(Originally Written November 23, 2016 in Book 26)
Two Comic Dialogues:
Ion and Hippias Major
Plato (Hackett, 1983)
Both Ion and Hippias Major are important early works dealing with Plato's ideas of poetry and beauty.
Ion is a raphsodie - a reciter of epic poems who performed at festivals and private events for hire. Ion recited the poems, but also explained them and in so doing proclaimed himself an expert in the knowledge they possess. This makes him a likely target for Socrates who goes around showing those who proclaim to be wise that they are unwise.
"Homer was revered in antiquity not merely as a maker of beautiful poems, but as a source of information (Woodruff, 6).
Socrates has very high standards for knowledge.
Knowledge is differentiated however by the Greek term techne - knowledge in a craft or professional knowledge.
Greek poetry claims to come from inspiration from the gods (muses). Both Homer and Hesiod claim inspiration in their works.
In the Greek mind, for a man to be successful he must have divine inspiration. That there were successful men proved inspiration. It is common place in the Greek world. "Inspiration is neither extraordinary nor supernatural in Homer's world" (Woodruff, 7).
Plato sees the poet's inspiration as the gods using the pet as a mere vessel. Poetry comes from a madness brought about by an interaction with the divine.
The man who tries to master poetry by techne alone will be out shined by "the poetry of madness".
But the idea of poetry coming from a divinely induced madness is false. Those who are mad cannot speak coherently, let alone produce poetry.
Why did Plato then put forth this theory? Possible reasons:
1. He is really trying to make an argument for its case.
2. He is attacking poetry
3. He is claiming that poets do not have knowledge when they produce poetry but that philosophers can translate the truth from poetic utterances to the public like priests can translate prophetic utterances made by the oracles who are possessed by the gods when they make said utterances.
Goethe thought Plato attacked poetry. The Renaissance thinkers preferred option one. Most modern scholars believe the third option is likely the best.
Plato does attack poetry, but he also enjoyed it, "we must not forget that the poetry Plato rejected in the Republic was something he deeply loved" (Woodruff, 9).
To possess Techne one must possess a mastery of all knowledge within a field. Ion knows Homer but does not have techne because he knows nothing but techne. Ion knows only through inspiration.
Ion is unable to distinguish between well made verses that are good because they are pleasing to the ear an well made verses because they are true.
Ion
Socrates calls Homer the best poet and the most divine.
Ion claims to be an expert on Homer, but not on the other poets.
Ion claims that while the poets discuss the some topics, Homer does it best.
Socrates forces Ion to admit that there is an art to poetry as a whole and because Ion cannot speak to it as a whole he speaks on Homer not from techne.
Showing posts with label Epistemology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Epistemology. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
Friday, January 24, 2014
Proverbs 1 & Introduction to History of Western Philosophy
(Originally Written January 24, 2014 on scrap paper)
It seems that every time I find myself to be bored intellectually I try to take up some sort of journaling endeavor. I come back to this or that book that had at one point sparked an endeavor to delve into some short-lived intellectual pursuit. Perhaps today is the beginning of one such short-lived journey. Perhaps not. We shall se in a month whether or not I am purchasing another composition notebook or not.
But, in my most recent returns to intellectual pursuits for the sake of the pursuit, I have come to the table trying to come from the perspective of the tabula rasa. I say, whether on paper or in some unfinished and unread blog things such as "of course one that is 30 cannot fully push beyond one's self all the experience of the past three decades" or "I shall try to come to an idea as if I were in possession of a blank slate as my mind". Firstly, when I think on these statements I laugh at my pretentiousness. Second, I find myself admiring the thought of trying to come from a clean slate without preconceived notions and without a desire to judge an idea.
Isn't it what we as modern human beings need? Openness in intellectual discussions, a willingness to abandon early notions for better ones, and a passion to keep an open mind about everything are the hallmarks of modernity in today's accepting society. But, then after I think critically about this clean slate approach I find myself souring on the entire idea. Besides that, the hallmarks of modernity are illusionary at best. The openness is only open for those that agree with you, the abandonment of early notions for better more progressive ones comes only when it suits a politically expedient solution and today's accepting society is partisan.
Of course some knowledge is gained through experience. Of course as we grow older our experiences change and shape our minds. But, the notion of there ever a mind that truly exists as a blank slate is nonsensical on many fronts. From a purely biological standpoint we, though we know still so little, we comprehend enough genetic knowledge to confidently say the sense play a major role in much of who we are. I won't say much more on this matter because what little collective genetic knowledge there is out there, even less is in my head.
Outside of the biological issues with a tabula rasa that interest me little, there are deeper issues with a clean slate idea. While the man will learn much from experience, the notion that there is not a framework for understanding contained in every human from birth is unpalatable on a couple of levels. First, logical reasoning is not something that can be absolutely empirically derived. Experience will have the logical functions of the mind. Language is another thing that exists intuitively. Of course humans learn language, but a baby reacts and interacts with a mother's voice from even inside the womb. There exists some framework in the mind that is innate.
Of course, then there is the imago dei, the strongest argument against a tabula rasa. While there is argument over exactly what the image of God is in humanity, its existence denies any notion of a clean slate at birth. Also, the inherited sin nature of man excludes a clean slate. Of course this argument is transcendental and falls on deaf ears to an unbelieving reader. But, as one who has experience God in relationship it is impossible for me to see from a viewpoint that has not had that experience. The opposite is true as well. One who has not accepted and experienced God in however little and partial as I have cannot see from my vantage point.
And lastly, the approach that I have taken in the past to achieve what I initially believed to be a noble pursuit was actually little more than a spineless approach to intellectual curiosity. In our open society, those who judge something as true or something as false, something as good or something as evil are quickly becoming labeled as bigoted or as close-minded. But, a pursuit of any intellectual subject must have as its end a desire to gain an understanding of that pursuit's truth. So it is with a desire to understand and attain truth that I set out on this adventure, however short-lived it may turn to be. (As an aside, this short-lived adventure lasted an incredible 19 days).
Now that I have trekked back to an old familiar starting point to begin again anew, let's go over the focus. What I will do in this journal is chronicle my thoughts from three sources. For the grounding I will delve into the Scriptures. For my intellectual curiosity I will start again in Bertrand Russell's The History of Western Philosophy. To stay current I will push into various weekly installments of The Economist. Because of my lack of direction in the Scriptures, I will start in Proverbs because of their instructive nature. I want to learn and that is in fact the goal of Proverbs, to instruct.
Proverbs 1
1:7a "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge".
I do wonder now at 30, am I the young in need of knowledge and discretion? Surely, I am not the wise ready to listen and add to my learning. Guide me then my Lord and teach me discretion. Help me to acquire a disciplined and prudent life.
I am struck by a couple of things. First, as I am setting out to find knowledge I have stumbled upon the perfect passage. "The beginning of knowledge is the fear of the Lord. This is a hard pill for the non-believer, but a grounding for me. Help me to never rely on my own cleverness and to always begin my pursuit of knowledge with the fear of the Lord.
Second, God as personified as wisdom calls out to us. If we do not reject Him, he would pour out His heart and make his thoughts known (1:23). How much do we as Christians struggle with what is the will of God? We toss and turn and say, 'is this your will'? Yet, God says to listen to His rebuke and He will make His mind known to us. But that word rebuke is thought to swallow. As the non-believer finds it unpalatable to admit knowledge begins with the fear of the Lord, the Christian finds it just as unsatisfying to know that we must heed God's correction to know his mind. Break me of my pride so that I hear your rebuke, Lord.
I pray this because God as wisdom personified states that if we reject wisdom we will be turned over to our own sinful desires. God will not intercede on our behalf if we don't call on him. This is the real problem of Free Will, not the mere intellectual one. The part I find most terrifying is 1:32b "The complacency of fools will destroy them". Lord, hear my prayer: let me bend my will to your gentle rebuke and help me not to be complacent. Let me take safety in your wisdom.
A History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
I chose this book because I read it in the summer of 2005 when I was becoming interested in philosophy. It seemed a good starting point then and an appropriate one now. I enjoy the historical aspect of it and it should offer a good launching pad into specific areas of thought.
Introduction:
Philosophy is the product of two factors for Russell, an inherited religious and ethical conception and a sort of scientific investigatory process. "Philosophy is something intermediate between theology and science" (Russell, xiii). Russell states that all definite knowledge belongs to science, while dogma - that which surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. Between definite knowledge and dogma is philosophy, a no man's land open to attack from both sides. The studying of questions here in the middle is the business of philosophy.
Russell freely admits that science cannot provide all the answers to life. But he contends that theology has provided answers that are so definitive that they must be met with suspicion by the modern mind. He contends that uncertainty, though painful, must be a part of life if we are to live without "the support of comforting fairy tales" (Russell, xiv). He contends that philosophy is the key to teach one how live in the face of that uncertainty.
Russell seems to state that Christianity's rise was aided by some Stoic traditions. Is this true? He states that Christianity replaced the ideal of antiquity of man's allegiance to the state with man's allegiance to God.
"Dante achieved a synthesis, and gave the only balance exposition of the complete medieval world of ideas" (Russell, xviii). I must read the whole of Dante in the near future.
"The Catholic Church was derived from three sources. Its sacred history was Jewish, its theology was Greek, its government and cannon law...Roman. The Reformation rejected the Roman elements, softened the Greek elements and greatly strengthened the Judaic elements" (Russell, xx).
I do like what Russell says about the Reformation and it explains neatly the current state of Christianity. In the rejection of Catholicism and a central authority determining Truth, the fracturing of Protestantism led to a deepening subjectivism and leading to personal isolation. While the Reformation led to an opening up of a personal avenue between God and man by removing an unnecessary and human constructed constraint between God and man, it fractured a core tenant of Christian belief - the corporate nature of faith. This seems very sad to me.
It seems that every time I find myself to be bored intellectually I try to take up some sort of journaling endeavor. I come back to this or that book that had at one point sparked an endeavor to delve into some short-lived intellectual pursuit. Perhaps today is the beginning of one such short-lived journey. Perhaps not. We shall se in a month whether or not I am purchasing another composition notebook or not.
But, in my most recent returns to intellectual pursuits for the sake of the pursuit, I have come to the table trying to come from the perspective of the tabula rasa. I say, whether on paper or in some unfinished and unread blog things such as "of course one that is 30 cannot fully push beyond one's self all the experience of the past three decades" or "I shall try to come to an idea as if I were in possession of a blank slate as my mind". Firstly, when I think on these statements I laugh at my pretentiousness. Second, I find myself admiring the thought of trying to come from a clean slate without preconceived notions and without a desire to judge an idea.
Isn't it what we as modern human beings need? Openness in intellectual discussions, a willingness to abandon early notions for better ones, and a passion to keep an open mind about everything are the hallmarks of modernity in today's accepting society. But, then after I think critically about this clean slate approach I find myself souring on the entire idea. Besides that, the hallmarks of modernity are illusionary at best. The openness is only open for those that agree with you, the abandonment of early notions for better more progressive ones comes only when it suits a politically expedient solution and today's accepting society is partisan.
Of course some knowledge is gained through experience. Of course as we grow older our experiences change and shape our minds. But, the notion of there ever a mind that truly exists as a blank slate is nonsensical on many fronts. From a purely biological standpoint we, though we know still so little, we comprehend enough genetic knowledge to confidently say the sense play a major role in much of who we are. I won't say much more on this matter because what little collective genetic knowledge there is out there, even less is in my head.
Outside of the biological issues with a tabula rasa that interest me little, there are deeper issues with a clean slate idea. While the man will learn much from experience, the notion that there is not a framework for understanding contained in every human from birth is unpalatable on a couple of levels. First, logical reasoning is not something that can be absolutely empirically derived. Experience will have the logical functions of the mind. Language is another thing that exists intuitively. Of course humans learn language, but a baby reacts and interacts with a mother's voice from even inside the womb. There exists some framework in the mind that is innate.
Of course, then there is the imago dei, the strongest argument against a tabula rasa. While there is argument over exactly what the image of God is in humanity, its existence denies any notion of a clean slate at birth. Also, the inherited sin nature of man excludes a clean slate. Of course this argument is transcendental and falls on deaf ears to an unbelieving reader. But, as one who has experience God in relationship it is impossible for me to see from a viewpoint that has not had that experience. The opposite is true as well. One who has not accepted and experienced God in however little and partial as I have cannot see from my vantage point.
And lastly, the approach that I have taken in the past to achieve what I initially believed to be a noble pursuit was actually little more than a spineless approach to intellectual curiosity. In our open society, those who judge something as true or something as false, something as good or something as evil are quickly becoming labeled as bigoted or as close-minded. But, a pursuit of any intellectual subject must have as its end a desire to gain an understanding of that pursuit's truth. So it is with a desire to understand and attain truth that I set out on this adventure, however short-lived it may turn to be. (As an aside, this short-lived adventure lasted an incredible 19 days).
Now that I have trekked back to an old familiar starting point to begin again anew, let's go over the focus. What I will do in this journal is chronicle my thoughts from three sources. For the grounding I will delve into the Scriptures. For my intellectual curiosity I will start again in Bertrand Russell's The History of Western Philosophy. To stay current I will push into various weekly installments of The Economist. Because of my lack of direction in the Scriptures, I will start in Proverbs because of their instructive nature. I want to learn and that is in fact the goal of Proverbs, to instruct.
Proverbs 1
1:7a "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge".
I do wonder now at 30, am I the young in need of knowledge and discretion? Surely, I am not the wise ready to listen and add to my learning. Guide me then my Lord and teach me discretion. Help me to acquire a disciplined and prudent life.
I am struck by a couple of things. First, as I am setting out to find knowledge I have stumbled upon the perfect passage. "The beginning of knowledge is the fear of the Lord. This is a hard pill for the non-believer, but a grounding for me. Help me to never rely on my own cleverness and to always begin my pursuit of knowledge with the fear of the Lord.
Second, God as personified as wisdom calls out to us. If we do not reject Him, he would pour out His heart and make his thoughts known (1:23). How much do we as Christians struggle with what is the will of God? We toss and turn and say, 'is this your will'? Yet, God says to listen to His rebuke and He will make His mind known to us. But that word rebuke is thought to swallow. As the non-believer finds it unpalatable to admit knowledge begins with the fear of the Lord, the Christian finds it just as unsatisfying to know that we must heed God's correction to know his mind. Break me of my pride so that I hear your rebuke, Lord.
I pray this because God as wisdom personified states that if we reject wisdom we will be turned over to our own sinful desires. God will not intercede on our behalf if we don't call on him. This is the real problem of Free Will, not the mere intellectual one. The part I find most terrifying is 1:32b "The complacency of fools will destroy them". Lord, hear my prayer: let me bend my will to your gentle rebuke and help me not to be complacent. Let me take safety in your wisdom.
A History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
I chose this book because I read it in the summer of 2005 when I was becoming interested in philosophy. It seemed a good starting point then and an appropriate one now. I enjoy the historical aspect of it and it should offer a good launching pad into specific areas of thought.
Introduction:
Philosophy is the product of two factors for Russell, an inherited religious and ethical conception and a sort of scientific investigatory process. "Philosophy is something intermediate between theology and science" (Russell, xiii). Russell states that all definite knowledge belongs to science, while dogma - that which surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. Between definite knowledge and dogma is philosophy, a no man's land open to attack from both sides. The studying of questions here in the middle is the business of philosophy.
Russell freely admits that science cannot provide all the answers to life. But he contends that theology has provided answers that are so definitive that they must be met with suspicion by the modern mind. He contends that uncertainty, though painful, must be a part of life if we are to live without "the support of comforting fairy tales" (Russell, xiv). He contends that philosophy is the key to teach one how live in the face of that uncertainty.
Russell seems to state that Christianity's rise was aided by some Stoic traditions. Is this true? He states that Christianity replaced the ideal of antiquity of man's allegiance to the state with man's allegiance to God.
"Dante achieved a synthesis, and gave the only balance exposition of the complete medieval world of ideas" (Russell, xviii). I must read the whole of Dante in the near future.
"The Catholic Church was derived from three sources. Its sacred history was Jewish, its theology was Greek, its government and cannon law...Roman. The Reformation rejected the Roman elements, softened the Greek elements and greatly strengthened the Judaic elements" (Russell, xx).
I do like what Russell says about the Reformation and it explains neatly the current state of Christianity. In the rejection of Catholicism and a central authority determining Truth, the fracturing of Protestantism led to a deepening subjectivism and leading to personal isolation. While the Reformation led to an opening up of a personal avenue between God and man by removing an unnecessary and human constructed constraint between God and man, it fractured a core tenant of Christian belief - the corporate nature of faith. This seems very sad to me.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Kingdom Triangle - JP Moreland
(Originally Written August 15, 2009 in the Journal)
Kingdom Triangle
JP Moreland
Zondervan Publishing, 2007
Religion cannot be a hobby.
Moreland pushes for Christians to have a deeper understanding of Christianity so that we can speak of it intelligently.
A secular worldview is thin, lacking the framework to make sense of value. An ethical monotheistic worldview is thick. In ethical monotheistic views the value of human beings is intrinsic. When we hear of "people of the week" in naturalistic settings they are borrowing from a thick worldview to comprehend it. They have to abandon their worldview to understand what they are showing.
Scientific Naturalism:
1. A theory of limited knowledge
2. A creation story based on the atomic theory of matter and evolutionary biology.
3. A physical view of reality, all that exists is physical or depends upon physical existence.
These three work together. A limited theory of knowledge justifies a creation story based on the atomic theory of matter and biology. And, the biology creation story justifies the physical view of reality.
What is real in a naturalist worldview depends on three things.
1. It is knowable in their theory of knowledge.
2. Its origin can be accounted for in evolution
3. It can be described by the language of chemistry and physics
Two forms of scienticism:
Strong - scientific knowledge exhausts what can be known
Weak - other knowledge can be had (i.e. ethics) but scientific knowledge is vastly superior
This is self-defeating as the definition does not meet its own standards
The natural view of reality is reductionism. It reduces things to identify with it and eliminates what it cannot reduce.
Physicalism (the reduction of everything to physical) however fails to account for what the world is as it is now, consider consciousness, secondary qualities, normative properties and the entire evolutionary framework (the Big Bang and natural laws are taken as brute fact).
Naturalism is doubly determined, the state of the universe is fixed by laws and the actions of things are set by their atomic and subatomic parts.
Life loses all meaning in this view of reality.
To explain the meaning of life a naturalist approaches it in three flawed ways:
1. Superficially: life is meaningless
2. Circular: the meaning of life is to find the meaning of life
3. Repugnant: hedonistic, life is meaningful so long as it is enjoyed
Six keys to a rich, objective meaning of life:
1. Free Will to ground responsibility, creativity, praise and blame
-William Provine stated, "Free will as traditionally conceived... simply does not exist. There is no way the evolutionary process as correctly conceived can produce a being that is truly free to make choices." Many times naturalism employs utilitarian justification in ethics that can lead to horrific moral implications.
2. Real intrinsic value that can be known and factored into our lives.
-In order for objective meaning to exist value must have three things true of it: There are things that are intrinsically good, things that must be ends of themselves. Two, human beings must be capable of knowing what is intrinsically valuable and what is not. Three, human beings, their products, actions and relationships must be intrinsically valuable. The naturalist view denies, necessarily, any intrinsic value. But they call morals and ethics either subjective or another simple evolutionary event.
3. The ability to acknowledge the reality of evil, provide an explanation of its origin and offer hope that it is ultimately redeemed and defeated.
-Naturalism fails to explain the reality of evil and is hopeless in offering hope in the midst of it.
4. Human beings must have equally intrinsic value simply as such.
5. There must be teleology and purpose in the cosmos relevant to human life.
-The Aristotelian notion of final cause is obsolete in naturalism. Living without teleology is utterly existentially repugnant. Nothing makes sense without teleology. Language itself implies teleology.
6. There must be a satisfying answer to the question, "Why should I be moral?"
Kingdom Triangle
JP Moreland
Zondervan Publishing, 2007
Religion cannot be a hobby.
Moreland pushes for Christians to have a deeper understanding of Christianity so that we can speak of it intelligently.
A secular worldview is thin, lacking the framework to make sense of value. An ethical monotheistic worldview is thick. In ethical monotheistic views the value of human beings is intrinsic. When we hear of "people of the week" in naturalistic settings they are borrowing from a thick worldview to comprehend it. They have to abandon their worldview to understand what they are showing.
Scientific Naturalism:
1. A theory of limited knowledge
2. A creation story based on the atomic theory of matter and evolutionary biology.
3. A physical view of reality, all that exists is physical or depends upon physical existence.
These three work together. A limited theory of knowledge justifies a creation story based on the atomic theory of matter and biology. And, the biology creation story justifies the physical view of reality.
What is real in a naturalist worldview depends on three things.
1. It is knowable in their theory of knowledge.
2. Its origin can be accounted for in evolution
3. It can be described by the language of chemistry and physics
Two forms of scienticism:
Strong - scientific knowledge exhausts what can be known
Weak - other knowledge can be had (i.e. ethics) but scientific knowledge is vastly superior
This is self-defeating as the definition does not meet its own standards
The natural view of reality is reductionism. It reduces things to identify with it and eliminates what it cannot reduce.
Physicalism (the reduction of everything to physical) however fails to account for what the world is as it is now, consider consciousness, secondary qualities, normative properties and the entire evolutionary framework (the Big Bang and natural laws are taken as brute fact).
Naturalism is doubly determined, the state of the universe is fixed by laws and the actions of things are set by their atomic and subatomic parts.
Life loses all meaning in this view of reality.
To explain the meaning of life a naturalist approaches it in three flawed ways:
1. Superficially: life is meaningless
2. Circular: the meaning of life is to find the meaning of life
3. Repugnant: hedonistic, life is meaningful so long as it is enjoyed
Six keys to a rich, objective meaning of life:
1. Free Will to ground responsibility, creativity, praise and blame
-William Provine stated, "Free will as traditionally conceived... simply does not exist. There is no way the evolutionary process as correctly conceived can produce a being that is truly free to make choices." Many times naturalism employs utilitarian justification in ethics that can lead to horrific moral implications.
2. Real intrinsic value that can be known and factored into our lives.
-In order for objective meaning to exist value must have three things true of it: There are things that are intrinsically good, things that must be ends of themselves. Two, human beings must be capable of knowing what is intrinsically valuable and what is not. Three, human beings, their products, actions and relationships must be intrinsically valuable. The naturalist view denies, necessarily, any intrinsic value. But they call morals and ethics either subjective or another simple evolutionary event.
3. The ability to acknowledge the reality of evil, provide an explanation of its origin and offer hope that it is ultimately redeemed and defeated.
-Naturalism fails to explain the reality of evil and is hopeless in offering hope in the midst of it.
4. Human beings must have equally intrinsic value simply as such.
5. There must be teleology and purpose in the cosmos relevant to human life.
-The Aristotelian notion of final cause is obsolete in naturalism. Living without teleology is utterly existentially repugnant. Nothing makes sense without teleology. Language itself implies teleology.
6. There must be a satisfying answer to the question, "Why should I be moral?"
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Return to Tipasa (1952)
(Originally Written October 14, 2008 in the Journal)
"To be sure, it is sheer madness, almost always punished, to return to the sites of one's youth" (Camus)
One must recapture the strength to accept what is, when once one has admitted that one cannot change it.
"And in this muddy Tipasa the memory itself was becoming dim" (Camus)
There is no love without a little innocence.
In innocence we do not know of the existence of morality. In knowledge we are guilty of not being able to live up to the standards of morality.
Noting is true that forces one to exclude.
It is bad luck to be unloved, it is a misfortune to be unloving. We are dying of this misfortune today.
Equally welcome what delights and what crushes.
The highest virtue of Camus: a will to live without rejecting anything of life.
"To be sure, it is sheer madness, almost always punished, to return to the sites of one's youth" (Camus)
One must recapture the strength to accept what is, when once one has admitted that one cannot change it.
"And in this muddy Tipasa the memory itself was becoming dim" (Camus)
There is no love without a little innocence.
In innocence we do not know of the existence of morality. In knowledge we are guilty of not being able to live up to the standards of morality.
Noting is true that forces one to exclude.
It is bad luck to be unloved, it is a misfortune to be unloving. We are dying of this misfortune today.
Equally welcome what delights and what crushes.
The highest virtue of Camus: a will to live without rejecting anything of life.
Monday, October 13, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Notes on the Absurd Man (B) (The Myth of Sisyphus)
(Originally Written October 12, 2008 in the Journal)
Notes on Albert Camus' Myth of Sisyphus and other essays
The Absurd Man
The absurd man is assured of temporally limited freedom.
The absurd man lives his existence in his lifetime.
The absurd man does nothing for the eternal.
The absurd man lives by courage and reasoning.
He is assured of his temporally limited freedom. (Contrast with the Christian who is assured of his absolute freedom in Christ).
"The absurd does not liberate, it binds" (Camus)
"In the absurd world the value of a notion or a life is measured by its sterility" (Camus)
Don Juanism
Genius is intelligence that knows its frontiers.
Those who live on hope are called either a weakling, an idealist or a saint - each insulting.
Ethic is quantitative for the absurd man, the saint sees ethic qualitatively.
Regret is another form of hope.
Love, like that of a passionate wife or a mother necessarily closes its heart to the world. Those who turn away from all personal life through a great love are certainly enriched, but the object of that great love becomes impoverished.
Love can only be defined subjectively based on our experiences. "I do not have the right to cover all those experiences with the same name" (Camus).
Love is noble when it recognizes its short-lived and exceptional nature.
Again, the absurd man quantifies his experiences of love and doesn't base it on any qualitative experience (This is what Camus calls Don Juanism). [This is a truly detestable notion]
A fate is not a punishment - a natural consequence of a consciously chosen act is not a punishment. The absurd man chooses his direction and accepts the reality of his choice.
It is the absurd way to knowledge without illusion.
Drama
The thoughtless man continues to hasten from hope to hope.
There is a profound nobility in indifference. Indifference directs us to the most important concern: the immediate.
"Preferring oneself to eternity or losing oneself in God is the age-old tragedy in which each much play his part" (Camus). Obviously, the absurd man chooses oneself over losing oneself in any way - especially to something atemporal or eternal. (The absurd man lives in time, his adventure lasts from birth until death).
Conquest
The conqueror can thoroughly define what they believe. Beware of those who say 'I know this too well to express it' because they either do not know it or were too lazy to pursue it. (This is a condemnation of mysticism).
Given the choice between history or eternal Camus chooses history because it is certain and he likes certainties.
A proud heart cannot compromise. "There is God or time, that cross or this sword. This world has a higher meaning that transcends its worries, or nothing is true but those worries. One must live with time and die with it, or else elude it for a greater life. I know that one can compromise and live in this world while believing in the eternal. That is called accepting. But I loathe this term and want all or nothing" (Camus).
Flesh is struggle, but flesh is my only certainty.
Man is his own end; he is his only end.
Life is both the conquerors' destitution and wealth. It is in this tension that he thrives, exalting and crushing man, the individual.
True riches are riches because they are transitory.
Knowing the limits constitutes the freedom, the liberation.
"The truths that come within my scope can be touched with the hand" (Camus)
Pity is the only acceptable form of compassion for the absurd man.
"Being deprived of hope is not despairing" (Camus)
The absurd, godless world is full of thinking men without hope.
Notes on Albert Camus' Myth of Sisyphus and other essays
The Absurd Man
The absurd man is assured of temporally limited freedom.
The absurd man lives his existence in his lifetime.
The absurd man does nothing for the eternal.
The absurd man lives by courage and reasoning.
He is assured of his temporally limited freedom. (Contrast with the Christian who is assured of his absolute freedom in Christ).
"The absurd does not liberate, it binds" (Camus)
"In the absurd world the value of a notion or a life is measured by its sterility" (Camus)
Don Juanism
Genius is intelligence that knows its frontiers.
Those who live on hope are called either a weakling, an idealist or a saint - each insulting.
Ethic is quantitative for the absurd man, the saint sees ethic qualitatively.
Regret is another form of hope.
Love, like that of a passionate wife or a mother necessarily closes its heart to the world. Those who turn away from all personal life through a great love are certainly enriched, but the object of that great love becomes impoverished.
Love can only be defined subjectively based on our experiences. "I do not have the right to cover all those experiences with the same name" (Camus).
Love is noble when it recognizes its short-lived and exceptional nature.
Again, the absurd man quantifies his experiences of love and doesn't base it on any qualitative experience (This is what Camus calls Don Juanism). [This is a truly detestable notion]
A fate is not a punishment - a natural consequence of a consciously chosen act is not a punishment. The absurd man chooses his direction and accepts the reality of his choice.
It is the absurd way to knowledge without illusion.
Drama
The thoughtless man continues to hasten from hope to hope.
There is a profound nobility in indifference. Indifference directs us to the most important concern: the immediate.
"Preferring oneself to eternity or losing oneself in God is the age-old tragedy in which each much play his part" (Camus). Obviously, the absurd man chooses oneself over losing oneself in any way - especially to something atemporal or eternal. (The absurd man lives in time, his adventure lasts from birth until death).
Conquest
The conqueror can thoroughly define what they believe. Beware of those who say 'I know this too well to express it' because they either do not know it or were too lazy to pursue it. (This is a condemnation of mysticism).
Given the choice between history or eternal Camus chooses history because it is certain and he likes certainties.
A proud heart cannot compromise. "There is God or time, that cross or this sword. This world has a higher meaning that transcends its worries, or nothing is true but those worries. One must live with time and die with it, or else elude it for a greater life. I know that one can compromise and live in this world while believing in the eternal. That is called accepting. But I loathe this term and want all or nothing" (Camus).
Flesh is struggle, but flesh is my only certainty.
Man is his own end; he is his only end.
Life is both the conquerors' destitution and wealth. It is in this tension that he thrives, exalting and crushing man, the individual.
True riches are riches because they are transitory.
Knowing the limits constitutes the freedom, the liberation.
"The truths that come within my scope can be touched with the hand" (Camus)
Pity is the only acceptable form of compassion for the absurd man.
"Being deprived of hope is not despairing" (Camus)
The absurd, godless world is full of thinking men without hope.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Notes on An Absurd Reasoning & Absurd Freedom (The Myth of Sisyphus)
(Originally Written October 10, 2008 in the Journal)
Notes on Albert Camus' Myth of Sisyphus and other essays
Myth of Sisyphus
An Absurd Reasoning
"Understanding the world for a man is reducing it to human, stamping it with his real" (Camus)
This is pure subjectivism - all thought is anthropomorphic. A thought then, What of Imago Dei? If we, created in the image of God reflect on the world out of this sense aren't we reflecting on the world from a universal standpoint, albeit imperfectly due to our limitations?
Camus is an absolute empiricist. I feel my heart, it exists. I feel the world, I touch it. Therefore, it exists. "There ends all my knowledge, the rest is construction" (Camus). But he states even his own heart is and will remain indefinable to him.
The gap between certainty of existence and defining the content of existence is so wide it cannot be filled.
The irrational (existence's paradoxes and inconsistencies), the human nostalgia (our deepest desire for unity familiarity, and obsession with clarity), and the absurd (the abyss we stare at when we attempt of true knowledge and find none) converge to create in our minds a desert which we ought not attempt to escape by suicide (literal or the act of giving up thought or reason) or attempt to transcend by hope (a process of leaving knowledge to enter into pure construction). This is the point that demands action - suicide or recovery.
Philosophical suicide is the abdication of duty in pursuing knowledge either by giving up or by giving into hope.
The absurd is "the divorce between the mind that desires and the world that disappoints" (Camus).
The absurd is to be both impossible and contradictory.
The absurd is a disproportion between intentions and reality of consequences. "The absurd, which is a metaphysical state of the conscious man does not lead to God. Perhaps the notion will become clearer if I risk this shocking statement: the absurd is sin without God" (Camus).
Absurdity springs from comparison. It is essentially a divorce; it does not lie within the two things being compared but in the actual confrontation of the two things. The absurd is not in man nor in the world, but in the meeting of the two.
The absurd is the fundamental truth - the one thing that cannot be disposed of.
Now, it is the absurd that crushes man - the force that drives man to a broken point. The thing that crushes us we must fight to preserve. The absurd is an unceasing struggle - which implies "a total absence of hope (which has nothing to do with despair), a continual rejection (which must not be confused with renunciation), and a conscious dissatisfaction (which must not be compared to immature unrest)" (Camus).
So Camus' way is thus:
1. Break from the monotony of life to discover life is meaningless.
2. This shock demands action, either suicide or recovery
3. The recovery is acceptance of the absurd as ceaseless struggle
4. Ceaseless struggle brings to the mind three realizations
- There is no hope
- There is continual rejection
- We must be dissatisfied
The existentialists (Chestov, Kierkegaard and Jaspers) came to the truth of the absurd and offered their reaction to it as escape. They did so out of forced hope - creating religion.
The absurd man, the existentialist, recognizes the absurd and the limited value of reason - but, rather than abandoning reason for religion, he in his awareness, simply knows there is no longer a place for hope.
The absurd man seeks to live with his ailments, while the man who has seen the absurd and turned to religion has become frantic and frenzied, seeking to be cured.
Kierkegaard views despair not as a fact, but as a state of existence - the state of sin. Now, Kierkegaard in his final dealings with the absurd sacrificed the intellect (reason) to the belief in God for he sacrificed his pride (sin) to God. Camus recognizes the limitations of reason, but states that if this is pride he sees no sufficient cause to sacrifice it.
The absurd man, the absurd mind seeks what is true at all costs. It seeks what is true, not what is desirable. If Kierkegaard warns that there is nothing but despair then the absurd man takes truth and despair.
Phenomenology (Edmund Husserl) - the making of structures of consciousness and the phenomena which appears in acts of consciousness - objects of systematic reflection and analysis. Husserl used this to provide a firm basis for all human knowledge.
Phenomenology seeks to describe actual experience - not explain the world.
Phenomenology claims truths but that there is no Truth.
Husserl's method was "the intention":
1. Negate classical reasoning (thinking as a unifying/familiarizing procedure). Thinking is actually a relearning how to see again and to direct consciousness.
2. Directing consciousness illuminates every little truth.
3. It isolates events from one another to represent an incoherent-ness in experience; thus, every isolated object of consciousness is its own "magical appearance".
The absurd spirit wishes to enumerate experience, not transcend it.
Husserl's methodology would be acceptable to the absurd man if it simply stopped at the enumeration of experience, but Husserl jumps from the psychological truth of his theory to the metaphysical. Thus, he reintroduces a rationalism akin to Plato. Unlike Kierkegaard who returns to God - Husserl returns to a form of truth as polytheism - flattening all hierarchy and making all truth equal little gods.
The difference between Husserl's abstract god and the dazzling God of Kierkegaard is minimal and only one on how to arrive at the conclusion. Kierkegaard, like other religious philosophers deified the absurd and called it God. The abstract philosophers like Husserl rationalized the absurd to the point of creating standard reasons. They began at the nausea of recognizing the absurd but go to one extreme (rationalizing/abstract) or irrationalizing (deifying/religious escapism).
Nausea is looking into the face of the absurd. There are then three paths to follow. Religion is the path of deifying the absurd. It is an escape or a reconciliation to avoid the divorce. The abstract is the pat of rationalizing the absurd. It is an escape or a reconciliation to avoid the divorce. The absurd man does neither. He takes the divorce. This is the path of acceptance.
The absurd man knows that existence is unreasonable - neither too rational nor too irrational. He accepts the limits of reason and does not give it limitless power as Husserl or abandon it as sin (pride) like Kierkegaard.
Absurd Freedom
What is known (that what is certain) cannot be denied or rejected. One can negate all, but one's desire for unity. One can refute all the world but chaos.
One can only understand a thing in human terms (thus cannot transcend). "What I touch, what resists me - that is what I understand" (Camus).
The break - the divorce of mind (reason) and the world is caused by awareness of it.
The absurd man lives in the certainty of this divorce and does nothing except on the basis of certain knowledge. The only certainty is the absurd and thus he cannot escape it in good conscious through religion. He hears that this is the sin of pride but he does not know what sin is.
Life is better lived because it does not have a meaning.
Hope in transcendence (religion) is to escape the reality of the absurd - to abolish the intellect is to elude, not solve the problem.
The absurd man lives in constant revolt against the world and against his desire for unity (escape/hope). It is in this revolt that gives life its value.
Camus really loves the pride of man. He focuses all of his energy on praising the absurd man and abhors any type of degradation.
To the absurd man the notion of the metaphysical freedom or determinism is not important - the absurd man is only certain of his own freedom.
Camus denies the paradox of God and freedom has been solved or laid to waste, it remains. Either god is all-powerful and the author of all evil or we are free and God is not all-powerful. But, none of this is important because we only experience our own freedom and the eradication of hope and future makes us more free.
The absurd tells me this: there is no future. Freedom in the classical sense is based on hope, hope based on future. Our hope in the future actually makes us slaves to the conventions of thinking.
The Ideal of the absurd man: to live with a constantly conscious soul in a ceaseless procession of presents (no pasts/no future)/
Three consequences of absurd reasoning:
1. Revolt
2. Freedom
3. The ideal (passion)
Notes on Albert Camus' Myth of Sisyphus and other essays
Myth of Sisyphus
An Absurd Reasoning
"Understanding the world for a man is reducing it to human, stamping it with his real" (Camus)
This is pure subjectivism - all thought is anthropomorphic. A thought then, What of Imago Dei? If we, created in the image of God reflect on the world out of this sense aren't we reflecting on the world from a universal standpoint, albeit imperfectly due to our limitations?
Camus is an absolute empiricist. I feel my heart, it exists. I feel the world, I touch it. Therefore, it exists. "There ends all my knowledge, the rest is construction" (Camus). But he states even his own heart is and will remain indefinable to him.
The gap between certainty of existence and defining the content of existence is so wide it cannot be filled.
The irrational (existence's paradoxes and inconsistencies), the human nostalgia (our deepest desire for unity familiarity, and obsession with clarity), and the absurd (the abyss we stare at when we attempt of true knowledge and find none) converge to create in our minds a desert which we ought not attempt to escape by suicide (literal or the act of giving up thought or reason) or attempt to transcend by hope (a process of leaving knowledge to enter into pure construction). This is the point that demands action - suicide or recovery.
Philosophical suicide is the abdication of duty in pursuing knowledge either by giving up or by giving into hope.
The absurd is "the divorce between the mind that desires and the world that disappoints" (Camus).
The absurd is to be both impossible and contradictory.
The absurd is a disproportion between intentions and reality of consequences. "The absurd, which is a metaphysical state of the conscious man does not lead to God. Perhaps the notion will become clearer if I risk this shocking statement: the absurd is sin without God" (Camus).
Absurdity springs from comparison. It is essentially a divorce; it does not lie within the two things being compared but in the actual confrontation of the two things. The absurd is not in man nor in the world, but in the meeting of the two.
The absurd is the fundamental truth - the one thing that cannot be disposed of.
Now, it is the absurd that crushes man - the force that drives man to a broken point. The thing that crushes us we must fight to preserve. The absurd is an unceasing struggle - which implies "a total absence of hope (which has nothing to do with despair), a continual rejection (which must not be confused with renunciation), and a conscious dissatisfaction (which must not be compared to immature unrest)" (Camus).
So Camus' way is thus:
1. Break from the monotony of life to discover life is meaningless.
2. This shock demands action, either suicide or recovery
3. The recovery is acceptance of the absurd as ceaseless struggle
4. Ceaseless struggle brings to the mind three realizations
- There is no hope
- There is continual rejection
- We must be dissatisfied
The existentialists (Chestov, Kierkegaard and Jaspers) came to the truth of the absurd and offered their reaction to it as escape. They did so out of forced hope - creating religion.
The absurd man, the existentialist, recognizes the absurd and the limited value of reason - but, rather than abandoning reason for religion, he in his awareness, simply knows there is no longer a place for hope.
The absurd man seeks to live with his ailments, while the man who has seen the absurd and turned to religion has become frantic and frenzied, seeking to be cured.
Kierkegaard views despair not as a fact, but as a state of existence - the state of sin. Now, Kierkegaard in his final dealings with the absurd sacrificed the intellect (reason) to the belief in God for he sacrificed his pride (sin) to God. Camus recognizes the limitations of reason, but states that if this is pride he sees no sufficient cause to sacrifice it.
The absurd man, the absurd mind seeks what is true at all costs. It seeks what is true, not what is desirable. If Kierkegaard warns that there is nothing but despair then the absurd man takes truth and despair.
Phenomenology (Edmund Husserl) - the making of structures of consciousness and the phenomena which appears in acts of consciousness - objects of systematic reflection and analysis. Husserl used this to provide a firm basis for all human knowledge.
Phenomenology seeks to describe actual experience - not explain the world.
Phenomenology claims truths but that there is no Truth.
Husserl's method was "the intention":
1. Negate classical reasoning (thinking as a unifying/familiarizing procedure). Thinking is actually a relearning how to see again and to direct consciousness.
2. Directing consciousness illuminates every little truth.
3. It isolates events from one another to represent an incoherent-ness in experience; thus, every isolated object of consciousness is its own "magical appearance".
The absurd spirit wishes to enumerate experience, not transcend it.
Husserl's methodology would be acceptable to the absurd man if it simply stopped at the enumeration of experience, but Husserl jumps from the psychological truth of his theory to the metaphysical. Thus, he reintroduces a rationalism akin to Plato. Unlike Kierkegaard who returns to God - Husserl returns to a form of truth as polytheism - flattening all hierarchy and making all truth equal little gods.
The difference between Husserl's abstract god and the dazzling God of Kierkegaard is minimal and only one on how to arrive at the conclusion. Kierkegaard, like other religious philosophers deified the absurd and called it God. The abstract philosophers like Husserl rationalized the absurd to the point of creating standard reasons. They began at the nausea of recognizing the absurd but go to one extreme (rationalizing/abstract) or irrationalizing (deifying/religious escapism).
Nausea is looking into the face of the absurd. There are then three paths to follow. Religion is the path of deifying the absurd. It is an escape or a reconciliation to avoid the divorce. The abstract is the pat of rationalizing the absurd. It is an escape or a reconciliation to avoid the divorce. The absurd man does neither. He takes the divorce. This is the path of acceptance.
The absurd man knows that existence is unreasonable - neither too rational nor too irrational. He accepts the limits of reason and does not give it limitless power as Husserl or abandon it as sin (pride) like Kierkegaard.
Absurd Freedom
What is known (that what is certain) cannot be denied or rejected. One can negate all, but one's desire for unity. One can refute all the world but chaos.
One can only understand a thing in human terms (thus cannot transcend). "What I touch, what resists me - that is what I understand" (Camus).
The break - the divorce of mind (reason) and the world is caused by awareness of it.
The absurd man lives in the certainty of this divorce and does nothing except on the basis of certain knowledge. The only certainty is the absurd and thus he cannot escape it in good conscious through religion. He hears that this is the sin of pride but he does not know what sin is.
Life is better lived because it does not have a meaning.
Hope in transcendence (religion) is to escape the reality of the absurd - to abolish the intellect is to elude, not solve the problem.
The absurd man lives in constant revolt against the world and against his desire for unity (escape/hope). It is in this revolt that gives life its value.
Camus really loves the pride of man. He focuses all of his energy on praising the absurd man and abhors any type of degradation.
To the absurd man the notion of the metaphysical freedom or determinism is not important - the absurd man is only certain of his own freedom.
Camus denies the paradox of God and freedom has been solved or laid to waste, it remains. Either god is all-powerful and the author of all evil or we are free and God is not all-powerful. But, none of this is important because we only experience our own freedom and the eradication of hope and future makes us more free.
The absurd tells me this: there is no future. Freedom in the classical sense is based on hope, hope based on future. Our hope in the future actually makes us slaves to the conventions of thinking.
The Ideal of the absurd man: to live with a constantly conscious soul in a ceaseless procession of presents (no pasts/no future)/
Three consequences of absurd reasoning:
1. Revolt
2. Freedom
3. The ideal (passion)
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Brief Notes on The Epistle to Diognetus
(Originally Written June 3, 2008 in the Journal)
The Lord is good and faithful, merciful and just. He fills my cup when it is empty and restores me to health when I am sick. Though my world collapses around me, I stand firm for my feet rest upon the Rock. Give me strength to make it through today Lord. Grant me the wisdom to follow you. May you treat my enemies severely in your time, but give me the grace to treat them with love. Lord be with her. Do not cut her off form you. She seeks that which she knows not. Though you know perfectly well she seeks you in the wrong places. Guide her aim to you. Fill her cup and restore her to you. If it is in your will restore her to me as well. Teach me today Lord that I may be more fit to serve you.
Notes on Early Christian Writings
The Epistle to Diognetus is a treatise that was most likely written between 120-200 A.D. Diognetus seems to have been a Greek official and a pagan who had an interest in Christianity.
The Epistle to Diognetus
The author starts by criticizing idols as they are made by man with perishable substances. The fact is that these gods could be refashioned into everyday, common items. "In a word, are they not, one and all, nothing but dumb, blind, lifeless things, without sense, without movement, rotting and decaying?" (Early Christian Writings, 143). It is interesting that the gods made of stone and pottery are left unprotected, but those of gold and silver are guarded. This shows that the material is even more valuable to you then the gods themselves.
The Jews, while serving the true God, make use of the absurd rituals of the pagans. If these rituals are absurd to stone, lifeless things, then who could expect the living God to see them as acceptable?
"One party, it seems, makes its offerings to creatures which cannot partake of the gifts, the other to the One who needs none of them" (Early Christian Writings, 144).
The unique things of Christians is that they live among their people, but are citizens of heaven. "They obey the prescribed laws, but in their own private lives they transcend the laws. They show love to all men - and all men persecute them" (Early Christian Writings, 145).
Christians are to the world as the soul is to the body. The soul is through the whole body and likewise Christians live throughout the world. The soul is in the body but does not form part of it. So too are Christians in the world but not part of it. The soul is immortal but must live in the mortal body, so too the Christian.
It is the moral duty of a Christian not shrink from sufferings and persecutions.
There is no compulsion found in the Word of God. He came to save us by persuasion, not compulsion.
The more the Christians suffer, the more men join their ranks.
Christianity is not the product of man, but of God.
Only through faith are we permitted to know God.
The Lord was loving and long-suffering toward mankind.
The wickedness of the masses was covered by the Innocence of Jesus Christ. The Lord set out from the beginning to exchange the Holy for the wicked because He loves us so.
God has not willed man to be imitators of Him.
"Without knowledge there can be no life, and without life there can be no trustworthy knowledge" (Early Christian Writings, 150).
The Lord is good and faithful, merciful and just. He fills my cup when it is empty and restores me to health when I am sick. Though my world collapses around me, I stand firm for my feet rest upon the Rock. Give me strength to make it through today Lord. Grant me the wisdom to follow you. May you treat my enemies severely in your time, but give me the grace to treat them with love. Lord be with her. Do not cut her off form you. She seeks that which she knows not. Though you know perfectly well she seeks you in the wrong places. Guide her aim to you. Fill her cup and restore her to you. If it is in your will restore her to me as well. Teach me today Lord that I may be more fit to serve you.
Notes on Early Christian Writings
The Epistle to Diognetus is a treatise that was most likely written between 120-200 A.D. Diognetus seems to have been a Greek official and a pagan who had an interest in Christianity.
The Epistle to Diognetus
The author starts by criticizing idols as they are made by man with perishable substances. The fact is that these gods could be refashioned into everyday, common items. "In a word, are they not, one and all, nothing but dumb, blind, lifeless things, without sense, without movement, rotting and decaying?" (Early Christian Writings, 143). It is interesting that the gods made of stone and pottery are left unprotected, but those of gold and silver are guarded. This shows that the material is even more valuable to you then the gods themselves.
The Jews, while serving the true God, make use of the absurd rituals of the pagans. If these rituals are absurd to stone, lifeless things, then who could expect the living God to see them as acceptable?
"One party, it seems, makes its offerings to creatures which cannot partake of the gifts, the other to the One who needs none of them" (Early Christian Writings, 144).
The unique things of Christians is that they live among their people, but are citizens of heaven. "They obey the prescribed laws, but in their own private lives they transcend the laws. They show love to all men - and all men persecute them" (Early Christian Writings, 145).
Christians are to the world as the soul is to the body. The soul is through the whole body and likewise Christians live throughout the world. The soul is in the body but does not form part of it. So too are Christians in the world but not part of it. The soul is immortal but must live in the mortal body, so too the Christian.
It is the moral duty of a Christian not shrink from sufferings and persecutions.
There is no compulsion found in the Word of God. He came to save us by persuasion, not compulsion.
The more the Christians suffer, the more men join their ranks.
Christianity is not the product of man, but of God.
Only through faith are we permitted to know God.
The Lord was loving and long-suffering toward mankind.
The wickedness of the masses was covered by the Innocence of Jesus Christ. The Lord set out from the beginning to exchange the Holy for the wicked because He loves us so.
God has not willed man to be imitators of Him.
"Without knowledge there can be no life, and without life there can be no trustworthy knowledge" (Early Christian Writings, 150).
Monday, March 3, 2008
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Chapter 16 (A)
(Originally Written Mar. 3, 2008 in the Journal)
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 16
Art, like speech is a mode of communication and therefore, of progress.
The evolution of knowledge is done through speech; the evolution of feelings is done through art.
The determining factor of whether a feeling is good or bad (more or less necessary) is determined by the religious perception of the age.
Tolstoy states progress is had by every generation or at least is possible by every generation. But, what if it is reversed? What if every generation is worse than the previous? Does that not make art even more important tomorrow then it is today?
While it may be claimed that there is no religious perception in this age that does not negate its existence. In fact we may even wish not to see it because it may expose that our lives are not consistent with it.
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 16
Art, like speech is a mode of communication and therefore, of progress.
The evolution of knowledge is done through speech; the evolution of feelings is done through art.
The determining factor of whether a feeling is good or bad (more or less necessary) is determined by the religious perception of the age.
Tolstoy states progress is had by every generation or at least is possible by every generation. But, what if it is reversed? What if every generation is worse than the previous? Does that not make art even more important tomorrow then it is today?
While it may be claimed that there is no religious perception in this age that does not negate its existence. In fact we may even wish not to see it because it may expose that our lives are not consistent with it.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Notes on Tolstoy, On Truth in Art (1887)
(Originally Written February 18, 2008 in the Journal)
Part II On Truth in Art (1887)
Those who judge stories and fairy tales as untrue and mere fancy, judge them improperly.
"Truth will be known not by him who knows only what has been, is, and really happens, but by him who recognizes what should be according to the will of God" (Maude, 9) - a good theological/epistemological statement.
"Truth is a path" (Maude, 10).
Verbal compositions are good and necessary when they set value on what is good and evil. What is good conforms to what ought to be according to the will of God. What is evil is contrary to what ought to be according to the will of God.
A thought from me: Truth and fact are not synonyms. Fact can be truth, but truth is not necessarily factual as in correlation with the world as is.
In order to write on truth one must write on what ought to be, not what is.
Those men who do not know what is good or evil (what corresponds to what should or should not be according to the will of God) do not write on truth.
Fairy tales or fables in which events never happened or never could happen can be true because they describe the world as it ought to be according to the will of God.
If truth is lacking, no matter how factual a story can be, it is nonetheless false because it lacks the truth of the kingdom of God.
Christ spoke in parables and they have remained eternally true.
Part II On Truth in Art (1887)
Those who judge stories and fairy tales as untrue and mere fancy, judge them improperly.
"Truth will be known not by him who knows only what has been, is, and really happens, but by him who recognizes what should be according to the will of God" (Maude, 9) - a good theological/epistemological statement.
"Truth is a path" (Maude, 10).
Verbal compositions are good and necessary when they set value on what is good and evil. What is good conforms to what ought to be according to the will of God. What is evil is contrary to what ought to be according to the will of God.
A thought from me: Truth and fact are not synonyms. Fact can be truth, but truth is not necessarily factual as in correlation with the world as is.
In order to write on truth one must write on what ought to be, not what is.
Those men who do not know what is good or evil (what corresponds to what should or should not be according to the will of God) do not write on truth.
Fairy tales or fables in which events never happened or never could happen can be true because they describe the world as it ought to be according to the will of God.
If truth is lacking, no matter how factual a story can be, it is nonetheless false because it lacks the truth of the kingdom of God.
Christ spoke in parables and they have remained eternally true.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Some weird thoughts on the number 7 & a recliner I once owned
(Originally written July 2, 2007 in the Red Notebook)
Notes for Epistemological Tautology
7. What is the definition of 7?
a) 1+6 (6+1)
b) 2+5 (5+2)
c) 3+4 (4+3)
d) 8-1
e) 9-2
f) 10-3
g) 7x1
h) 49/7
i) 42/6
j) 35/5
k) 28/4
l) 21/3
m) 14/2
etc, etc, ad infinitum
The definition of 7 is any combination of mathematical equations equal to seven. The complete definition of 7 is the totality of such equations. When we know that 3+4=7 the we know a partial definition of 7. Simply because we do not know that 21,812/3,116=7 does not mean that we do not know the definition of 7, only that we do not know the whole definition of 7.
Every equation that equals 7, is a tautology. That is, 14/2=7 or 21,812/3,116=7 is simply another way of stating that 7=7. All knowledge of numbers is tautological. That is to say that arithmetic is a gigantic conglomerate of tautologies.
Now, we shall apply this methodology to people, places or things that you know (any noun) or any thing that exists. Think on a thing, like a chair. Now isolate in your mind a particular chair, not the universal concept of chair. I have a recliner that is brown leather and beaten up. I purchased it at a yard sale. It is my favorite spot to sit in the whole house.
What is the definition of the recliner I am talking about?
a) brown chair
b) leather chair
c)brown leather chair with holes in it
d) the brown leather chair with holes in it I purchased at a yard sale
Now we can take definitions A, B, C, or D and set them equal to one another and to the name 'Chris' recliner' and we have a tautology. The knowledge we have of my recliner is tautological because "the brown leather chair with holes in it purchased at a yard sale on such-and-such a date" tells us nothing new about Chris' recliner. Wait a second! How could you have known that about my recliner before I told you? You didn't know this information before I told you and thus, it couldn't be tautological.
Remember I purchased this chair at a yard sale. I do not know the entire history of the chair. I cannot tell you its origin or its whereabouts at all times before I purchased it. Does my lack of knowledge make the chair's history any less a part of it? Of course not! But, can you plausibly deny that I do not know the definition of my own recliner? Prior to this silly little experiment did you know that 21,812/3,116=7? No? But you know the definition of 7 surely? All you learned by this is another way of expressing 7, because 7 entails the prior equation, just like Chris' recliner entails "the brown leather chair with holes in it purchased at a yard sale on such-and-such a date"+ some lost history. Thus, once you became aware of the existence of Chris' recliner all other knowledge about the recliner was merely tautological and you learn only ways of expressing the notion of Chris' recliner.
Notes for Epistemological Tautology
7. What is the definition of 7?
a) 1+6 (6+1)
b) 2+5 (5+2)
c) 3+4 (4+3)
d) 8-1
e) 9-2
f) 10-3
g) 7x1
h) 49/7
i) 42/6
j) 35/5
k) 28/4
l) 21/3
m) 14/2
etc, etc, ad infinitum
The definition of 7 is any combination of mathematical equations equal to seven. The complete definition of 7 is the totality of such equations. When we know that 3+4=7 the we know a partial definition of 7. Simply because we do not know that 21,812/3,116=7 does not mean that we do not know the definition of 7, only that we do not know the whole definition of 7.
Every equation that equals 7, is a tautology. That is, 14/2=7 or 21,812/3,116=7 is simply another way of stating that 7=7. All knowledge of numbers is tautological. That is to say that arithmetic is a gigantic conglomerate of tautologies.
Now, we shall apply this methodology to people, places or things that you know (any noun) or any thing that exists. Think on a thing, like a chair. Now isolate in your mind a particular chair, not the universal concept of chair. I have a recliner that is brown leather and beaten up. I purchased it at a yard sale. It is my favorite spot to sit in the whole house.
What is the definition of the recliner I am talking about?
a) brown chair
b) leather chair
c)brown leather chair with holes in it
d) the brown leather chair with holes in it I purchased at a yard sale
Now we can take definitions A, B, C, or D and set them equal to one another and to the name 'Chris' recliner' and we have a tautology. The knowledge we have of my recliner is tautological because "the brown leather chair with holes in it purchased at a yard sale on such-and-such a date" tells us nothing new about Chris' recliner. Wait a second! How could you have known that about my recliner before I told you? You didn't know this information before I told you and thus, it couldn't be tautological.
Remember I purchased this chair at a yard sale. I do not know the entire history of the chair. I cannot tell you its origin or its whereabouts at all times before I purchased it. Does my lack of knowledge make the chair's history any less a part of it? Of course not! But, can you plausibly deny that I do not know the definition of my own recliner? Prior to this silly little experiment did you know that 21,812/3,116=7? No? But you know the definition of 7 surely? All you learned by this is another way of expressing 7, because 7 entails the prior equation, just like Chris' recliner entails "the brown leather chair with holes in it purchased at a yard sale on such-and-such a date"+ some lost history. Thus, once you became aware of the existence of Chris' recliner all other knowledge about the recliner was merely tautological and you learn only ways of expressing the notion of Chris' recliner.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Preface to the New Essays
(Originally written June 2, 2007 in Book 14)
Preface to the New Essays (1703-1705)
G.W. Leibniz
The senses are necessary for all actual knowledge, but they are not sufficient to five us all of it because they merely provide particular or individual truths.
Proof for general or eternal truths cannot be acquired by the senses because no matter how many instances of particular truths are combined, their totality will never equal the sum of an eternal truth. The proof of such eternal truths (like those of mathematics, morality, logic and metaphysics) must come a priori or innately.
The ideas in us are innate. They are natural inclinations, dispositions, habits or potentialities.
Insensible perceptions are perceptions too minute or too similar for us to notice and yet effect us so greatly.
These insensible perceptions rule out the notion of the soul as tabula rasa, souls without thoughts, substances without action and void space.
All spiritualized beings, all souls, all simple created substances are always joined to a body and souls are never completely separated from the body.
God can do what goes beyond our understanding. "There may be inconceivable mysteries in the articles of faith" (Leibniz, 61).
Preface to the New Essays (1703-1705)
G.W. Leibniz
The senses are necessary for all actual knowledge, but they are not sufficient to five us all of it because they merely provide particular or individual truths.
Proof for general or eternal truths cannot be acquired by the senses because no matter how many instances of particular truths are combined, their totality will never equal the sum of an eternal truth. The proof of such eternal truths (like those of mathematics, morality, logic and metaphysics) must come a priori or innately.
The ideas in us are innate. They are natural inclinations, dispositions, habits or potentialities.
Insensible perceptions are perceptions too minute or too similar for us to notice and yet effect us so greatly.
These insensible perceptions rule out the notion of the soul as tabula rasa, souls without thoughts, substances without action and void space.
All spiritualized beings, all souls, all simple created substances are always joined to a body and souls are never completely separated from the body.
God can do what goes beyond our understanding. "There may be inconceivable mysteries in the articles of faith" (Leibniz, 61).
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Notes on Discourse on Metaphysics (B)
(Originally Written May 16, 2007 in Book 14)
Discourse on Metaphysics
G.W. Leibniz
(Continued)
18.
- Force is a change that is separate from size, shape or motion
- Thus, not everything that exists in a body exists merely within the extension of that body.
19.
- It is a mistake to banish final causes from physical studies because it would seem to follow that God designed body with no end.
- It is foolish to believe we can decipher the end of everything that God hath mad because He sees all connections at once, but he has made the universe to suit man and man to suit the universe. "There is nothing in the universe which does not affect us and does not also accommodate itself in accordance with his regard for us" (Leibniz, 21).
- God does nothing by chance.
20.
Leibniz agrees with Socrates' criticism of Anaxagoras in Phaedo that philosophy cannot be so materialistic.
21.
- Mechanical rules depend on metaphysics.
- The physical phenomenal world would be entirely different without its metaphysical system.
22.
- Nature operates under natural phenomena, but this natural phenomena only occurs because God has caused it.
- God is so skilled an artisan that He has produced a world that can function completely with God's original simple design.
23.
- There are true and false ideas.
- Ideas precede reasoning about something
- Thus, the proof of God in ontological form states that I reason about God and in order for me to reason about God, I must first have the idea of God. The idea of God entails all perfections and thus, existing is more perfect than not existing and thus, God exists.
- The problem with the ontological argument is that we can have false ideas that do not correspond to reality. Thus, the ontological argument merely proves that if God is possible then He necessarily exists.
24.
- Confused knowledge - the ability to recognize a thing without being able to articulate its differences or properties.
- Distinct knowledge - recognition of a thing and an ability to explain its properties and differences.
- Distinct knowledge has degrees
- Adequate knowledge - a distinct knowledge of a thing down to its primitive notions
- Intuitive knowledge - an adequate knowledge in which all the primitive notions of a thing are known at once, distinctly.
- Intuitive knowledge is extremely rare because most human knowledge is confused or suppositive.
- Suppositive knowledge - "A notion intermediate between intuitive and clear is when I have been deprived of clear knowledge of all surrounding notions"
- Clear knowledge - knowing how a thing is distinguishable from other things but only being able to say, I know not what makes X different than Y, but know that they differ.
Degrees of Knowledge
Confused - recognition
Clear - Recognition + ...
Distinct - Recognition and some explanatory ability
Adequate - Distinct + ...
Intuitive - immediate full knowledge
Clear, Distinct and Adequate are suppositive knowledge. Suppositive is a combinative knowledge.
Nominal definitions - a definition that leaves one able to still doubt if that which is defined be possible.
Real definition - a definition that includes a property which makes the thing's possibility known
"As long as we have only a nominal definition, we cannot be certain of the consequences we derive, for if it concealed some contradiction or impossibility, the opposite conclusions could be derived from it"
But truths are not dependent on name nor are they arbitrary, contra Hobbes.
Real definitions are twofold:
1) When it is known via experience a thing is real its definition is merely a real one.
2) When the proof of possibly is a priori the definition is real and causal.
An essential proof is perfect, a priori, and sees all the way to its primitive notions
25.
- We can have no idea of a notion when it is impossible
- We cannot contemplate a notion when we have suppositive knowledge of it because it may have some hidden contradiction
- We skip over the contemplation in suppositive knowledge because we suppose we know the thing
- "Only in confused notions when our knowledge is clear or in distinct notions when it is intuitive do we see the entire idea in them" (Leibniz, 28).
26.
- An idea is a quality of our soul.
- Our souls have these qualities in them whether we are thinking on them currently or not
- Our souls express God, the universe, all essences and all existences.
- Nothing can be taught to us whose idea is not already in our mind
- Plato's doctrine of reminiscence is correct so long it is purged of his notion of preexistence.
- "Our soul knows all these things virtually and requires only attention to recognize truths, and that, consequently, it has, at very least, the ideas upon which these truths depend" (Leibniz, 29).
27.
- Some things outside us express things more particularly than our own souls. It is through their more acute expression that we can understand a truth more completely.
- Ideas are expressions in our soul whether we conceive them or not
- Notions or concepts are ideas that we conceive or form
- It is false that all of our conceptions come via the senses, the sensual data we receive merely brings our attention to internal experience
28.
- There is no external cause acting upon us aside from God
- No other external object is capable of touching our soul or perception
- We have ideas of everything in our soul by virtue of God's continual action on us
- "God is our immediate external object and that we see all things by Him" (Leibniz, 30).
29.
- Our ideas however are in us and not in God.
30.
- Ordinarily, God does nothing more than follow the laws He established
- God determines our wills to choose the better option without necessitating it
- God finds it good that certain men should exist despite foreseeing they will sin
- It ought to be enough for us to know this without understanding it while we are yet on this earth
- God is clearly not the cause of evil
Discourse on Metaphysics
G.W. Leibniz
(Continued)
18.
- Force is a change that is separate from size, shape or motion
- Thus, not everything that exists in a body exists merely within the extension of that body.
19.
- It is a mistake to banish final causes from physical studies because it would seem to follow that God designed body with no end.
- It is foolish to believe we can decipher the end of everything that God hath mad because He sees all connections at once, but he has made the universe to suit man and man to suit the universe. "There is nothing in the universe which does not affect us and does not also accommodate itself in accordance with his regard for us" (Leibniz, 21).
- God does nothing by chance.
20.
Leibniz agrees with Socrates' criticism of Anaxagoras in Phaedo that philosophy cannot be so materialistic.
21.
- Mechanical rules depend on metaphysics.
- The physical phenomenal world would be entirely different without its metaphysical system.
22.
- Nature operates under natural phenomena, but this natural phenomena only occurs because God has caused it.
- God is so skilled an artisan that He has produced a world that can function completely with God's original simple design.
23.
- There are true and false ideas.
- Ideas precede reasoning about something
- Thus, the proof of God in ontological form states that I reason about God and in order for me to reason about God, I must first have the idea of God. The idea of God entails all perfections and thus, existing is more perfect than not existing and thus, God exists.
- The problem with the ontological argument is that we can have false ideas that do not correspond to reality. Thus, the ontological argument merely proves that if God is possible then He necessarily exists.
24.
- Confused knowledge - the ability to recognize a thing without being able to articulate its differences or properties.
- Distinct knowledge - recognition of a thing and an ability to explain its properties and differences.
- Distinct knowledge has degrees
- Adequate knowledge - a distinct knowledge of a thing down to its primitive notions
- Intuitive knowledge - an adequate knowledge in which all the primitive notions of a thing are known at once, distinctly.
- Intuitive knowledge is extremely rare because most human knowledge is confused or suppositive.
- Suppositive knowledge - "A notion intermediate between intuitive and clear is when I have been deprived of clear knowledge of all surrounding notions"
- Clear knowledge - knowing how a thing is distinguishable from other things but only being able to say, I know not what makes X different than Y, but know that they differ.
Degrees of Knowledge
Confused - recognition
Clear - Recognition + ...
Distinct - Recognition and some explanatory ability
Adequate - Distinct + ...
Intuitive - immediate full knowledge
Clear, Distinct and Adequate are suppositive knowledge. Suppositive is a combinative knowledge.
Nominal definitions - a definition that leaves one able to still doubt if that which is defined be possible.
Real definition - a definition that includes a property which makes the thing's possibility known
"As long as we have only a nominal definition, we cannot be certain of the consequences we derive, for if it concealed some contradiction or impossibility, the opposite conclusions could be derived from it"
But truths are not dependent on name nor are they arbitrary, contra Hobbes.
Real definitions are twofold:
1) When it is known via experience a thing is real its definition is merely a real one.
2) When the proof of possibly is a priori the definition is real and causal.
An essential proof is perfect, a priori, and sees all the way to its primitive notions
25.
- We can have no idea of a notion when it is impossible
- We cannot contemplate a notion when we have suppositive knowledge of it because it may have some hidden contradiction
- We skip over the contemplation in suppositive knowledge because we suppose we know the thing
- "Only in confused notions when our knowledge is clear or in distinct notions when it is intuitive do we see the entire idea in them" (Leibniz, 28).
26.
- An idea is a quality of our soul.
- Our souls have these qualities in them whether we are thinking on them currently or not
- Our souls express God, the universe, all essences and all existences.
- Nothing can be taught to us whose idea is not already in our mind
- Plato's doctrine of reminiscence is correct so long it is purged of his notion of preexistence.
- "Our soul knows all these things virtually and requires only attention to recognize truths, and that, consequently, it has, at very least, the ideas upon which these truths depend" (Leibniz, 29).
27.
- Some things outside us express things more particularly than our own souls. It is through their more acute expression that we can understand a truth more completely.
- Ideas are expressions in our soul whether we conceive them or not
- Notions or concepts are ideas that we conceive or form
- It is false that all of our conceptions come via the senses, the sensual data we receive merely brings our attention to internal experience
28.
- There is no external cause acting upon us aside from God
- No other external object is capable of touching our soul or perception
- We have ideas of everything in our soul by virtue of God's continual action on us
- "God is our immediate external object and that we see all things by Him" (Leibniz, 30).
29.
- Our ideas however are in us and not in God.
30.
- Ordinarily, God does nothing more than follow the laws He established
- God determines our wills to choose the better option without necessitating it
- God finds it good that certain men should exist despite foreseeing they will sin
- It ought to be enough for us to know this without understanding it while we are yet on this earth
- God is clearly not the cause of evil
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Augustine on Rhetoric
(Originally written January 23, 2007 in Book 12)
Augustine (354 - 430 AD)
- Bishop of Hippo
On Christian Doctrine
- Humans need to understand signs
- Talent to do interpretation
- Ecclesiastical or sacred orator
- Orator does not convert: oration comes post-conversion
- Encouraged the use of vernacular to reach audiences
Definition - the means of discovering what the thought may be and the means of expressing what the thought is
Purpose - discover, instruct, please, persuade
Epistemology - the Word and thought are the same thing in Jesus
3 Styles of speaking:
Instructing - Simple style
Pleasing - Middle style (intellectually pleased with God's law)
Moving - Grand (DO the truth)
Augustine (354 - 430 AD)
- Bishop of Hippo
On Christian Doctrine
- Humans need to understand signs
- Talent to do interpretation
- Ecclesiastical or sacred orator
- Orator does not convert: oration comes post-conversion
- Encouraged the use of vernacular to reach audiences
Definition - the means of discovering what the thought may be and the means of expressing what the thought is
Purpose - discover, instruct, please, persuade
Epistemology - the Word and thought are the same thing in Jesus
3 Styles of speaking:
Instructing - Simple style
Pleasing - Middle style (intellectually pleased with God's law)
Moving - Grand (DO the truth)
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Rhetoric and Epistemology Notes 2
(Originally written January 11, 2007 in Book 12)
Article #3 - Rhetoric And Episteme: Writing About Art in the Wake of Post-Structuralism
By: Gérard Mermoz
Class Notes
Platonic Rhetoric - trying to influence the audience's souls towards truth
Georgian Rhetoric - using the magic of words
Aristotelian Rhetoric - the use of logos, pathos, and ethos in rhetoric
Isocratic Rhetoric - Using rhetoric to find knowledge and Kairos
Article #3
Rhetoric: "art of persuasive speaking or writing, language designed to persuade or impress (but perhaps insincere or exaggerated)" (498).
Mermoz uses 'rhetoric' as "various devices and processes through which meanings are constructed and communicated int he pursuit of 'truth-effects' - neither good nor bad in themselves, but instrumental in implementing 'truth-values'" (498).
Derrida, in critiquing Platonism, questions the reasons for the separation of philosophy (dialectic) and sophistic (rhetoric).
Richard Kearney: "We do not and cannot miraculously create meaning out of ourselves, we inherit meaning from others who have thought, spoken or written before us ... we recreate this meaning, according to our own projects and interpretations" (502).
Wow! I read the words, but the material flew, soaring miles above my head. It hurts.
Article #3 - Rhetoric And Episteme: Writing About Art in the Wake of Post-Structuralism
By: Gérard Mermoz
Class Notes
Platonic Rhetoric - trying to influence the audience's souls towards truth
Georgian Rhetoric - using the magic of words
Aristotelian Rhetoric - the use of logos, pathos, and ethos in rhetoric
Isocratic Rhetoric - Using rhetoric to find knowledge and Kairos
Article #3
Rhetoric: "art of persuasive speaking or writing, language designed to persuade or impress (but perhaps insincere or exaggerated)" (498).
Mermoz uses 'rhetoric' as "various devices and processes through which meanings are constructed and communicated int he pursuit of 'truth-effects' - neither good nor bad in themselves, but instrumental in implementing 'truth-values'" (498).
Derrida, in critiquing Platonism, questions the reasons for the separation of philosophy (dialectic) and sophistic (rhetoric).
Richard Kearney: "We do not and cannot miraculously create meaning out of ourselves, we inherit meaning from others who have thought, spoken or written before us ... we recreate this meaning, according to our own projects and interpretations" (502).
Wow! I read the words, but the material flew, soaring miles above my head. It hurts.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Rhetoric and Epistemology Notes 1
(Originally written January 10, 2007 in Book 12)
So, I have decided that I will (for my class assignment) write on Rhetoric and epistemology. I have three articles to read before I truly narrow the scope and pinpoint my exact thesis.
Article #1
Rhetoric Denuded and Redressed
Figs & Figures
John Poulakos
Steve Whitson
Quarterly Journal of Speech, August 1995
Rumors and phobias: "Although I do not understand their arguments, I am keen on dismissing them".
Curious preferences: Why do we prefer a handful of certainty to a carful of possibilities?
Reality has real problems, humanity has artificial ones.
Truth has never been found.
Knowledge is seen as disposable.
Nietzsche's definition of truth: "Mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, anthropomorphizing, a sum of human relations which were poetically and rhetorically heightened, transferred, and adored, and after long use seem solid, canonical, and binding to a nation. Truths are illusions about which it has been forgotten that they are illusions" (379).
Knowledge to the common people is something strange being reduced to something familiar. The instinct of fear demands us to know.
Epistemic potential leads to a real job and respect, which leads to the loss of evidence and humanity.
"A deficient orator is always preying on audiences" (380).
Democritus: "We know nothing authentically about anything, but each one's opines are simply what flows into him"
We shape the world (and language) in our bodily image (Somatomorphic Nominalism)
"Epistemologists will never understand that Platonism is before anything else an erotic doctrine... sensorial spiritualism at its Dionysian best" (382).
"Aesthetics is nothing else than applied physiology" (383).
Shameful poverty- Gorgias would be proud and Plato's distrust of rhetoric is vindicated by the rhetorician's abuse of language.
Another rhetoric abuse of language: "The epistemologist's point is that a definition lets one get to the heart of the matter. Let us be clear. Matter has no heart, only surfaces" (384).
The ethics of rhetoric: "Words are not one's own to do as one pleases. Respect for words and doing justice to language are two things needed for any ethics of rhetoric" (385).
Article #2
Gorgias as Philosopher of Being: Epistemic Foundationalism in Sophistic Thought
Frank D. Walters
Philosophy has long regarded rhetoric as intellectual lightweights and moral relativists.
The Sophists moved the Athenian culture from mythos to logos, from myth to logical thinking.
The sophist epistemology put speech at the center of knowing.
Sophism takes being as the province of thought and discourse.
"Sophists were more than 'mere' rhetoricians and teachers of a suspect art" (144).
Epistemic foundationalism: the unification of rhetoric and philosophy.
Being, to the Sophist, is the primary object of intellectual and moral inquiry. Being can only be known through language.
"Where there is no discourse, there is no knowledge and, correlatively, no possibility of knowing Being in any philosophically justifiable way.
Sophistic anti-logic and the problem of Being
Anti-logic: the theory of argumentation that stands in opposition to dialectics, "a community of speakers using the resources of argument to construct a commonly accepted body of truths, which can then be disseminated as knowledge" (145). Dialectics aims at one thesis being true, anti-logic posits one thesis against another in search for knowledge. Dialectics ends when knowledge is found, anti logic is a continuous and recursive process.
The price for the freedom that epistemological foundationalism is epistemological uncertainty and undecidability.
Kairos as the motive force of anti-logic.
John Poulakos' definition of sophistic rhetoric: "the art which seeks to capture in opportune moments that which is appropriate and attempts to suggest that which is possible" (146).
Gorges uses knowledge as "the experience of the irrational and the impossible" (148). "Knowledge is contradictory" (148).
Gorgias and the rhetoric of Being: The Encomium of Helen
Gorgias aims at presenting his side as the truth of the case.
Truth is shown to be language bound in Helen.
Logos and Reality: On Nature or Not-Being
Gorgias' epistemology is an irrational method of contradiction and continual self-destruction. All reality is contradictory.
"For one to know, a judgment between contradictory realities must be made, with no absolute assurance that judgment is on the side of truth" (150).
Gorgias holds that Truth is relative to the individual.
Gorgias' take on Being:
1) Being does not exist
2) If Being does exist it cannot be known
3) If Being can be known, it cannot be communicated
The logical (rather anti-logical) next step would be:
4) If Being can be communicated it cannot exist, which is absurd.
"It is possible, as Gorgias notes, to think of things which are not real, such as chariots racing on the sea. Though we think of them, they are nonetheless not real, and their non-reality is the object of our thought" (152).
But, if something is an object of our thought it exists. Existence implies reality and therefore a non-real thing derives its reality from its existence as an object of our thought.
Gorgias denies that knowledge is propositional.
So, I have decided that I will (for my class assignment) write on Rhetoric and epistemology. I have three articles to read before I truly narrow the scope and pinpoint my exact thesis.
Article #1
Rhetoric Denuded and Redressed
Figs & Figures
John Poulakos
Steve Whitson
Quarterly Journal of Speech, August 1995
Rumors and phobias: "Although I do not understand their arguments, I am keen on dismissing them".
Curious preferences: Why do we prefer a handful of certainty to a carful of possibilities?
Reality has real problems, humanity has artificial ones.
Truth has never been found.
Knowledge is seen as disposable.
Nietzsche's definition of truth: "Mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, anthropomorphizing, a sum of human relations which were poetically and rhetorically heightened, transferred, and adored, and after long use seem solid, canonical, and binding to a nation. Truths are illusions about which it has been forgotten that they are illusions" (379).
Knowledge to the common people is something strange being reduced to something familiar. The instinct of fear demands us to know.
Epistemic potential leads to a real job and respect, which leads to the loss of evidence and humanity.
"A deficient orator is always preying on audiences" (380).
Democritus: "We know nothing authentically about anything, but each one's opines are simply what flows into him"
We shape the world (and language) in our bodily image (Somatomorphic Nominalism)
"Epistemologists will never understand that Platonism is before anything else an erotic doctrine... sensorial spiritualism at its Dionysian best" (382).
"Aesthetics is nothing else than applied physiology" (383).
Shameful poverty- Gorgias would be proud and Plato's distrust of rhetoric is vindicated by the rhetorician's abuse of language.
Another rhetoric abuse of language: "The epistemologist's point is that a definition lets one get to the heart of the matter. Let us be clear. Matter has no heart, only surfaces" (384).
The ethics of rhetoric: "Words are not one's own to do as one pleases. Respect for words and doing justice to language are two things needed for any ethics of rhetoric" (385).
Article #2
Gorgias as Philosopher of Being: Epistemic Foundationalism in Sophistic Thought
Frank D. Walters
Philosophy has long regarded rhetoric as intellectual lightweights and moral relativists.
The Sophists moved the Athenian culture from mythos to logos, from myth to logical thinking.
The sophist epistemology put speech at the center of knowing.
Sophism takes being as the province of thought and discourse.
"Sophists were more than 'mere' rhetoricians and teachers of a suspect art" (144).
Epistemic foundationalism: the unification of rhetoric and philosophy.
Being, to the Sophist, is the primary object of intellectual and moral inquiry. Being can only be known through language.
"Where there is no discourse, there is no knowledge and, correlatively, no possibility of knowing Being in any philosophically justifiable way.
Sophistic anti-logic and the problem of Being
Anti-logic: the theory of argumentation that stands in opposition to dialectics, "a community of speakers using the resources of argument to construct a commonly accepted body of truths, which can then be disseminated as knowledge" (145). Dialectics aims at one thesis being true, anti-logic posits one thesis against another in search for knowledge. Dialectics ends when knowledge is found, anti logic is a continuous and recursive process.
The price for the freedom that epistemological foundationalism is epistemological uncertainty and undecidability.
Kairos as the motive force of anti-logic.
John Poulakos' definition of sophistic rhetoric: "the art which seeks to capture in opportune moments that which is appropriate and attempts to suggest that which is possible" (146).
Gorges uses knowledge as "the experience of the irrational and the impossible" (148). "Knowledge is contradictory" (148).
Gorgias and the rhetoric of Being: The Encomium of Helen
Gorgias aims at presenting his side as the truth of the case.
Truth is shown to be language bound in Helen.
Logos and Reality: On Nature or Not-Being
Gorgias' epistemology is an irrational method of contradiction and continual self-destruction. All reality is contradictory.
"For one to know, a judgment between contradictory realities must be made, with no absolute assurance that judgment is on the side of truth" (150).
Gorgias holds that Truth is relative to the individual.
Gorgias' take on Being:
1) Being does not exist
2) If Being does exist it cannot be known
3) If Being can be known, it cannot be communicated
The logical (rather anti-logical) next step would be:
4) If Being can be communicated it cannot exist, which is absurd.
"It is possible, as Gorgias notes, to think of things which are not real, such as chariots racing on the sea. Though we think of them, they are nonetheless not real, and their non-reality is the object of our thought" (152).
But, if something is an object of our thought it exists. Existence implies reality and therefore a non-real thing derives its reality from its existence as an object of our thought.
Gorgias denies that knowledge is propositional.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Euthyphro, Apology, Crito (B)
(Originally written December 20, 2006 in Book 7)
The plane was impossible to read on...
Euthyphro, Apology, Crito
Plato
Translation F. J. Church
Bobby-Merrill Co., Inc. Indianapolis, 1956
Introduction
The Trial and Death of Socrates
Dialogues are written conversationally to show that philosophy is a social undertaking.
Plato uses the dialogue to create a dramatic form of philosophy.
Socrates (thus, Plato) claims that all knowledge is born out of self-knowledge.
Too tired. Too tired.
The plane was impossible to read on...
Euthyphro, Apology, Crito
Plato
Translation F. J. Church
Bobby-Merrill Co., Inc. Indianapolis, 1956
Introduction
The Trial and Death of Socrates
Dialogues are written conversationally to show that philosophy is a social undertaking.
Plato uses the dialogue to create a dramatic form of philosophy.
Socrates (thus, Plato) claims that all knowledge is born out of self-knowledge.
Too tired. Too tired.
Saturday, December 9, 2006
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).
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).
Friday, December 8, 2006
Final Notes on Virtue Epistemology
(Originally written December 8, 2006 in Book 12)
4.2 Anticipated objections to my theory from the perspective of reliablilism
Intellectual virtues are reliably truth conducive, but they are not virtue simply because they are reliable.
To have knowledge one needn't possess intellectual virtues, but that person must imitate the behavior of intellectually virtuous persons and must be virtuously motivated.
The value of reliability rests on the value of motive for knowledge in motivation-based virtue epistemology.
There is no special value of a true belief that formed via a reliable mechanism.
Doesn't knowledge sometimes come out of intellectual vices?
Zagzebski answers this in two ways:
1) These instances are not knowledge at all
2) These instances satisfy her definition of knowledge (this is her preferred stance).
Beliefs formed out of intellectual vices may occasionally prove true, but something will be amiss in their doxastic structure. Knowledge cannot arise out of a wrong doxastic structure.
Zagzebski' preferred argument begins with Aristotle's distinction of good people (agathos) and good and noble people (kalos kagathos).
Even people, when acting from a vice, can use some virtuous motivation. Even the Nazi showed the virtue of courage in his viciousness. Because some virtue is a partial motivation, the true belief can be knowledge.
5. Plantinga's theory of proper function
Alvin Plantinga's theory of proper function has been labeled as a kind of virtue epistemology.
Planting's theory is more externalist than is defensible and susceptible to common arguments against reliablism.
Planting's definition of knowledge makes reliability a necessity for knowledge, but not a sufficient criteria for it.
Planting's theory has advantages over externalism, but faces the same problems.
One problem is that the proper function of faculties is manipulatable.
Another problem is that it is atomistic like belief-based epistemologies.
A virtue theory has an advantage over proper function theories in solving the generality problem.
The conviction of a belief in a problematic thing to base an epistemology on.
6. Harmonizing Internal and External Aspects of knowing
Planting's theory can be distorted. Zagzebski states hers can be twisted to be more extanerlist than she intends.
Contemporary epistemology faces some serious problems:
1) The concept of knowledge has been overlooked and the idea of understanding has been neglected.
2) The concept of justification is muddled and too ambiguous
3) The stalemate betwixt internalism and externalism
Some day I may reread Virtues of the Mind, but not for awhile. This was a truly difficult read for me. Right now, I am unconvinced. I am not sure if that is because I don't quite understand it or because there is nothing really there to understand.
4.2 Anticipated objections to my theory from the perspective of reliablilism
Intellectual virtues are reliably truth conducive, but they are not virtue simply because they are reliable.
To have knowledge one needn't possess intellectual virtues, but that person must imitate the behavior of intellectually virtuous persons and must be virtuously motivated.
The value of reliability rests on the value of motive for knowledge in motivation-based virtue epistemology.
There is no special value of a true belief that formed via a reliable mechanism.
Doesn't knowledge sometimes come out of intellectual vices?
Zagzebski answers this in two ways:
1) These instances are not knowledge at all
2) These instances satisfy her definition of knowledge (this is her preferred stance).
Beliefs formed out of intellectual vices may occasionally prove true, but something will be amiss in their doxastic structure. Knowledge cannot arise out of a wrong doxastic structure.
Zagzebski' preferred argument begins with Aristotle's distinction of good people (agathos) and good and noble people (kalos kagathos).
Even people, when acting from a vice, can use some virtuous motivation. Even the Nazi showed the virtue of courage in his viciousness. Because some virtue is a partial motivation, the true belief can be knowledge.
5. Plantinga's theory of proper function
Alvin Plantinga's theory of proper function has been labeled as a kind of virtue epistemology.
Planting's theory is more externalist than is defensible and susceptible to common arguments against reliablism.
Planting's definition of knowledge makes reliability a necessity for knowledge, but not a sufficient criteria for it.
Planting's theory has advantages over externalism, but faces the same problems.
One problem is that the proper function of faculties is manipulatable.
Another problem is that it is atomistic like belief-based epistemologies.
A virtue theory has an advantage over proper function theories in solving the generality problem.
The conviction of a belief in a problematic thing to base an epistemology on.
6. Harmonizing Internal and External Aspects of knowing
Planting's theory can be distorted. Zagzebski states hers can be twisted to be more extanerlist than she intends.
Contemporary epistemology faces some serious problems:
1) The concept of knowledge has been overlooked and the idea of understanding has been neglected.
2) The concept of justification is muddled and too ambiguous
3) The stalemate betwixt internalism and externalism
Some day I may reread Virtues of the Mind, but not for awhile. This was a truly difficult read for me. Right now, I am unconvinced. I am not sure if that is because I don't quite understand it or because there is nothing really there to understand.
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Zagzebski and Gettier Problems
(Originally Written December 6, 2006 in Epistemology)
Zagzebski:
Gettier Problems:
Knowledge = Justified True Belief + ?? (no false belief, reliabilist element, indefeasibility, etc.)
The gap/independence of truth and justification between truth and justification.
2 Alternatives to escape Gettier Problems:
1. Eliminate the independence of justification/truth
2. Disconnect justification and truth
Knowledge is cognitive contact with reality arisiong from acts of intellectual virtue
Zagzebski:
Gettier Problems:
Knowledge = Justified True Belief + ?? (no false belief, reliabilist element, indefeasibility, etc.)
The gap/independence of truth and justification between truth and justification.
2 Alternatives to escape Gettier Problems:
1. Eliminate the independence of justification/truth
2. Disconnect justification and truth
Knowledge is cognitive contact with reality arisiong from acts of intellectual virtue
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)