) Only a finite cause need be inferred from finite effects
2) No propositions about existence can be logically necessary
3) The words "necessary being" have no consistent meaning. It is possible to think of anything of not existing, even God; and, what might not exist does not need to exist.
4) If "necessary being" means only imperishable, then the universe may be the necessary being.
5) An infinite series is possible. An eternal series cannot have a cause because causes imply priority in time, but nothing can be prior in time to an eternal series. Thus, an eternal series is possible.
6) There is no way to establish the principle of causality
7) The universe as a whole does not need a cause, only the parts do.
8) Theistic argument convince only those who like abstract reasoning.

Kant's Agnosticism on Theistic Argumentation

1) The cosmological argument depends on the invalid ontological argument
2) Existential statements are not necessary
3) A noumenal (real) cause cannot be derived from a phenomenal effect
4) What is logically necessary is not ontologically necessary
5) The cosmological argument leads to metaphysical contradictions
6) The concept of a "necessary being" is not self-clarifying
7) An infinite regress is logically possible

Taylor's restatement of the cosmological argument:

1) The Universe as a whole does not explain its own existence
2) Whatever does not explain its own existence calls for an explanation beyond itself.
3) An infinite regress of reasons is impossible
4) Therefore, there must be a first self-sufficient (independent)_ cause of the whole universe

Taylor's conclusion is rationally inescapable, but it is Leibnizian in that it relies on the principle of sufficient reason. Thus, it is open to similar criticisms.

Hackett's Arguments Based on Explanation

Samuel C. Hackett offered two arguments in the Leibnizian tradition.

The first conceptual argument:

1) The world order is possible only on the basis of several necessary conditions:
- There need to be objective a priori principles of knowledge
- There need to objective essences that define the properties of things in the world
- There needs to be a reason why of all the possible worlds this is the one that exists
2) These realities show all of the properties that are associated with the structuring activity of a mind
3) Therefore, these realities can be understood as the workings of an absolute mind.
4) Therefore, there exists an absolute mind as necessary condition to the logical possibility of this world.

His second, causal argument:

1) If anything exists, an absolutely necessary and transcendent Being exists
2) Something exists
3) Therefore, an absolutely necessary and transcendent Being exists

Hackett's arguments suffer from an unwarranted assumption that a sufficient cause must be an ultimate cause. A finite cause may suffice.

Ross' argument based on Explanation

James F. Ross provided two versions of the argument based on explanation

First:

1) If something is not the case, there must be an explanation for it not being so.
2) Considering the state of affairs, "God does not exist" cannot be the case.
3) Therefore, since "God dos not exist" cannot be the case, "God exists" must be the case. Thus, God exists.

Craig's Kalam Argument

William Lane Craig has produced an argument based on the need to posit an original cause for the universe. He has three premises:

1) Whatever beings to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Premise 1 seems intuit, but is questionable and uneasy to prove via demonstration

Premise 2 is completely questionable.

The argument, if it stands, does not prove theism because it does not eliminate pantheism.

Teleological and moral arguments depend on the principle of sufficient reason and/or causality. Both of which are questionable.

The ontological argument depends on the cosmological argument because it is theoretically possible that nothing ever existed at all.

The cosmological argument (in Leibnizian form) is rationally inescapable only if the principle of sufficient reason is rationally inescapable. But the principle of sufficient reason is neither analytically or self-evidently true.

The cosmological arguments leaves the actual for the conceptual at call thing world contingent and stating a necessary Being is one whose non-existence is logically impossible. This opens it to Kant's criticism that it confuses the principle of existential causality with the principle of sufficient reason.

The Kalam argument does not prove a theistic God, but a God that could be pantheistic.

9: The Cosmological Argument Reevaluated

Most attempts to defend the cosmological argument in a non-Leibnizian way emanate from Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas did not base his argument on the principle of sufficient reason, but on existential causality.

The Leibnizian type argument is built on logical necessity, whereas the Thomistic argument is based on existential undeniability.

The Cosmological Argument Restated

1. Some limited, changing being(s) exist
2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being
4. Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings
5. The first cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, simple, unchanging and one
6. The first uncaused cause is identical with the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

It is logically possible that nothing ever existed. That is, it is possible to conceive of the nonexistence of everything.

Linehan: But logic is an affirmation of existence, so to conceive of the nonexistence of everything is a logical inference and thus, self-defeating?

Any being that undergoes a change is a contingent being. Necessary Beings are immutable.

Whatever changes in existence must be composed of actuality and potentiality.

The fact that there is change is proof that there is potential and actualization of potential.

No potential actualizes itself.

There must be some actuality outside of composed beings (beings possessing potential and actuality) to explain why they exist.

Actuality is a thing's existence and its potentiality is its essence.

An efficient cause is a necessary and sufficient condition to account for the actualization of a potential.

An infinite regress is a series without a first or beginning cause.

A self-caused thing is impossible because it would have had to exist before it existed in order to cause itself.

A way out of this dilemma is to argue that the infinite regress is circular or mutually dependent.
But this argument is obviously circular and thus, fallacious.

To deny causality within an infinite regress is simply an attempt to explain away the need for an explanation (a real need) on ground for the ungrounded finite being.

A being that needs ground for his own existence cannot be the ground of another being that needs to be grounded. One contingent being cannot ground another contingent being.

There must be a first Cause of the existence of every finite thing that exists.

The first Cause is the efficient Cause.

The Frist Cause is an uncaused cause. It can neither be self-caused (impossible) or caused by another (thus negating its status as the first cause).

The uncaused cause must be an unlimited being. If caused things are limited, uncaused things must be unlimited.

An unlimited Being must be a Necessary Being because it can not be limited by contingency.

God is not a logically necessary Being, He is an ontologically necessary being.

The uncaused Being must be an eternal Being. If nothing ever existed (a logical possibility) then nothing would ever exist because nothing can cause itself.

The uncaused Cause must be a simple, undivided Being. The uncaused Cause is pure actuality with no potentiality.

The uncaused Cause of existence must be immutable. What is changeable possess potentiality, thus pure actuality is unchangeable.

An uncaused Cause must be one Being. There cannot be two pure actualities. Pure actuality is indivisible.

The pure actuality possess all of the perfections of being infinite. Thus, the uncaused cause is the source of all perfections.

Ontological Arguments and Objections

(Originally written March 7, 2007 in Book 13)

Anselm's Debate with Gaunilo

Gaunilo objected to Anselm's argument on a few grounds:

1. It is built on the false premise that whatever exists in the mind must exist outside the mind.
2. If God's non-existence were really inconceivable then no one could doubt his existence.
3. We cannot even form the concept of the most perfect being possible.
4. The existence of God cannot be inferred from the idea of a perfect Being anymore than the existence of a perfect island can be inferred from the idea of a perfect island.
5. God's nonexistence is no more inconceivable than my own nonexistence. I can conceive of my own nonexistence so I can conceive of God's nonexistence too.
6. God's existence must be proved before we can discuss his essence. Otherwise there is no basis for saying he is the most perfect Being possible.

Anselm's replies:

1. The argument only applies to an absolute perfect Being.
2. God's nonexistence is affirmable, but not conceivable.
3. We do understand the word because of 6 facts:
- It is a common word
- It is a familiar word
- Our faith and conscience provide content for it
- Conceptions do not have to be in terms of sensible images
- God can be understood indirectly
- Those who deny that they can have a conception of God must have a conception of what they cannot conceive
4. The idea of an absolutely perfect Being cannot lack anything, especially being; whereas, the idea of anything else can lack being.
5. If it is possible for a necessary being a necessary being must exist. It's nonexistence is inconceivable.
6. We can compare ideal characteristics prior to ascertaining their reality.

Anselm charged Gaunilo with misunderstanding the argument as:

1. God is the greatest of all Beings
2. It is greater to exist in reality then merely in the understanding.
3. Therefore, God must exist in reality.

Anselm states this argument confuses the greatest actual Being with the greatest possible being.

Aquinas' objection to the ontological argument

Aquinas understood Anselm to mean:

1. God is by definition that then which nothing greater can be conceived
2. What exists actually and mentally is greater than that with exists only mentally.
3. Therefore, God must exist actually.

Aquinas had 3 objections to the argument:

1. Not everyone understands the term "God" to mean that then which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. Even if everyone did understand that the term God meant this, it does not follow that God exists actually.
3. The proposition "God exists" is self-evident, but not self-evident to us.

Descartes' formulation of the Ontological Argument

Descartes' argument (2nd form)

1. It is logically necessary to affirm of a concept whatever is essential to the nature of that concept.
2. Existence is a logically necessary part of the concept of a necessary Existent.
3. Therefore, it is logically necessary to affirm that a necessary Existent does exist.

"If God by definition cannot exist, then he must exist" (128).

Descartes' argument (1st form)

1. Whatever we clearly and distinctly perceive of something is true.
2. We clearly and distinctly perceive that the conception of an absolutely perfect Being necessitates the existence of that Being.
3. Therefore, it is true that an absolutely perfect Being cannot lack existence.

Descartes qualified his argument in three ways:
1. This argument applies only to an absolutely perfect or necessary being.
2. It is not necessary for anyone to think of God, but if and when he does he must conceive of God as necessarily existing.
3. To conceive of God as a necessary Being is not imaginary, but necessary. The concept of a necessary being must be what it is and cannot be any other way. Thus, the concept of a necessary Being cannot be the product of one's imagination.

The debate between Caters and Descartes

Caters the priest agreed with Thomas Aquinas in that he felt the Ontological Argument proved only a conceptual and not a real existence of God.

Caters contended that the words "existent lion" is conceptually necessary, but it does not prove that a lion exists.

Descartes stated that Aquinas refuted an argument that stated existence is concluded from the meaning of God, not his own argument.

Other reactions to Descartes' proofs

Other 17th century philosophers reacted negatively to Descartes' arguments. They restated his argument this way.

1. If it is not contradictory that God exists, then it is certain that He exists.
2. It is not contradictory that God exists.
3. Therefore, it is certain that God exists.

They objected to Descartes' argument in two ways:

1. The minor premise can be doubted or denied.
2. Descartes admitted that his idea of God was inadequate and thus unclear. By Descartes definition of truth as "clear and distinct" then it is untrue.

Descartes' replies:

1. God's nonexistence is noncontradictory in either of two senses of the word:
- Whatever does not disagree with human thought (God is noncontradictory)
- What cannot be known by the human mind (no one could know anything, thus God's existence is noncontradictory)
2. Even if our concept of God is inadequate it does not follow that it is contradictory. God's necessary existence is a clear concept, thus the argument is unaffected by lack of clarity in other aspects of God's nature.

The debate between Gassendi and Descartes.

Pierre Gassendi, a skeptic, contended that Descartes confused existence with a property. He argued with 7 points:

1. The essence of a thing can be thought of apart from its existence.
2. Existence is not a property.
3. Essence and existence can be distinguished only in thought, not in reality.
4. We are just as free to think of God as not existing as we are to think of Pegasus as not existing.
5. We need demonstration that God exists, not merely the assumption that it does.
6. Descartes did not really prove that nonexistence is incompatible with God.

Descartes replied to Gassendi with four points:

1. Existence is a property in that it is attributable to something. Necessary existence is a necessary property of a necessary being.
2. We cannot compare the existence of that which is contingent to the existence of what is necessary.
3. It is not begging the question to include existence among the attributes of a necessary Existent.
4. God's existence and essence are inseparable.

Leibniz's Consideration of the Ontological Argument

Leibniz held that the ontological argument was valid but sensed that it was necessary to demonstrate the concept of God was not contradictory.

He stated

1. If it is possible for an absolutely perfect Being to exist, then it is necessary that it exists.
2. It is possible (noncontradictory) for an absolutely perfect being to exist.
3. Therefore, it is necessary that an absolutely perfect Being exist.

To support his minor premise Leibniz argued that:

1. A perfection is a simple and irreducible quality without any essential limitations.
2. Whatever is simple cannot conflict with other irresolvably simple qualities (they differ in kind).
3. Whatever differs in kind with another cannot conflict with it.
4. Therefore, it is possible for on Being (God) to possess all possible perfections.

Three objections to Leibniz's arg.

1. It assumes that some qualities are essentially positive and others negative, but this may not be the case.
2. Leibniz assumes that some qualities are intrinsically simple, but Wittgenstein showed that what is simple in one conceptual system may be complex in another.
3. It depends on the principle of the actual identity which is conceptually indiscernible.

Spinoza's Ontological Proof

Like Descartes, Spinoza held that God was mathematically demonstrable.

Spinoza's argument:

1. There must be a cause for everything, either for its existence or for its nonexistence.
2. A necessary Being (God) necessarily exists, unless there is an adequate cause to explain why he does not exist.
3. There is no adequate cause to explain why he does not exist.
4. Therefore, a necessary Being, necessarily exists.

One may object to Spinoza's insistence that there must be a cause for nothing because it appears contradictory.

Spinoza's second form:

1. Something necessarily exists.
2. This necessary existence is either finite or infinite.
3. It is possible for this necessary existence to be infinite.
4. There must be a cause as to why this is not an infinite existence.
5. No finite existence can hinder this being (an infinite existence).
6. Therefore, this must be an infinite existence

Spinoza's arguments borrow from the premise that something exists from the cosmological argument.

Spinoza's God is not the theistic God of Leibniz or Anselm, it is a pantheistic God.

The Objections of Hume and Kant

Hume's Objection:

1. Nothing is rationally demonstrable unless the contrary implies a contradictory
2. Nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction
3. Whatever we conceive to exist we can conceive as nonexistent
4. There is no being whose existence implies a contradiction
5. Therefore, there is no being whose existence is rationally demonstrable.

Hume argues that no argument for God is rationally inescapable because it always contains premises that are logically deniable.

Kant's critique of the Ontological proof

Kant objected to the fact that we have no positive concept of a necessary Being (that which cannot be).

He also contended that necessity applied only to propositions, not existence.

Also, what is logically possible is not always ontologically possible.

Existence (Kant held) is not a predicate of a thing. It is not a perfection.

Supposed Causes of the Ontological Mistake

Opponents of the Ontological argument have blamed many sources of the ontological 'mistake'

1) Platonic Philosophy - Platonic epistemology holds that one can directly and intuitively know essences.
2) Metaphysical thinking - some argue that "is" or "exists" is only logical, not ontological.
3) Confusion of cause and reason - Causes need something outside of itself where a reason can be itself (Schopenhauer)
4) Use of a proper name - the use of a proper name implies existence (Russell)
5) The use of the English conditional. Alvin Plantinga claimed that "If Jones is a bachelor, then he is necessarily not married" does not imply "Jones is a bachelor". There may be no Jones. Likewise, "If God exists, then he Necessarily exists" does not imply "God exists" There may be no God at all.

Linehan - Unfair analogy!

"IF Jones is a bachelor, then he is necessarily not married" may not imply "Jones is a bachelor". There may be no Jones. But there is a bachelor. Likewise, "If God exists, then he necessarily exists" may not imply "God exists" But, there is a necessary existence which must be filled by a necessary Existent, which is God.

Findlay's Ontological Disproof of God.

The ontological argument has been widely rejected in modern times.

J. N. Findlay used the ontological proof against itself:

1. God must be thought of as a necessary Being, for anything else short of this would be unworthy of worship.
2. But existential necessary propositions cannot be true for necessity is merely a logical characteristic of propositions, not of reality.
3. Therefore, God cannot exist.

A simpler, proper form of this argument:

1. The only way a necessary Being could exist is to exist necessarily.
2. The proposition "God exists necessarily" is an existentially necessary proposition.
3. No existentially necessary propositions can be true.
4. Therefore, the proposition "God exists necessarily" cannot be true.

A theist can object to this in 4 ways:

1. Change the proposition "God exists necessarily" to "God exists". Then holding the proposition "God exists" as a logically necessary proposition to hold.
2. Deny that necessity applied to existential propositions makes them untrue. (Existentially necessary propositions can be true). Examples of existentially necessary propositions: "I am I". "There is an infinite number of prime numbers". "Square circles do not exist".
3. "God necessarily exists" is a special case (Anselm and Descartes).
4. Findlay's statement "there are no existentially necessary propositions" is an existentially necessary proposition.

Hartshorne's Restatement of the Ontological Proof.

Charles Hartshorne is one of the most ardent defenders of the ontological argument and states it like this:

1. The existence of a necessary being is either:
a) Impossible, and there is no example of it
b) Possible, but there is no example of it
c) Possible, and there is an example of it

2. Possible, but there is no example of it is meaningless because a necessary Being cannot be a possible being.

3. Impossible, and there is no example of it is not eliminated by the ontological argument, but the meaningfulness of the term 'necessary Being' is a justifiable assumption that may be defeated on other grounds.

Hartshorne's Argument:

1. All thought must refer to something beyond itself which is at least possible
2. The necessary existence of a necessary Being is at least possible.
3. With a necessary Being an "at-least-possible" existence is indistinguishable from a "possible and actual" existence. A necessary Being cannot have a "merely possible" existence.
4. Therefore, a necessary Being necessarily has both a possible and an actual existence.

Hartshorne's view of God is neither theistic and pantheistic. It is panentheistic.

Hartshorne states, "Either God is a meaningless term or there exists a divine Being" (141).

All versions of the ontological argument contain the implicit premise that what is rationally inescapable is the real.

Malcolm's restatement of the ontological proof

Malcolm believes that Kant invalidated Anselm's first form, but the second form is immune to all criticism.

Malcolm's restatement of Anselm's 2nd form:

1. The existence of a necessary being must be either:
a) a necessary existence
b) an impossible existence
c) a possible existence

2. The existence of a necessary Being is not an impossible existence
a) No one has ever shown the concept of a necessary being to be contradictory
b) there is a basis in human experience for "a greater than which cannot be thought"
c) Leibniz's attempt to prove that there is no contradiction fails. We cannot show that there cannot be one.

3. The existence of a necessary Being cannot be a possible being because:
a) it is contradictory to the very nature of a necessary being
b) a possible being is dependent, a necessary Being is independent

4. Therefore, A necessary Being Necessarily exists

Plantinga's Critique of the Ontological Argument

Plantinga argues that God could exist without his existence being a necessary one. His existence could be logically contingent but not ontologically so.

Planting states that it is logically possible that God never existed at all. It is logically possible that nothing ever existent including God.

All that proponents of the ontological argument have to do invalidate Plantinga's objections too.

Planting offers an ontological argument that is very cosmological. It has left the a priori realm and moved into the a posteriori realm.

Planting uses modal logic in his argument:

1. The property "has maximal greatness" entails the property "has maximal excellence in every possible world"

2. Maximal excellence entails omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection.

3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified.

4. There is a world "W" and an essence "E" such that "E" is exemplified in "W" and "E" entails the property "has maximal greatness in W"

5. For any object X, if X, exemplifies E then X exemplifies the property "has maximal excellence in every possible world".

6. E entails the property "has maximal excellence in every possible world".

7. If W had been actual, it would be impossible that E fail to be exemplified.

8. What is impossible does not vary from world to world.

9. There exists a being that has maximal excellence in every world.

10 Therefore, the being that has maximal excellence exists in the actual world.

Plantinga's argument is tight and compelling. It avoids many of the traditional criticism of the ontological argument. However there are a few criticisms:

1. The use of modal logic assumes existence of an actual world. Thus, it is a posteriori, not a priori.

2. Defining a perfect being in theistic terms is gratuitous.

3. The essence E is supposed by Plantinga to havre a real existence.

The ontological argument to be valid must assume that something exists and thus it rests on a cosmological principle.

The ontological argument has not proven God exists by itself. It has in fact yielded four types of God and a possible atheistic conception:

1. Leibniz & Descartes - theistic God
2. Spinoza - pantheistic God
3. Hartshorne - panentheistic God
4. Henle - polytheistic gods
5. Atheism - the universe is necessary, but does not include God

Class notes on the Cosmological Argument

(Originally written March 1, 2007 in Book 13)

Class Notes

Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

Support for cosmological argument:

1) Absolutely perfect: something exists, therefore must be explained

2) Either unmoved mover or infinite regress of causation, which the latter is irrational

Basic Cosmological Argument

1) Every being (that exists or ever did exit) is either a dependent being or a self-existent being
2) Not every being can be a dependent being
3) Therefore, there exists a self-existent being.

Proponents of the Cosmological Arguments

Plato
Aristotle - "unmoved mover"
St. Thomas Aquinas - 3 of 5 Theistic proofs are cosmological arguments
1) argues from change to an unchanging cause of change
2) argued from uncaused change
Descartes
Samuel Clarke
Gottfried Leibniz
William Lane Craig

Dependent being - beings caused by other
Self-existence being - beings caused by there own self (self-caused)

Principle of sufficient reason
1) There must be an explanation of the existence of any being
2) There must be an explanation of any positive fact

Proponents of the principal of sufficient Reason
- Leibniz
- Clarke

Even if the idea of an infinite regress is a coherent one, it does not follow that it is a true one. The idea of me having blue skin is a coherent idea, but it is not a true one.

An infinite regress may be logically possible but if time is finite then there is no way that an infinite regress can exist within a finite time.

Is the principle of sufficient reason true?

The principle of sufficient reason can be restated to say that all contingent facts can be explained.

Side Note -

Contingent - that which is but could have been another way or could have been not; or, that which is possible.

If that which is possible is sufficient for contingency then there are no true contingent facts, only contingent possibilities.

Philosophy of Religion - Hick: Ch. 2 (B)

(Originally written January 14, 2007 in Book 7)

Philosophy of Religion
John Hick
Ch. 2 (continued)

Criticisms of the Argument

Gaunilo, a French monk posited the first criticism of the ontological argument. He sets up the (supposedly) parallel ontological argument for the most perfect island argument. He states that if we can conceive of the most perfect island it must exist, because 'most perfect' implies existence.

Anselm's response is that God's existence alone has this quality because of God's existence being the only necessary existence. Thus, Anselm's argument, in its second form stands up to the criticism.

Rene Descartes reformulated the ontological argument. Rene Descartes argues that existence is a predicate (attribute or property). He argues that existence is a necessary property of a supremely perfect being. "God without existence would not be God" (Hick, 18).

Immanuel Kant challenged the Cartesian version of the ontological argument. Kant stated that if there is a supremely perfect being it must exist, but that the ontological argument proves only that if God exists, existence is an attribute of his supreme perfection. Kant denied that existence is really an attribute of something.

Bertrand Russell claims that the word 'exists' functions as a grammatical predicate, but not a logical one.

If existence is not a predicate, it cannot be a defining predicate of God.

"A definition of God describes one's concept of God but cannot prove the actual existence of any such being" (Hick, 19-20).

The First-Cause and Cosmological Arguments:

Thomas Aquinas offered five proofs for the existence of God.

The ontological argument focuses on the idea or concept of God; Thomistic proofs start from a general feature of the world and argues that this feature could not exist without the existence of a supreme being.

Thomas' second proof is the first-cause argument: everything that happens has a cause, this cause has a cause, thus there must be an infinite regress of causes or a first cause. An infinite regress is absurd and thus, God exists necessarily.

The difficulty of this lies in the denial of an infinite regress.

CL - If one can prove that infinitude is merely an adjective and not a property it would be possible to show that infinitude is merely a thing which people have created in their minds to clarify and thus it has no substance or reality, apart from a human mind.

Two major difficulties:
1) The argument makes reality a dilemma: either there is a first cause or the universe is unintelligible. But the argument does not show why we should pick either.
2) The argument rests upon casualty, which is challengeable.

Aquinas' third argument, the cosmological argument states: everything in the world is contingent, but if everything that existed, existent contingently, then there would be a time when nothing existed and if nothing existed,nothing could have come into existence. Thus, there must be  necessary being: God.

A major criticism of this is the notion of 'necessary being' is unintelligible. It is a misuse of words to call a being necessary because only propositions can be logically necessary.

This objection is groundless because in theological arguments (especially Anselm and Aquinas) 'necessary' is not seen as logically necessary, but as factually necessary. This factual necessity is equivalent to 'asceity' or self-existence.

"The idea of God's necessary being should not be equated with the view that 'God exists' is a logically necessary truth" (Hick, 23).

One last objection still lies in wait for the cosmological argument. The argument rests on the dilemma that either there is a necessary being or the universe is unintelligible. The universe as being unintelligible has not been ruled out and remains the skeptic's position.

The Design (or Teleological) Argument.

Plato posited this argument in Timaeus. St. Thomas Aquinas used it in one of his five proofs.

William Paley (1743-1805) posited one of the most famous versions of it in modern times. Basically Paley stated that the complexity and intricate nature of the universe demands a creator and rules out sheer chance. David Hume criticized Paley's position. (Despite Hume's criticism coming before Paley's book). Hume points out that any universe is bound to have the appearance of being designed. It also states that the universe is not very much like a machine, so analogies between God making a machine universe and man making a machine are weak. Lastly, he states that even if we could state that the world was designed it does not follow that the all-good, all-powerful, personal God of Christianity exists.

Quick notes & Barebones Outline of a lost Epistemology Paper

(Originally written December 9, 2006 in Book 12)

Ok, it's Saturday about 1:00 pm. I have a major epistemology paper due at 9:00 am on Monday, which I have not ben diligent in working on. So, it's research time!

Thesis (preliminary) all knowledge is analytic in nature. Synthetic nature is artificial.

Louis Pojman
The Theory of Knowledge 3rd Edition

VII.2 An Empiricist Critique of A priori knowledge - A.J. Ayer

No matter of fact can be shown to be logically necessarily or universally true (Hume).

Ayer states that no proposition with factual content is necessarily true.

Every empiricist must accept the thesis that no factual propositions can be necessary truths.

Empiricism faces difficulties with this thesis in dealing with mathematics and logical truths. There are two ways of dealing with this:
1) They are not necessary truths (in this case their universalness must be somehow explained).
2) They have no factual content (in this case they must be able to explain why a proposition without factual content can be true and useful and surprising).

If both of these prove unsatisfactory, empiricism is proven wrong and rationalism is vindicated.

Rationalism states that thought, independent of experience is a more reliable source of knowledge than experience.

John Stuart Mill adopted the thesis that mathematic and logical truths are not necessary. He maintained that they were merely inductive generalizations based on a very large number of experiences. Thus, these mathematical and logical truths were very probable, but not certain.

The difference between Mathematical and logical truths and scientific generalizations was a difference of degree, not kind.

Ayer admits that by rejecting Mill's approach, empiricists are obliged to be somewhat dogmatic.

The Irrefutability of the Propositions of Mathematics and Logic

In every instance when a mathematical or logical truth appears to be refuted we can easily find a way to show that it has not. Truths of logic and mathematics are analytic propositions or tautologies.

The Nature of Analytic Propositions

Kant's definition of an analytic proposition, "one in which the predicate B belonged to the subject A as something which was covertly contained in the concept of A" (Pojman, 381).

Analytic judgments add nothing to the subject; whereas synthetic judgments do.

Analytic judgments provide no factual content and it is for this reason no experience can refute them.

Because analytic judgments provide no factual content it does not follow that they are senseless.

Analytic propositions provide us with some new knowledge. They clarify. They show new linguistic usages.

Analytic judgments allow us to make explicit what was implicit.

The Propositions of Geometry

Kant believed that geometry was the study of the properties of physical space.

Non-Euclidean Geometry has proven that geometry is not the study of physical space. We merely use geometry to reason about physical space.

Necessary truths are devoid of factual content. A priori truths are always analytic. They are always tautologies.

How can Tautologies be surprising?

The power of logic or mathematics to surprise us has its origin solely in the limitedness of our minds, not in their content.

All a priori truths are tautologies. Tautologies serve to guide us in our empirical search for knowledge, they do not contain any information about any matter of fact.

Monadology and Other Philosophical Essays
Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz
translated by: Paul Schrecken and Anne Martin Schrecker

The Unity of Leibniz's philosophic thought

There is a pervasive inner unity that flows through all of Leibniz's work.

Leibniz held a belief in a universal language.

Reflections on knowledge, truth, and ideas

All knowledge is either obscure or clear. Clear knowledge is either confused or distinct. Distinct knowledge is either adequate or inadequate. Distinct knowledge is either symbolic or intuitive.

"The most perfect knowledge is that which is both adequate and intuitive" (Leibniz, 3).

Knowledge is obscure when it is insufficient to recognize what it represents.

Knowledge is clear when it is sufficient to recognize the object it represents.

Clear knowledge is confused when it cannot be distinguished from other objects in description. It is recognizable, but only to me.

Distinct knowledge is distinguishable and explicable knowledge. It is distinct when we can explain it to others.

Perfect knowledge is both adequate and distinct, but Leibniz doubts whether or not man can give a true account of this, but numbers come close.

Intuitive knowledge occurs when the whole of simple idea is known at once. Symbolic knowledge is knowledge o highly complex notions where the whole is known without full knowledge of all the parts.

There is a difference in definitions:
1) Nominal definitions - contain only marks to distinguish the defined thing from other things
2) Real definitions - actually describing the object in its fullest

By distinguishing these definitions we refute Hobbes' notion that all truths are arbitrary. (Hobbes' assumption rests on all definitions being nominal ones).

An idea is true when it is possible (it is false when it involves a contradiction).

Possibility is known either a priori or a posteriori

Causal definitions are known a priori.

A posteriori possibility is known when we experience a thing in reality.

When we have adequate knowledge we also possess a priori knowledge of a possibility.

Thought experiment - when we perceive green we are unaware that we are actually perceiving blue + yellow. Thus, what is green is known, analytically, as yellow+blue.

On the Universal Science: Characteristic XIV

All certain knowledge is established through demonstration or experiments.

Science is based on reason.

We need some exact language, or a form of truly philosophical writing in which ideas are reducible to a kind of "alphabet of human thought"

Leibnizian demonstrations involve two principles:
1) What implies contradiction is false
**2) Reason can be given for any truth, the predicate concept always inheres in its subject concept, either explicitly or implicitly

Necessary truths can be reduced to identical propositions

Contingent truths require an infinite analysis which can be performed solely by God. Only God can know contingent truths a priori.

Contingent truths are truths of fact.

XV

"All human reasoning uses certain signs or character" (Leibniz, 17).

Knowledge is symbolic.

All human ideas can be reduced into a few primitives. (cogitationes -> primitivas)

Critical remarks concerning the General Part of Descartes' principles

One must, in searching for truth, doubt everyone at some point in one's lifetime.

2. That what is doubtful should be considered false.
-There is no advantage to this.

4. Why one can place in doubt the truth of sensible things.
-All we need to know is that they are consistent among themselves.

Linehan - This is interesting, but unhelpful to my research. I'm skipping it.

On the Improvement of Metaphysics and on the concept of substance

Mathematics possesses clarity; metaphysics possesses obscurity.

The cause of metaphysical obscurity is that the general concepts of metaphysics are ambiguous.

Metaphysics needs clarity and clearness and certitude even more than mathematics.

Force is inherent in substance. Force is the faculty to act, action itself and requires effort.

What is nature? Reflections on the force inherent in created things and on their actions

What does nature consist of?

Do created things posses an energy?

The whole of nature is the perfect work of God's making.

Robert Boyle states that nature is the mechanism of bodies.

Linehan - I think I have exhausted my resources in this book for my epistemology paper. But, just reading a little bit of Leibniz has restored my love and respect for him and rationalism in general.

So now it is time for the paper!

Paper Structure:

I. Thesis
II. Definitions
  A. Historical
      i. epistemological/metaphysical/semantical categories
       1. Kant's 4 Quadrants
       2. A.J. Ayer's a priori
       3. Leibniz divisions of knowledge
  B. Personal
III. Thought Experiments (proofs of I)
    1. Logical
    2. Mathematical
    3. Propositional
IV. Objections and responses
V. Closing

Thesis: Knowledge is...
1) Analytic (semantical)
2) Tautological (semantical)
3) A Priori (epistemological)
4) Necessary (metaphysical)

Knowledge has three major components
1) Epistemological
2) Semantical
3) Metaphysical

Epistemological and semantical knowledge are closely related and focused on together, mainly because of Kant. Metaphysical knowledge has been intertwined with epistemological and semantical, though less explicit.

Definitions of Knowledge

Leibnizian distinctions lead to my definition.

First of the three components: Epistemological
definition of a priori (Pojman, 367)
definition of a posteriori (Pojman, 367)
Kantian definition of analytic propositions
Ayer definition of a priori truths

2nd of the 3 components: Semantical
definition of analytic
definition of synthetic
Ayer's distinction
Leibnizian definition/personal additions
Ayer's truth of logic (mathematics)
Thought experiments
1) Logic
2) Mathematics
3) Empirical (most controversial)

3rd of 3 Components: Metaphysical
definition of necessary truths
definition of contingent truths
Hume's objection (needs more research)
Ayer's factual content necessary truth?
Metaphysical difficulties for the empiricist

Ayer has satisfactory proved factual content but he has not eliminated rationalism. Explain why and you'll be able to demonstrate all three parts of your thesis and vindicate your definition of knowledge (conclusion).

Virtues of the Mind - 2.1-5

(Originally written November 26, 2006 in Book 8)

Virtues of the Mind
Linda Zagzebski

2.1

Internists often try to relativize epistemic justification. A justification in internalism is one that justifies an individual's belief

2.2 The neglect of understanding and wisdom

Arguments against contemporary epistemology have shown that it is favorable to adapting a virtue epistemology.

Some philosophers have complained that contemporary epistemology is insufficiently attentive to the social aspects of cognitive activity.

Virtue is more adaptable to social context than reliabilist positions like reliable belief-forming mechanism (Goldman) or belief forming faculty (Sosa).

Aristotle understand the acquisition of virtue as fundamentally social.

Jonathon Kvanvig objects to the focus on one belief in one person in epistemology. If it is impossible to abstract a single belief from a core of beliefs, a belief-based epistemological theory appears less attractive.

Contemporary epistemology is concerned with amassing the most propositional knowledge as possible.

In post-Aristotelian ancient philosophy and modern philosophy certitude has been favored over wisdom. Wisdom was the focus of Plato, Aristotle, the Middle Age philosophies by the latter two, Spinoza and Locke.

Propositional knowledge was secondary to wisdom and understanding in Greek philosophy. Plato (according to Julius Moravcsik) sees propositional knowledge as a derivative of the process of understanding.

Moravcsik maintains that the increasing complexity of modern social and scientific theories has created a need to return to the concept of understanding in epistemology.

Gai Fine holds that Plato's focus on understanding in his epistemology leads to a less atomistic approach in epistemology.

Understanding ought to be a major point in epistemology. It has been ignored for too long

A belief-based epistemology is incapable of explaining the nature of understanding involving the comprehension of structures of reality, rather than its propositional structure.

Wisdom, like understanding has been neglected in modern epistemology.

Wisdom is tough to define, but whatever it is, it is qualitatively different than the accumulation of propositional knowledge.

Wisdom is not a property of propositional beliefs or a matter of relations between propositional beliefs.

Wisdom is concerned with grasping reality as a whole.

3. More reasons to try a virtue approach: the relations between believing and feeling

The advantages of virtue-based epistemology have been shown from:
1) Ethics and corresponding epistemic theories
2) Problems within epistemology
Now, 3) Philosophy of mind

"The treatment of belief as a psychic state independent of non-cognitive states is happily nearing its demise" (Zagzebski, 51).

Stephen Stich argues that the concept of belief is a useless figment of folk psychology.

Psychic states conventionally assigned to epistemologists are not that distinct from psychic states assigned to ethicists.

Many philosophers tend to think of the influence of feeling as an embarrassment, a defect, that needs to be eliminated.

William James held feelings in high regards, stating that belief is more allied to the emotions than anything else.

James defined belief as "the sense of reality". Hume defined belief as to believe is to have a vivid impression.

Without going as fas as James or Hume we can find supporting evidence that vividness of conception is causally connected with belief.

Belief comes in degrees. Belief is closely connected with states like wanting, hoping and expecting.

Wanting and hoping are emotive states, whereas belief and expecting are usually not considered emotive. But, are the emotive states truly distinguishable from cognitive states?

Emotion is either a component of belief or has a direct causal relationship with belief.

It is a widely held false notion that a belief influenced by desire makes it a belief acquired independent of facts.

If beliefs and emotions are intimately connected then we should be motivated to search for connections between moral and intellectual values.

4. An objection to modeling evaluation in epistemology on ethics: the dispute over the voluntariness of belief

The widespread assumption that human actions are voluntary, whereas cognitive activity is involuntary could completely undermine the connection of theoretical ethics and normative epistemology.

Believing is thought to be involuntary and this is the strongest argument against evaluating beliefs like moral evaluation.

Beliefs often seem to be the outcome of instinctive processes.

If beliefs are involuntary, then it is inappropriate to evaluate them from a moral standpoint.

It is wrong to blame a person for a belief if it is involuntary.

4.1 The irrelevance of the objection to virtue theory

Since belief is not the focal point of virtue epistemology, the voluntary or involuntary nature of a belief is less important than a person's disposition to virtue or vice.

The question is then: are our intellectual virtues and vices as voluntary as our moral virtues and vices?

Intellectual courage, perseverance, honesty and sincerity appear to be voluntary. But perceptiveness, insight and ability to form theories appear to be less voluntary and based on natural ability.

But, the intellectual virtues based on natural ability are at least as voluntary to the moral virtues of generosity or the vice of envy.

4.2 The voluntariness of belief

The difference between acts and beliefs is less great than what is thought.

Hume is one of the strongest adherents of involuntary belief. James and Descartes are voluntary belief supporters.

The Cartesian position is that the Will, not the intellect assists in one's belief.

Pascal held that the will is one of the chief organs in belief.

Modern cognitive voluntarism theories come from Murray Clarke, Christopher Hookway, Jonathon Cohen and Lorraine Code.

Zagzebski hold that beliefs are like acts in that they arrange themselves on a continuum of degrees of voluntariness.

Perceptual beliefs which are on the low end of the scale of voluntariness should not be used as paradigm cases for human rationality and justification any more than sneezing or scratching an itch should be used as paradigm cases for moral evaluation

4.3 Moral and Epistemic Luck

Sometimes we blame or praise a person more than is deserved because of moral luck or moral unluckiness.

The Kantian attempt to ground moral evaluation in something free of luck is problematic.

Moral luck is relevant to virtue-based epistemology in two ways:
1. It makes the attempt to model epistemology after ethics easier
2. The rejection of the Kantian position that our moral status is completely within our control takes away one of the motivations for wanting the Kantian theory in the first place

A virtue-based epistemology, because it focuses on inner traits, does not have to pay much attention to moral luck.

Even though few, if any, beliefs are objects of direct choice, they are as voluntary as many acts or omissions of acts for which we are responsible.

5. Conclusion to Part I: Why center epistemology on the virtues?

Be open-minded to see the outcome!

Virtues of the Mind - 1.1-2.1

(Originally written November 23, 2006 in Book 8)

Thanksgiving

Virtues of the Mind
Linda Zagzebski

1.1 Contemporary epistemic theories and their ethical models (continued)

Deontological and reliabilist theories of epistemology are structurally similar to act-based ethical theories.

Ernest Sosa proposed that by focusing on intellectual virtues we can bypass the struggle between foundationalist and coherentists and the whole problem of proper cognitive structure.

Sosa is not a virtue theorist. He speaks about intellectual virtues in a consequentialist backdrop.

The only intellectual virtue that really gets any attention is phronesis (tactical wisdom). Phronesis gets attention because Aristotle connects it to the distinctively moral virtues.

Since Sosa introduced the concept of intellectual virtue into epistemic literature, virtue epistemology has become another name for reliablism. Plantinga's theory of proper function and related theories are  prime examples.

Sosa and Greco define intellectual virtue in terms of its propensity to achieve a certain consequence.

Aristotle's intellectual virtues include: sophia (theoretical wisdom), phronesis (practical wisdom), and nous (insight or understanding). Hobbes includes good wit and discretion. Spinoza's primary intellectual virtue is understanding.

Zagzebski holds that virtue-based epistemology is well suited to analyze justification and knowledge.

Lorraine Code stresses a socialized approach to epistemology, connecting epistemology and moral theory. She shows an epistemological importance to human nature, not just a purely cognitive importance.

Code argues for a "responsiblist epistemology", emphasizing the active nature of the knower: A knower/believer has a choice of cognitive structuring, and is then accountable for these choices.

Code denounces reliabilism because she feels it makes knowers too passive. "A reliable knower could simply be an accurate, and relatively passive, recorder of experience" (Zagzebski, 12).

Code still only structures her epistemological theory on deontological and consequentialist ethics, not virtue-theory.

James Montmarquet takes epistemic virtue in the classical sense and connects epistemic works with moral virtue literature.

Montmarquet labels virtues of impartiality:
-openness to the ideas of others
-willingness to exchange ideas
-lack of jealousy
-lack of personal bias
-a lively sense of one's own fallibility

Montmarquet labels virtues of intellectual sobriety:
- sober-minded inquiry, not won't to embrace what is not really warranted.

Montmarquet labels virtues of intellectual courage:
-the willingness to conceive and examine alternatives to popularly held beliefs
-perseverance in the face of opposition from others
-determination to see a project through to completion

Montmarquet holds that any one desiring the truth must have these traits. But he holds that the intellectual virtues, even if they are not conductive and that some epistemic virtues function as regulators of the desire for truth.

Montmarquet's approach is vaguely Aristotelian. His epistemology is belief-based. Montmarquet does not connect his theory with aretaic moral theory.

Alvin Goldman accepts a form of virtue epistemology that is similar to Sosa. He explicitly links justification to intellectual virtue.

Zagzebski states that, while many epistemic theories recognize the desirability of an epistemological theory based on a carefully developed virtue theory, none have fully articulated a theory.

1.2 Some advantages of virtue-based theories

The mark of a virtue theory is that the primary object of evaluation is inner traits of a person, rather than acts of that person.

"To describe a good person is to describe that person's virtues, and it is maintained that a virtue is reducible neither to the performance of acts independently identified as right nor to a moral virtue than a disposition to act in the right way" (Zagzebski, 15).

There is more and less to a disposition to act in a right way to moral virtues.

A virtue includes a disposition to:
1) Characteristic emotions
2) Desires
3) Motives
4) Attitudes

There is less to moral virtues then the disposition to act right because a virtuous person does not invariably act in a way that can be fully captured by any independent set of normative criteria.

Agent-focused virtue theories focus on the agent and her traits as a way of determining what is right, but do not maintain that what is right is right because it is what a virtuous person would do. What a virtuous person would do is the best criterion for what is right. Zagzebski calls this weak virtue-theory.

Pure virtue-theory treats act-evaluation as a derivative from the character of an agent. An act is right because it is what a virtuous person might do.

Elizabeth Anscombe's "Modern Moral Philosophy" (1958) was probably the first major attempt in recent philosophy to show the advantages of virtue ethics over act-based ethics.

Anscombe argues that the principal notions of modern moral discourse (right, wrong, obligation and moral duty) lack content, but concepts of virtue (justice, chastity, courage and truth) are conceptually rich.

Anscombe also argues that right, wrong, obligation and duty are legal concepts and worthless without judge and jury. Since ethics is not rooted in theism (as it was when God was judge and jury) they are worthless terms.

Anscombe argues that we should return to Aristotelian virtue ethics, which doesn't hold to a blanket concept of wrong or a concept of duty.

The idea that there can be no exhaustive set of rules for how to act in every situation is showing more and more philosophers that a virtue-based theory of ethics is advantageous to cover all bases.

Virtue theory ethics can better explain the moral value of personal goods like love and friendship.

Duty-based ethics does not clearly show that their hierarchical approach is correct.

Another reason for favoring virtue-based ethics is that some virtues are not reducible to specific acts or disposition.

Modern epistemology is belief-based. A positively evaluated belief is called justified.

Legalistic language makes very little sense in epistemology. What does it mean to be epistemically guilty?

Linehan - does this notion give better fuel for virtue-based epistemology or does it glorify the ignorance of epistemology in ordinary people? One should not be swayed by the ignorance or fervor of the masses.

Wisdom is the unification of propositional and other types of knowledge. Knowledge can be misused but wisdom cannot be. Wisdom unifies knowledge and desires and values.

The focus on belief in epistemology has led to the neglect of wisdom. Also, a belief-based theory cannot explain the connection between wisdom and moral goodness.

Consequentialism is an externalist moral theory. A good is something that is produced.

Externalist moral theories face all sorts of problems. Reliabilism, which is structurally similar to consequentialism, faces similar problems.

Reliabilism's epistemic goal is to form true beliefs and not to form false ones. It is quantitative.

In Reliabilism, an accumulation of propositional knowledge is the goal, regardless of how that knowledge is gained. It can be done ignorantly or in a vicious manner.

Because of the difficulties faced by reliabilism and its basis of consequentialism, it is a good idea to search for an alternative ethical mode for epistemology.

Act-based ethics label right as merely not-wrong. Right means permissible. Virtue ethics focus on praiseworthiness.

Belief based epistemology see justification as analogous to epistemic blamelessness. It isn't really praiseworthy.

Virtue theory can evaluate virtue, vice and their intermediate states; whereas act-based/belief-based can only offer black and white cases

2. Difficulties in contemporary epistemology

Contemporary epistemology is too atomistic and the value of understanding has been neglected.

2.1 Problems in the notion of justification

For centuries, maybe as far back as Plato, knowledge has been considered to be a justified true belief. Then Gettier screwed everything up.

Justification has been the primary focus of Anlgo-American philosophers in epistemology.

Justification is a hot topic in epistemology, but it is a very vague and ambiguous term used in connection with countless theories.

Planting claims that:
1) The traditional view of justification originated with Locke and Descartes and identifies justification with a component of knowledge and to true belief and to performing one's epistemic duty.
2) The traditional view is incoherent equivocation and responsible for the externalist and internalist impasse
3) The remedy to the impasse is to dissolve the connections between justification and epistemic duty and justification and warrant.

Planting too readily connects moral and deontological concepts. Then by arguing against deontology he denounces internalism.

But, Zagzebski feels Plantinga's historical and conceptual points fail to make a convincing argument against internalism

William Alston goes further than Plantinga. He identifies six candidates for necessary conditions for justification:
1) Must be based on adequate ground
2) what justices a belief must probabalize it
3) a justification must be cognitively accessible to the subject
4) A justified belief must fit into a coherent system of beliefs
5) It must satisfy certain higher-level conditions
6) The believer must satisfy intellectual obligations in forming and maintaining the belief

Alston holds that justification cannot bear all the conceptual weight that has been given to it.

Alston points out that the issue between externalists and internists cannot be resolved because justification is in such different context in these two theories.

Book notes on Augustine

(Originally written November 14, 2006 in Book 11)

Notes on Augustine cont'd

The Inner Struggle

Acute sense of sin

Augustine has an acute or abnormal sense of sin.

The modern mind sees Augustine's youth as normal; whereas he sees it as evidence of a diseased soul.

Augustine claims to enjoy sin for the sake of sinning.

Attitude toward sex

Sex was evidence of corruption in Augustine's reflection.

Today's culture finds it hard to understand Augustine's sense of guilt. Despite being unmarried he remained faithful to one woman and compared to his contemporaries was a model of sexual morality.

Like Paul, and many other early Christians, Augustine had a particular horror of the sexual aspect of life possibly because he had a strong sexual drive.

He held that sexual activities should be rigidly limited to the purpose of procreation.

Intellectual Pride

Augustine felt he had committed the sin of "intellectual arrogance". He felt he could reason the mysteries of the universe and discover independently the nature of reality.

Augustine became skeptical of orthodoxy with the problem of evil and was troubled by the naive anthropomorphism of his mother's sect.

He saw that the Christian Scriptures were riddled with contradictions if taken literally.

Augustine's Manichaeism

The problem of evil caused Augustine to gravitate towards Manichaeism. He was a follower of Manichaeism for nine years.

The appeal of Manichaeism was its use of reason over faith contra to Catholic Christianity.

Augustine sought certitude above all else. Augustine developed a belief that if one died in error he/she was to stiffen eternal damnation.

Augustine's drive for intellectual certainty was not intellectual curiosity or the Greek search for happiness; it was a desperate need for salvation.

Years of intellectual effort left Augustine to conclude that truth could not be reached via reason.

Because of this revelation he regarded his time under the influence of Manichaeism as a sinful period of intellectual sin.

Augustine's Neoplatonism

In Milan, Augustine made the acquaintance of Ambrose. From Ambrose he learned that interpreting the Bible allegorically one could make the naïveté and its inconsistencies vanish.

By using Neoplatonic metaphysics he could further dispel these inconsistencies more.

Neoplatonism notion of a deity as a creative force or energy, rather than as a crudely anthropomorphic architect thing fit well into Augustine's scheme.

Neoplatonism also seemed to provide a solution to the problem of evil.

Augustine concluded that the physical world was a product of God's creative force and thus not at all evil. Evil is simply an incompleteness and a finitude resulting from the creature's inevitable separation from its maker.

If evil was a positive thing then the problem of evil would be impossible to overcome; but, if it were a negative thing as Neoplatonism held, Augustine concluded that there was no problem of evil.

Augustine had convinced himself of the truthfulness of Orthodoxy, but did not feel an inner sense of peace. Sin still plagued him.

He felt his will was divided. He was helpless.

Augustine's conversion

Augustine's conversion is a fascinating and revealing psychological account

Augustine's mission

From 386 AD on he was steadfastly a Christian. He knew he was still going to be tempted, but the inner peace he found in Christianity saved him. He sought to give others that inner peace if he could.

He was convinced that his conversion would be a lesson to others.

His fight against heresy was manifested especially strong in his fight against Manichaeism.

He sought to create a rational synthesis of Christianity, but he knew he would need God's help.

Doctrine of Catholic faith was fairly well set by Augustine's time; but, it was not neatly or tightly bound in formal doctrine.

Augustine sought to create a synthesis of loose Christian Doctrine, canonical works, Augustine's own sense of sin and worthlessness and his dualistic views into a Catholic doctrine.

Augustine divided his doctrine into two parts:
1) Concerning God
2) Concerning God's creations

Augustine's Concept of God

As a mystic and a devout Christian Augustine wrote with a fervent piety.

As a philosopher, God was the focal point of Augustine. He had strong metaphysical interest.

His interest in the nature of reality was primarily concerned with the supernatural. He sought to find a satisfactory object of religious faith.

As a Christian, Augustine used religious terms.

Plato and Augustine shared similar metaphysical outlooks.

God - Reality is immutable

Augustine (and Plato) held that ultimate reality must be immutable and impervious to change and decay.

Both concluded that because the sensible would change and it cannot be wholly real.

If God is perfect then He will not change because change will result in a loss of perfection.

The problem, the problem of change was a difficulty for Augustine. But, Augustine could not rely on old Greek strategies for dealing with change because God created the world, thus the world must be something. It can't be mere appearance.

Augustine arrived at a divided reality.

God-Reality is creative

Augustine did not solve Plato's problem, he substituted another more difficult one for it.

The problem of relationship between God and man substituted for the problem of appearance and reality. This new problem was further complicated by the Dogmatic law that God created the world ex nihilo.

The creation act was for Augustine a divine fiat.

God's creative ability and man's are different in kind, not in desire. Thus, is God's creative power intelligible?

Augustine as a philosopher wanted to give a rational account of creation, but religious sentiments kept him from abandoning faith altogether.

Augustine (like Plato) held that there must be a certainty in the world of flux. For Plato, mathematics was this certainty. For Augustine it was a self. If one doubts his own existence on proves he exists because no thing that does not exist cannot doubt.

Augustine was relatively unconcerned with the problem of knowledge. Reasons for this disinterest include:
1) a complete interest in peace or security
2) reason was inadequate for reaching truth.

Knowledge was validated by God's goodness, not logic for Augustine.

While Augustine was deeply religious, he was a phenomenal philosopher. His argument for the existence of self was the starting point of modern philosophy via Descartes.

God-Reality is Eternal

God is eternal. Plato held this, but Augustine's religious mind made the eternality of God more vital to his metaphysics.

God made Time and is thus not limited by it,

The past and future is divisible into the minutest of instances, but the present is only the exact moment we experience.

There are neither past things nor future things. There are:
1) Present of things past (memory)
2) Present of things present
3) Present of things future (expectation)

The past is measured as it passes. It is measurable because it has space. But there is no space for the present to be measured.

Time is not the motion of a body.

"We, therefore, measure neither future times, nor past, nor present, nor those passing by's and yet we do measure times" (Jones, 90).

Time is measured in one's mind.

God knows all things, past, present and future because he can measure all time in His mind.

Augustine's style is characteristically ambivalent to reason. He implores God's help along the way.

Augustine's conception of time:
1) Time flows
2) Time is a continuum
3) Past, present and future are somehow coexistent in individual minds.
4) There are three aspects of time:
a) present past (memory)
b) present present (experience)
c) present future (expectation)

The relation of time as man's conception to God's conception is this: man can hold in his mind the conception of time in the three aspects. He holds a finite amount of present past, present present, and present future. God holds in his mind all present pasts, present presents, and present futures. His infinite knowledge of time (and the events occurring in them) makes time irrelevant to God. Everything is now for God.

Augustine disliked the notion of infinity and thus developed his fine scheme. The inability to rationally fathom infinitude drew Augustine to believe God's mysterious nature is infinite.

Augustine's philosophy still suffers from its basis of mysticism. Mystic philosophy relies on the source of a few exclusive experiences. When philosophy rests on private knowledge like this it abandons its claim to rational inquiry.

God-Reality is All-God

God's all-good. This is another Platonic ideal that Augustine interpreted through Christianity.

To exist is good, and that the most real thing will be most good seemed to be a maxim or self-evident truth to Augustine.

Augustine was not content to say reality is good for man; he added that reality is good to man.

Providence, Evil and Free Will

Providence played a key role in Augustine. His emphasis on providence reflects the sense of uncertainty and insecurity men felt in his age.

Providence gave Augustine the security he sought.

God was identified with ultimate reality. Ultimate reality was identified with ultimate goodness. Evil was therefore a privation of ultimate goodness. It was a deficiency.

Evil, while starting from the Neoplatonist point of view, became a result from a deficiency in us.

The account of evil Augustine gives is advantageous, but it is philosophically unsatisfactory because:
1) It rests on an appeal to ignorance: "If we but knew enough, we would see that everything is really all right" (Jones, 97)
2) The Good is immutable. Evil is therefore mutability. But this makes change evil and how can change (like Augustine's conversion) be evil?

Augustine created a problem between foreknowledge and free will. If God has foreknowledge than man has no free will.

Augustine can be criticized for his account of providence on two reasons:
1) "The fact that God knows everything that is going to happen means that man is not free to choose what he does" (Jones, 99). Augustine's response was that God knows not everything that will happen, but he knows everything that is happening because He is an atemporal being. He sees past, present and future at the present.
2) "The fact that God does everything means that man does nothing" (Jones, 99). Augustine argued that God chooses to work through human wills.

Augustine's account of providence creates a problem of man's responsibility. If God does everything, man does nothing and thus cannot be held responsible.

The Basic Conflict in Augustine's Account of God

Augustine fought against the anthropomorphism of naive Christianity, but in doing so he lost much of the Christian concept of God.

His attempt to reconcile the personal God of primitive Christianity with the ultimate reality of Greek metaphysics failed.

While Augustine failed, he was on a good track. "Aquinas, for instance, showed far greater skill than Augustine in giving rational interpretation to the basic religious insights he and Augustine shared" (Jones, 101).