Showing posts with label Free Will. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Free Will. Show all posts
Sunday, July 2, 2017
An interesting take on the problem of evil and free will
Lewis notes that the devil has set himself up as the prince of this world. He also notes that this is either God's will (which would be strange) or it is not God's will (if it is not then how can anything happen that isn't the will of an all powerful God). He uses an interesting analogy to explain this. Take for instance a Mother who wants her children to keep their rooms tidy. However, to teach the children responsibility she isn't going to force them to tidy their rooms every day after supper. Days later she goes up to the room and finds things strewn all across the room and it in disrepair. It is both the will and not the will of the Mother that finds this set of circumstances existent. So it is with God. God desires us to live in accordance with Him and yet He does not force that upon anyone. The same is true in any type of organization. The boss may want something done but sets it up to be done voluntarily. If only half the people do what the boss wants it is both his will and not his will
Catching up with CS Lewis (again)
I'm terrible at this daily reading thing. I'm on my A Year with C.S. Lewis kick again. It's July 2 and I'm only on February 23. I probably won't catch up today. But we're going to get closer to being on track.
Lewis notes that the Original Sin that our remote ancestors committed wasn't something sexual in nature. In fact he suggests that the corrupt sinful nature we have now is a direct result of the fall. The Original Sin was related to the danger of the self. We sin when we place our self above God. Essentially, the whole of human history and all of its issues are on account of misplacing our priorities. "All that we call human history - money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery - the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy" (Lewis, 59).
Basically, what Lewis is stating is that our Original Sin was substituting our self for God, trading true happiness for something temporary and fleeting. Lewis terms this the turning from God to self. In turning from God to self, the original sin is the creature denying and acting on that denial of the creatures true position in the created order. Lewis calls this turning from God to self the 'self-will'. It is a danger inherent to creatures with Free Will. Lewis remarks that God chose, in His wisdom, to create the world as such - it was a risk that God apparently thought worth taking. In Screwtape Letters the demon writes, "When He [God] talks of their losing their selves, He only means abandoning the glamour of self-will; once they have done that, He really gives them back all their personality, and boasts (I am afraid, sincerely) that when they are wholly His they will be more themselves than ever" (Lewis, 61).
In committing the Original Sin (and whenever we place ourselves above God) we turn to self-will. That self-will is a direct contradiction to the purposes we were created for. As Screwtape says, when we deny the self-will, and surrender our wills to His, we become more ourselves than ever.
Lewis notes that the Original Sin that our remote ancestors committed wasn't something sexual in nature. In fact he suggests that the corrupt sinful nature we have now is a direct result of the fall. The Original Sin was related to the danger of the self. We sin when we place our self above God. Essentially, the whole of human history and all of its issues are on account of misplacing our priorities. "All that we call human history - money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery - the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy" (Lewis, 59).
Basically, what Lewis is stating is that our Original Sin was substituting our self for God, trading true happiness for something temporary and fleeting. Lewis terms this the turning from God to self. In turning from God to self, the original sin is the creature denying and acting on that denial of the creatures true position in the created order. Lewis calls this turning from God to self the 'self-will'. It is a danger inherent to creatures with Free Will. Lewis remarks that God chose, in His wisdom, to create the world as such - it was a risk that God apparently thought worth taking. In Screwtape Letters the demon writes, "When He [God] talks of their losing their selves, He only means abandoning the glamour of self-will; once they have done that, He really gives them back all their personality, and boasts (I am afraid, sincerely) that when they are wholly His they will be more themselves than ever" (Lewis, 61).
In committing the Original Sin (and whenever we place ourselves above God) we turn to self-will. That self-will is a direct contradiction to the purposes we were created for. As Screwtape says, when we deny the self-will, and surrender our wills to His, we become more ourselves than ever.
Monday, March 6, 2017
Some of Lewis' thoughts on Free Will (and a short story idea)
God decided to create the world in such a way that man had free will. For what reason would God choose to create a world in which free will exists, knowing as He did, it could end up going very badly (as it did indeed)? "Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata - of creatures that worked like machines - would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).
God could have created a world where man had free will but chose to erase the Original Sin. But, if God had used some sort of magical eraser to erase the Original Sin or hit the reset button, then He would have continued to have to do it to erase the inevitable Second Original Sin, Third Original Sin, Fourth Original Sin, and so on ad infinitum. But, if He had opted for this course than either the world would have never really gotten going or eventually whatever umpteenth number Original Sin would have eventually started off the course at which we found ourselves.
Lewis states that some people claim to be able to imagine a world in which there is Free Will but no possibility of evil. Lewis denies this. Basically he states that in order to have a world with Free Will but with no possibility for the misusage of Free Will God would have to intervene at an infinite rate to produce miracles after miracles in such a way that they would disrupt the natural order of His creation. There would be no laws of physics or any kind of natural law because God would have to constantly intervene whenever someone tried to do something wrong. The way Lewis writes about this gives me a funny idea for a short story involving Cain and Abel.
The Unfortunate Events of Cain and Abel
Say God had decided to intervene with his magic original sin eraser. After about the three thousandth time of erasing the Original Sin God finally gets fed up with Adam and Eve and casts them out of the Garden. But, after awhile he decides to get back up to the whole reset button and magic eraser routine until Cain and Abel are ready to make their sacrifices. God accepts Abel's but rejects Cain's. Cain is so angry at Abel he calls him every name under the sun, but God, in order to spare the evil from polluting the world alters the sound waves so that Abel doesn't hear all the threats that Cain is making. The problem here becomes twofold. First, it further angers Cain. Second, it leaves Abel completely unaware that his brother is furious with him and wants to kill him. He accepts Cain's overtures to go hang out in the rock pit. Whereupon Cain picks up a rock in anger and tries to hit Abel upside the head, but God quickly changes the law of physics so that whatever Cain throws at Abel will end up harmless. The rock flies at Abel who is suddenly popped in the head with a Watermelon, leaving him stunned, but chuckling. He picks up a rock and pummels Cain with it. God however is so tired of this whole magic eraser business and is busy telling the Holy Spirit his frustration that he doesn't notice Abel throwing the rock at Cain and since He only changed the laws of physics to protect Abel from Cain's sin, Abel inadvertently slew Cain. Totally bemused with his first family and his ill-fated attempts to create perfect children with Free Will he decides to hit the reset button and leaves them Free Will and devises a different plan to get them out of the inevitable mess they'll make.
Lewis, however, is a bit more serious minded than I am. He contends that a world where Free Will exists and God changes their mistakes before they become sin would not only create a world where wrong actions are impossible, but where freedom of the will would become impossible. He also makes a fascinating point about being upset with God for creating a world with the possibility of such evil. He argues that we have no right and no real standing when we argue against God on this matter. God is the very source of our reasoning power, so to use our reasoning power to try and argue against him is not only fruitless, it's a little bit like chopping off the branch we're sitting on to spite the tree. The Tree is still going to be standing once we crashed out onto the ground.
God could have created a world where man had free will but chose to erase the Original Sin. But, if God had used some sort of magical eraser to erase the Original Sin or hit the reset button, then He would have continued to have to do it to erase the inevitable Second Original Sin, Third Original Sin, Fourth Original Sin, and so on ad infinitum. But, if He had opted for this course than either the world would have never really gotten going or eventually whatever umpteenth number Original Sin would have eventually started off the course at which we found ourselves.
Lewis states that some people claim to be able to imagine a world in which there is Free Will but no possibility of evil. Lewis denies this. Basically he states that in order to have a world with Free Will but with no possibility for the misusage of Free Will God would have to intervene at an infinite rate to produce miracles after miracles in such a way that they would disrupt the natural order of His creation. There would be no laws of physics or any kind of natural law because God would have to constantly intervene whenever someone tried to do something wrong. The way Lewis writes about this gives me a funny idea for a short story involving Cain and Abel.
The Unfortunate Events of Cain and Abel
Say God had decided to intervene with his magic original sin eraser. After about the three thousandth time of erasing the Original Sin God finally gets fed up with Adam and Eve and casts them out of the Garden. But, after awhile he decides to get back up to the whole reset button and magic eraser routine until Cain and Abel are ready to make their sacrifices. God accepts Abel's but rejects Cain's. Cain is so angry at Abel he calls him every name under the sun, but God, in order to spare the evil from polluting the world alters the sound waves so that Abel doesn't hear all the threats that Cain is making. The problem here becomes twofold. First, it further angers Cain. Second, it leaves Abel completely unaware that his brother is furious with him and wants to kill him. He accepts Cain's overtures to go hang out in the rock pit. Whereupon Cain picks up a rock in anger and tries to hit Abel upside the head, but God quickly changes the law of physics so that whatever Cain throws at Abel will end up harmless. The rock flies at Abel who is suddenly popped in the head with a Watermelon, leaving him stunned, but chuckling. He picks up a rock and pummels Cain with it. God however is so tired of this whole magic eraser business and is busy telling the Holy Spirit his frustration that he doesn't notice Abel throwing the rock at Cain and since He only changed the laws of physics to protect Abel from Cain's sin, Abel inadvertently slew Cain. Totally bemused with his first family and his ill-fated attempts to create perfect children with Free Will he decides to hit the reset button and leaves them Free Will and devises a different plan to get them out of the inevitable mess they'll make.
Lewis, however, is a bit more serious minded than I am. He contends that a world where Free Will exists and God changes their mistakes before they become sin would not only create a world where wrong actions are impossible, but where freedom of the will would become impossible. He also makes a fascinating point about being upset with God for creating a world with the possibility of such evil. He argues that we have no right and no real standing when we argue against God on this matter. God is the very source of our reasoning power, so to use our reasoning power to try and argue against him is not only fruitless, it's a little bit like chopping off the branch we're sitting on to spite the tree. The Tree is still going to be standing once we crashed out onto the ground.
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
365 Day Bible Day 2
Day 2 (still playing catch-up)
Genesis 3-4
The Fall of Man in Genesis 3- Why did God make the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Why did God make the Tree of Life? Genesis 3 offers us the first look of the Problem of Evil in Scriptures. Why was the serpent crafty? Why did he defy God? Why did Eve mis-remember or lie about the tree in the middle of the garden and embellish what God had said? Eve, even in that innocent state at the least erred, if not fibbed. Who is to blame for the fall of man?
Was it God for setting Adam and Eve up to fail? Was it the serpent for seducing Eve? Was it Eve for eating the apple and seducing Adam? Was it Adam to succumbing to Eve and eating the apple? It just occurred to me, though I've probably thought of it before or so I'm not mis-remembering or fibbing, it's probably more accurate to state that it has been pointed out to me before that the problem of free will and the problem of evil are intricately related.
Why did God create the universe in the way He did? We may posit guesses, theories and plausible scenarios, but our answers will only reach probability standards and internally consistency. The fact of the matter is that the world is as it is because God created it as such (allowing a transcendental argument that presupposes that the Christian God did create the world, that I have no personal qualms with accepting on various levels that I'll not go into at the moment). But, as for the creation of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (whether this is a literal or metaphorical creation, a topic for another discussion) demands that God created the world as such to involve Free Will. Thus, sin, though not inevitable, is at least possible in the world that God created. The Problem of Evil comes about because we ask who is the author of evil. In a world that is created by God where evil is at least possible don't we have to accept that God is the ultimate author of evil? I tend to lean towards St. Augustine's way of dealing with the existence of evil as I sort of had a eureka moment when I learned of his theory. Evil is not something that exists independently and is really only the diminishing of the good. Thus, God who cannot be diminished at all can never be evil. Thus, we can rule God out as the author of evil.
But, we needn't get too deep into this as it really doesn't concern Genesis 3 only that it absolves God from any guilt in the scenario. God shows whose to blame as he doles out punishment. The serpent is cursed. The woman has her pain in childbearing greatly increased and Adam and the ground is cursed because of his role in the event.
Even after punishment though God takes care of Adam & Eve making them garments of skin.
Cain and Abel are then born to Adam and Eve in exile from the Garden. Cain offered "some" of his fruits and Abel offered "fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock". The Lord looked on Abel with favor for his offering, but not on Cain. Cain became angry. Then God says something interesting, combining a comforting and a warning - "If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it".
That verse, 4:7 strikes some fear in me. I can vividly picture sin crouching at my door seeking to have me. Lord, help me master it.
Cain kills Abel and is cursed by God, but once again God even punishment doesn't totally destroy Cain, marking him so that nobody kills him.
This is where I start to get intrigued and thinking about the whole Adam & Eve and Cain & Abel and why is Cain scared stating, "I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me". If Adam & Eve are the first people and Cain and Abel their first children, and now that Abel is dead, who is Cain afraid of coming across when he is wandering? Who is his wife that he lay with in the next verse? Now I guess is as good of a place as any for me to posit my working and probably incredibly inaccurate thoughts on Creation, Adam & Eve and who the heck Cain is scared of.
First, with regard to the Genesis account of Creation and its literal/metaphorical interpretation. Actually, let's back up a second before I go into this. Firstly, anything and everything in Scriptures is relevant to our daily walk with God. But, if it doesn't deny the salvation through Jesus Christ or anything heretical about the nature of God, I think a debate can be had on certain things - one of which is Creation. Secondly, as long as there is no disagreement on how one is redeemed, which is through Jesus Christ and acceptance of Him as one's Lord and Savior, and on the Triune God of Christianity being the sole God, one can be called a Christian. I am sure that when I get to Heaven I will be surprised who I see and who I don't see. God's redemptive powers are greater than my conception of them. Lastly, I do not think it to be edifying the faithful or a good look to the un-believing for Christians to come to blows, literal or metaphorical about things related to faith. Where there is disagreement, let there be discussion unless discussion leads to heresy or disharmony. If there are in those rare spots places where Christians can disagree on points of theology that are not related to Christ, his redeeming ways or on the Trinity then let us simply do good works to show our faith. But when it comes to Creation, I am not a literalist. I don't think we can take the Biblical account of Genesis 1-2 and turn it into a scientific treatise because that is not what it was intended to be.
As for my take on Creation, I see no reason why a Darwinian account of evolution is incompatible with a Scriptural worldview. I see this because I don't think the Bible is a scientific textbook. Now, Darwinian evolution has the power to describe the process of how the earth came into being, but not the why or the intent of creation. I believe that when God set into motion the events of creation that would eventually lead to this point and to the final point in history, He did so in the full knowledge of the fall of man and that his creation act included the two seminal points in redeeming man - the crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus Christ and the second coming. They were woven into the fabric of creation because he had foreknowledge that man would fall and in the ultimate act of love and sacrifice he chose to create and redeem nonetheless. Why did God create in such a way that included Free Will? Again, this is one of those questions we can only posit theories to that approximate internal consistency because we cannot know the full mind of God.
Now, we come to Adam and Eve and some of the differences between Genesis 1 and 2. I think at some point in the distant past, when man was emerging out of East Africa, God chose, much in the way he chose Abraham, a certain man and placed him in the Garden to fulfill the purpose which God had set for man at the onset of creation - "to fill the earth and subdue it, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground" (Genesis 1:28). Through Adam naming the creatures of the garden, God gave him dominion over those in the garden. While I don't take creation as literal, I take the Garden of Eden and Adam as literal, as well as Eve being formed for Adam by God specifically as literal, historical events.
Now comes the question of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life and the serpent. This I vacillate back and forth on. On the one hand, if God set up a guard at the entrance to the Garden so that Adam & Eve couldn't return to the garden it would suggest that both trees are literal. But, on the other hand, the sin/fall of man could very well have been Adam & Eve exercising their free will in a way that resulted in sin and the story could be metaphorical and just Adam & Eve choosing to live their way instead of God's way. I'm not sure - to be honest, I'm not really sure about any of this; it's just my personal thoughts.
Cain & Abel is most definitely now entering a literal phase. I think that once Adam & Eve have been banished from paradise they are aware of other people throughout their little corner of the world. Cain being banished from his home territory would mean coming across other groups of humans who might not be overly receptive to someone wandering into their territory where they hunt and gather. Why do I think that Adam & Eve and their sons knew of other human beings in the vicinity of them? The wife of Cain, without the Biblical mention of Adam & Eve having a daughter makes me think that Cain (and probably Abel) acquired a wife from another band of humans in the general vicinity to where Adam & Eve were living. But, this could all be wrong. Lord, I pray for two things. First, that I don't get to caught up in intellectualizing your Word and thus, not gleaning the eternal truths from it by drowning out your voice. Second, that I don't lead myself or anyone else astray from you in thinking or writing these things.
To finish up today's reading in Genesis I have two things that puzzle me
1) Lamech. What is Lamech saying when he makes his declaration to his two wives?
2) Adam & Eve's third son Seth has a son called Enosh: "At that time men began to call on the name of the Lord". What does that mean? The Lord spoke to Adam & Eve, and to Cain (presumably to Abel). But had the fall caused enough rift that the Lord was pulling back and so the roles reversed to where man was beginning to call on the name of the Lord instead of the other way around?
Matthew 3
John the Baptist was baptizing and preaching in the desert and drawing crowds. He chastised the Pharisees and the Sadducees who seemed to be relying on their heritage as descendants of Abraham for salvation. "Produce fruit in keeping with repentance" (3:8) he warned them, continuing "The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire" (3:10).
Lord, hear my prayer - Help me to produce fruit in keeping with repentance. I repent of my sins and yet I am bearing no fruit. I continue to go to my sins often, even after repenting. I repent again. Help me to bear fruit.
The first words of Jesus in the New Testament come from Matthew 3:15 "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness". While the formation of the Scriptures as it is now may not be chronological in the order that events happened or were even recorded, I find it interesting to English readers of the Scriptures that Jesus' first words are essentially 'let's do it to fulfill all righteousness'. With that John the Baptist baptizes Jesus and God declares from Heaven who Jesus is - "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased". Righteousness pleases God.
Psalm 2
2:11 - "Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling"
2:12b - "Blessed are all who take refuge in him"
Lord, may I serve you and rejoice you and take refuge in you.
Proverbs 1:7-9
1:7 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline."
Lord, let this be yet another beginning of knowledge. Teach me not to despise your discipline. Hear my prayer Lord.
Genesis 3-4
The Fall of Man in Genesis 3- Why did God make the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Why did God make the Tree of Life? Genesis 3 offers us the first look of the Problem of Evil in Scriptures. Why was the serpent crafty? Why did he defy God? Why did Eve mis-remember or lie about the tree in the middle of the garden and embellish what God had said? Eve, even in that innocent state at the least erred, if not fibbed. Who is to blame for the fall of man?
Was it God for setting Adam and Eve up to fail? Was it the serpent for seducing Eve? Was it Eve for eating the apple and seducing Adam? Was it Adam to succumbing to Eve and eating the apple? It just occurred to me, though I've probably thought of it before or so I'm not mis-remembering or fibbing, it's probably more accurate to state that it has been pointed out to me before that the problem of free will and the problem of evil are intricately related.
Why did God create the universe in the way He did? We may posit guesses, theories and plausible scenarios, but our answers will only reach probability standards and internally consistency. The fact of the matter is that the world is as it is because God created it as such (allowing a transcendental argument that presupposes that the Christian God did create the world, that I have no personal qualms with accepting on various levels that I'll not go into at the moment). But, as for the creation of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (whether this is a literal or metaphorical creation, a topic for another discussion) demands that God created the world as such to involve Free Will. Thus, sin, though not inevitable, is at least possible in the world that God created. The Problem of Evil comes about because we ask who is the author of evil. In a world that is created by God where evil is at least possible don't we have to accept that God is the ultimate author of evil? I tend to lean towards St. Augustine's way of dealing with the existence of evil as I sort of had a eureka moment when I learned of his theory. Evil is not something that exists independently and is really only the diminishing of the good. Thus, God who cannot be diminished at all can never be evil. Thus, we can rule God out as the author of evil.
But, we needn't get too deep into this as it really doesn't concern Genesis 3 only that it absolves God from any guilt in the scenario. God shows whose to blame as he doles out punishment. The serpent is cursed. The woman has her pain in childbearing greatly increased and Adam and the ground is cursed because of his role in the event.
Even after punishment though God takes care of Adam & Eve making them garments of skin.
Cain and Abel are then born to Adam and Eve in exile from the Garden. Cain offered "some" of his fruits and Abel offered "fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock". The Lord looked on Abel with favor for his offering, but not on Cain. Cain became angry. Then God says something interesting, combining a comforting and a warning - "If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it".
That verse, 4:7 strikes some fear in me. I can vividly picture sin crouching at my door seeking to have me. Lord, help me master it.
Cain kills Abel and is cursed by God, but once again God even punishment doesn't totally destroy Cain, marking him so that nobody kills him.
This is where I start to get intrigued and thinking about the whole Adam & Eve and Cain & Abel and why is Cain scared stating, "I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me". If Adam & Eve are the first people and Cain and Abel their first children, and now that Abel is dead, who is Cain afraid of coming across when he is wandering? Who is his wife that he lay with in the next verse? Now I guess is as good of a place as any for me to posit my working and probably incredibly inaccurate thoughts on Creation, Adam & Eve and who the heck Cain is scared of.
First, with regard to the Genesis account of Creation and its literal/metaphorical interpretation. Actually, let's back up a second before I go into this. Firstly, anything and everything in Scriptures is relevant to our daily walk with God. But, if it doesn't deny the salvation through Jesus Christ or anything heretical about the nature of God, I think a debate can be had on certain things - one of which is Creation. Secondly, as long as there is no disagreement on how one is redeemed, which is through Jesus Christ and acceptance of Him as one's Lord and Savior, and on the Triune God of Christianity being the sole God, one can be called a Christian. I am sure that when I get to Heaven I will be surprised who I see and who I don't see. God's redemptive powers are greater than my conception of them. Lastly, I do not think it to be edifying the faithful or a good look to the un-believing for Christians to come to blows, literal or metaphorical about things related to faith. Where there is disagreement, let there be discussion unless discussion leads to heresy or disharmony. If there are in those rare spots places where Christians can disagree on points of theology that are not related to Christ, his redeeming ways or on the Trinity then let us simply do good works to show our faith. But when it comes to Creation, I am not a literalist. I don't think we can take the Biblical account of Genesis 1-2 and turn it into a scientific treatise because that is not what it was intended to be.
As for my take on Creation, I see no reason why a Darwinian account of evolution is incompatible with a Scriptural worldview. I see this because I don't think the Bible is a scientific textbook. Now, Darwinian evolution has the power to describe the process of how the earth came into being, but not the why or the intent of creation. I believe that when God set into motion the events of creation that would eventually lead to this point and to the final point in history, He did so in the full knowledge of the fall of man and that his creation act included the two seminal points in redeeming man - the crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus Christ and the second coming. They were woven into the fabric of creation because he had foreknowledge that man would fall and in the ultimate act of love and sacrifice he chose to create and redeem nonetheless. Why did God create in such a way that included Free Will? Again, this is one of those questions we can only posit theories to that approximate internal consistency because we cannot know the full mind of God.
Now, we come to Adam and Eve and some of the differences between Genesis 1 and 2. I think at some point in the distant past, when man was emerging out of East Africa, God chose, much in the way he chose Abraham, a certain man and placed him in the Garden to fulfill the purpose which God had set for man at the onset of creation - "to fill the earth and subdue it, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground" (Genesis 1:28). Through Adam naming the creatures of the garden, God gave him dominion over those in the garden. While I don't take creation as literal, I take the Garden of Eden and Adam as literal, as well as Eve being formed for Adam by God specifically as literal, historical events.
Now comes the question of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life and the serpent. This I vacillate back and forth on. On the one hand, if God set up a guard at the entrance to the Garden so that Adam & Eve couldn't return to the garden it would suggest that both trees are literal. But, on the other hand, the sin/fall of man could very well have been Adam & Eve exercising their free will in a way that resulted in sin and the story could be metaphorical and just Adam & Eve choosing to live their way instead of God's way. I'm not sure - to be honest, I'm not really sure about any of this; it's just my personal thoughts.
Cain & Abel is most definitely now entering a literal phase. I think that once Adam & Eve have been banished from paradise they are aware of other people throughout their little corner of the world. Cain being banished from his home territory would mean coming across other groups of humans who might not be overly receptive to someone wandering into their territory where they hunt and gather. Why do I think that Adam & Eve and their sons knew of other human beings in the vicinity of them? The wife of Cain, without the Biblical mention of Adam & Eve having a daughter makes me think that Cain (and probably Abel) acquired a wife from another band of humans in the general vicinity to where Adam & Eve were living. But, this could all be wrong. Lord, I pray for two things. First, that I don't get to caught up in intellectualizing your Word and thus, not gleaning the eternal truths from it by drowning out your voice. Second, that I don't lead myself or anyone else astray from you in thinking or writing these things.
To finish up today's reading in Genesis I have two things that puzzle me
1) Lamech. What is Lamech saying when he makes his declaration to his two wives?
2) Adam & Eve's third son Seth has a son called Enosh: "At that time men began to call on the name of the Lord". What does that mean? The Lord spoke to Adam & Eve, and to Cain (presumably to Abel). But had the fall caused enough rift that the Lord was pulling back and so the roles reversed to where man was beginning to call on the name of the Lord instead of the other way around?
Matthew 3
John the Baptist was baptizing and preaching in the desert and drawing crowds. He chastised the Pharisees and the Sadducees who seemed to be relying on their heritage as descendants of Abraham for salvation. "Produce fruit in keeping with repentance" (3:8) he warned them, continuing "The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire" (3:10).
Lord, hear my prayer - Help me to produce fruit in keeping with repentance. I repent of my sins and yet I am bearing no fruit. I continue to go to my sins often, even after repenting. I repent again. Help me to bear fruit.
The first words of Jesus in the New Testament come from Matthew 3:15 "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness". While the formation of the Scriptures as it is now may not be chronological in the order that events happened or were even recorded, I find it interesting to English readers of the Scriptures that Jesus' first words are essentially 'let's do it to fulfill all righteousness'. With that John the Baptist baptizes Jesus and God declares from Heaven who Jesus is - "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased". Righteousness pleases God.
Psalm 2
2:11 - "Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling"
2:12b - "Blessed are all who take refuge in him"
Lord, may I serve you and rejoice you and take refuge in you.
Proverbs 1:7-9
1:7 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline."
Lord, let this be yet another beginning of knowledge. Teach me not to despise your discipline. Hear my prayer Lord.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Anaxagoras & the Atomists according to Russell
(Originally Written February 12, 2014 on scrap paper now lost)
Snow in Georgia, maybe two inches. Of course, everything is shut down. The power is out.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Book I
Chapter VIII - Anaxagoras
Anaxagoras introduced philosophy to Athens around 412 BC - 432 BC.
Anaxagoras taught that mind was the source of all motion.
Anaxagoras rejected the notions of necessity and chance. But he also did not believe in providence.
Anaxagoras was very much scientifically inclined and explained things as mechanically as often as he could.
Chapter IX - The Atomists
The Atomist movement was founded by Leucippus and Democritus. Leucippus is older and much less well known (legendary/mythical). Democritus was a contemporary of Socrates (5th century BC).
Atomists believed that everything was comprised of infinite atoms that were indivisible and in constant motion.
Atomists were strict determinists. Everything happened according to natural laws.
Atomists explained the universe in terms that do not need a final cause or purpose. There is no teleology.
"All causal explanations, therefore, must have an arbitrary beginning" (Russell, 67).
"There was no very sharp distinction, in ancient times, between empirical observation and logical argument" (Russell, 68)
The Atomists, like their contemporaries were concerned with Parmenides' denial of change and the obvious fact that change happens.
Snow in Georgia, maybe two inches. Of course, everything is shut down. The power is out.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Book I
Chapter VIII - Anaxagoras
Anaxagoras introduced philosophy to Athens around 412 BC - 432 BC.
Anaxagoras taught that mind was the source of all motion.
Anaxagoras rejected the notions of necessity and chance. But he also did not believe in providence.
Anaxagoras was very much scientifically inclined and explained things as mechanically as often as he could.
Chapter IX - The Atomists
The Atomist movement was founded by Leucippus and Democritus. Leucippus is older and much less well known (legendary/mythical). Democritus was a contemporary of Socrates (5th century BC).
Atomists believed that everything was comprised of infinite atoms that were indivisible and in constant motion.
Atomists were strict determinists. Everything happened according to natural laws.
Atomists explained the universe in terms that do not need a final cause or purpose. There is no teleology.
"All causal explanations, therefore, must have an arbitrary beginning" (Russell, 67).
"There was no very sharp distinction, in ancient times, between empirical observation and logical argument" (Russell, 68)
The Atomists, like their contemporaries were concerned with Parmenides' denial of change and the obvious fact that change happens.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
An unfinished, unpolished essay on free will & bumper cars
(Originally Written July 1, 2007 in the Red Notebook)
Essay: Determinism, Free Will & Bumper Cars
Are we who we are because of our selves or because of something beyond our control? Are we free or are we determined creatures? This question seems to have plagued us since we have become cognizant of God, which means that we have been plagued by it forever.
It is my opinion that we are in some sense free creatures who are subject to a number of determinations. If we were purely free creatures we would be free to will our own existence. But, since none of us chose to be born we all must be determined in some way.
Our birth is akin to being placed in an amusement park. There are many rides for us to choose to ride or choose not to ride. Sometimes, other factors in the park force us to make decisions, but these decisions are wholly ours. Once we make any decision there are limitations to the outcome of those decisions.
Say for instance, we choose to ride the bumper cars. While we had no choice of entering the amusement park (birth), we did choose to ride the bumper cars over not riding the bumper cars. Once we have made this decision, possible outcomes have been determined and others have been eliminated. We cannot, while we ride the bumper cars, ride the Ferris wheel (though we may choose to do so later). But as it stands we have chosen to ride the bumper cars out of our free will.
The bumper cars simply represent any situation we choose to place ourselves into. So, now that we have chosen to ride the bumper cars we must enter the car. Once we enter the car we face things that are out of our control. We face determining factors.
The pole must touch the ceiling in order for our car to have power. Without contact our car cannot move an inch, no matter how much we will it to do so. The pole and ceiling connection is like the natural world. Without the laws of nature and simple natural phenomena we cannot function regardless of our strength of will.
Secondly, even if the connection of the pole and ceiling is correct, we cannot will our car to move if the ride operator has not engaged the electricity. In order for us to achieve our willed end of riding the bumper cars we must rely on the determining factor that the operator will engage the electricity. The operator in this scenario is an aspect of God, the sustaining power of God.
Once the operator has turned on the ride and we begin to move we have full control of our cars in the space allotted to the ride. This space is predetermined by the builder. The builder here is the creating power of God.
As we move the car we notice that there are many other cars. We only have control over our own car though. We can choose to impact or not to impact other cars, but we cannot choose to have others not impact us except by maneuvering away from them. That is, we have no control over the will of others. Other cars in this scenario are the other creatures. Their wills and thus, there actions, can impact our actions, but not our wills. Likewise, our wills and actions may impact their actions, but not there wills, except in an indirect way.
Sometimes in life and in bumper cars, we get stuck. Sometimes it is in a corner. Other times it is behind lifeless cars. Sometimes we drive ourselves into these situations. Other times we are bumped into them. No matter the power of our will or action we can't get ourselves unstuck. We must rely on the operator (God) to remove us from the situation.
Essay: Determinism, Free Will & Bumper Cars
Are we who we are because of our selves or because of something beyond our control? Are we free or are we determined creatures? This question seems to have plagued us since we have become cognizant of God, which means that we have been plagued by it forever.
It is my opinion that we are in some sense free creatures who are subject to a number of determinations. If we were purely free creatures we would be free to will our own existence. But, since none of us chose to be born we all must be determined in some way.
Our birth is akin to being placed in an amusement park. There are many rides for us to choose to ride or choose not to ride. Sometimes, other factors in the park force us to make decisions, but these decisions are wholly ours. Once we make any decision there are limitations to the outcome of those decisions.
Say for instance, we choose to ride the bumper cars. While we had no choice of entering the amusement park (birth), we did choose to ride the bumper cars over not riding the bumper cars. Once we have made this decision, possible outcomes have been determined and others have been eliminated. We cannot, while we ride the bumper cars, ride the Ferris wheel (though we may choose to do so later). But as it stands we have chosen to ride the bumper cars out of our free will.
The bumper cars simply represent any situation we choose to place ourselves into. So, now that we have chosen to ride the bumper cars we must enter the car. Once we enter the car we face things that are out of our control. We face determining factors.
The pole must touch the ceiling in order for our car to have power. Without contact our car cannot move an inch, no matter how much we will it to do so. The pole and ceiling connection is like the natural world. Without the laws of nature and simple natural phenomena we cannot function regardless of our strength of will.
Secondly, even if the connection of the pole and ceiling is correct, we cannot will our car to move if the ride operator has not engaged the electricity. In order for us to achieve our willed end of riding the bumper cars we must rely on the determining factor that the operator will engage the electricity. The operator in this scenario is an aspect of God, the sustaining power of God.
Once the operator has turned on the ride and we begin to move we have full control of our cars in the space allotted to the ride. This space is predetermined by the builder. The builder here is the creating power of God.
As we move the car we notice that there are many other cars. We only have control over our own car though. We can choose to impact or not to impact other cars, but we cannot choose to have others not impact us except by maneuvering away from them. That is, we have no control over the will of others. Other cars in this scenario are the other creatures. Their wills and thus, there actions, can impact our actions, but not our wills. Likewise, our wills and actions may impact their actions, but not there wills, except in an indirect way.
Sometimes in life and in bumper cars, we get stuck. Sometimes it is in a corner. Other times it is behind lifeless cars. Sometimes we drive ourselves into these situations. Other times we are bumped into them. No matter the power of our will or action we can't get ourselves unstuck. We must rely on the operator (God) to remove us from the situation.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Notes on Discoure on Metaphysics (A)
(Originally written May 12, 2007 in Book 14)
We come back to my mentor and favorite, the much maligned G.W. Leibniz.
Discourse on Metaphysics and other Essays
G.W. Leibniz
Trans. Daniel Garber & Raoger Ariew
Hackett Publishing Co.
Indianapolis, IN
1991
Discourse on Metaphysics 1686
1. On Divine Perfection and that God does everyone in the most desirable way
- God is an absolutely perfect being
- Power & knowledge are perfection and have no limits within God
- The more enlightened we are of God's works the more we'll "be disposed to find them excellent and in complete conformity with what we might have desired" (Leibniz, 1).
2. Against those who claim that there is no goodness in God's works or that the rules of goodness and Beauty are arbitrary
- By looking at the created things we can discover the creator
- All acts of will presuppose a reason for willing
- Reason is prior to the act of will
- Eternal truths of metaphysics and geometry and the rules of goodness, justice and perfection are not merely the effects of the will of God, but the consequences of His understanding.
3. Against those who believe that God might have made things better
- The consequences of believing that God could have made things better are wholly contrary to the glory of God.
- "A lesser evil is relatively good, so a lesser good is relatively evil" (Leibniz, 3).
- To act with less perfection than one could have is to act imperfectly
- The reason many believe that God could have created better is our inadequate knowledge of the general harmony of the universe and the hidden reasons for God's conduct
- "God does nothing for which he does not deserve to be glorified" (Leibniz, 3).
4. That the Love of God requires our complete satisfaction and acquiescence with respect to what he has done without our being quietist as a result
- Those who are dissatisfied with God's creation cannot fully love God
- We must be truly satisfied with everything that comes to us because it is according to His will
- As to regards to future events though we must not be passive and simply await what God will do, but act in accordance to what may be the will of God as best we can. We must strive to contribute to the general good.
- The outcome of our actions may show that God did not wish our good to have immediate effect, but it does not follow that He did not wish us to act
- "He never demands more than the right intention, and it is for Him to know the proper hour and place for letting the good designs succeed"
5. What the rules of the perfection of divine conduct consist in, and that the simplicity of the ways is in balance with the richness of the effects
- To know in detail the reason that could have moved God to choose the order of the universe is beyond the scope of finite minds
- As finite minds we cannot fully comprehend why God allows sin or bestows grace in the way He does, especially prior to attaining the full enjoyment of the vision of God.
- Minds have perfections and these consist of virtues
- The happiness of minds is the principal aim of God
6. God does nothing which is not orderly and it is not even possible to imagine events that are not regular
- The acts of God are commonly divided into ordinary and extraordinary. But everything is in conformity with the universal order.
- In understanding this we understand little other than what happens happens according to the order of harmony that God established.
7. That miracles conform to the General order, even though they may be contrary to the subordinate maxims; and about what God wills or permits by a General volition
- Miracles are as much in the order of things as typical events
8. To distinguish the actions of God from those of Creatures we explain the notion of an individual substance
- Every predicate of a subject must be contained within the subject at least "in-esse"
- One who understands perfectly the notion of the subject would also know the predicates which belong to it
- There is something in the being of every substance or in the haecceity (thingness) of a thing, vestiges of everything that has happened to it and that will happen to it and even traces of everyone that happens in the universe. But, God alone is capable of recognizing this and knowing the thing's haecceity perfectly.
9. That each singular substance expresses the whole universe in its own way, and that all its events, together with all their circumstances and the whole sequence of external things are included in its notion
- Two substances cannot resemble each other completely and differ only in number or spatial qualities
- A substance can only begin by creation and end via annihilation
- A substance is not divisible into two. Likewise two substances cannot be combined into one.
- Every substance is like a complete world and a mirror of God
- The glory of God is multiplied by the number of substances in the universe
- Every substance bears in some way the infinite wisdom of God and imitates it insofar it is capable
10. That the belief in substantial forms has some basis, but that these forms do not change anything in the phenomena and must not be used to explain particular effects
- Without using the forms (Platonic forms) we cannot "elevate our minds sufficiently well to the knowledge of incorporeal natures and the wonders of God" (Leibniz, 10).
11. That the Thoughts of Theologians and Philosophers who are called scholastics are not entirely to be disdained
- If we are to look at St. Thomas and the other scholastics we would find a great treasure of demonstrative truths
12. That the notions involved in extension contain something imaginary and cannot constitute the substance of body
- The nature of substance and body does not wholly lie in extension, that is size, shape and motion, but is something related to souls or substantial form
- Souls sustain existence of bodies from moment to moment and preserve the basis for knowledge of what they are
- Souls alone are susceptible to punishment and reward and citizens subject to God.
13.
- The individual notion of each person includes once and for all everything that will ever happen to him but these truths are nonetheless contingent because they are caused by either the Free Will of God or of his creation
- It would appear that if all that happens is included in the nation of a single substance we would be left with complete fatalism. However, there is a big difference between certainty and necessity. Everything that will occur is certain because God foresees all actions, but it does not follow that what happens happens necessarily.
- An effect is necessary when its opposite implies a contradiction. An effect is contingent when its opposite course is not a contradictory one.
- Whatever happens in conformity with the predeterminations is certain, but not necessary, fore he would have done the opposite without it causing a contradiction, despite it being impossible for him to take the opposite action
14.
- Every created substance depends on God who preserves them in the manner we preserve our thoughts, only completely and perfectly.
- Every created substance is independent of everything save for God.
- No substance truly acts upon or is enacted upon by another substance because every substance is sustained by itself and God.
15.
- A substance is of infinitely extension insofar as it expresses everything, but is limited insofar as it expresses everything imperfectly
- Substances act upon one another in only the sense that they serve to limit the extension of one another. When one substance is greatened another must be limited to accommodate the other's growth.
- Whenever a thing acts it improves its efficacy. Thus, when a thing increases its efficacy it achieves more perfection and is strengthened and another substance is weakened.
- Pleasure arises when a perceptional being increases itself and pain occurs when it is decreased.
- One can sin by seeking to increase and thus seeking power and pleasure.
16.
- Miracles and extraordinary influence from God on man seems impossible because all events are consequences according to nature's demands.
- Miracles exist but are always in conformity with the universal law and general order of the universe.
- Miracles are miracles because they cannot be presupposed or foreseen by any created mind.
- What we express is our essence or idea and that is unlimited, but our nature or our power is limited.
- Whatever surpasses the nature or power of created substances is supernatural, but nothing can surpass our essences.
17.
???
We come back to my mentor and favorite, the much maligned G.W. Leibniz.
Discourse on Metaphysics and other Essays
G.W. Leibniz
Trans. Daniel Garber & Raoger Ariew
Hackett Publishing Co.
Indianapolis, IN
1991
Discourse on Metaphysics 1686
1. On Divine Perfection and that God does everyone in the most desirable way
- God is an absolutely perfect being
- Power & knowledge are perfection and have no limits within God
- The more enlightened we are of God's works the more we'll "be disposed to find them excellent and in complete conformity with what we might have desired" (Leibniz, 1).
2. Against those who claim that there is no goodness in God's works or that the rules of goodness and Beauty are arbitrary
- By looking at the created things we can discover the creator
- All acts of will presuppose a reason for willing
- Reason is prior to the act of will
- Eternal truths of metaphysics and geometry and the rules of goodness, justice and perfection are not merely the effects of the will of God, but the consequences of His understanding.
3. Against those who believe that God might have made things better
- The consequences of believing that God could have made things better are wholly contrary to the glory of God.
- "A lesser evil is relatively good, so a lesser good is relatively evil" (Leibniz, 3).
- To act with less perfection than one could have is to act imperfectly
- The reason many believe that God could have created better is our inadequate knowledge of the general harmony of the universe and the hidden reasons for God's conduct
- "God does nothing for which he does not deserve to be glorified" (Leibniz, 3).
4. That the Love of God requires our complete satisfaction and acquiescence with respect to what he has done without our being quietist as a result
- Those who are dissatisfied with God's creation cannot fully love God
- We must be truly satisfied with everything that comes to us because it is according to His will
- As to regards to future events though we must not be passive and simply await what God will do, but act in accordance to what may be the will of God as best we can. We must strive to contribute to the general good.
- The outcome of our actions may show that God did not wish our good to have immediate effect, but it does not follow that He did not wish us to act
- "He never demands more than the right intention, and it is for Him to know the proper hour and place for letting the good designs succeed"
5. What the rules of the perfection of divine conduct consist in, and that the simplicity of the ways is in balance with the richness of the effects
- To know in detail the reason that could have moved God to choose the order of the universe is beyond the scope of finite minds
- As finite minds we cannot fully comprehend why God allows sin or bestows grace in the way He does, especially prior to attaining the full enjoyment of the vision of God.
- Minds have perfections and these consist of virtues
- The happiness of minds is the principal aim of God
6. God does nothing which is not orderly and it is not even possible to imagine events that are not regular
- The acts of God are commonly divided into ordinary and extraordinary. But everything is in conformity with the universal order.
- In understanding this we understand little other than what happens happens according to the order of harmony that God established.
7. That miracles conform to the General order, even though they may be contrary to the subordinate maxims; and about what God wills or permits by a General volition
- Miracles are as much in the order of things as typical events
8. To distinguish the actions of God from those of Creatures we explain the notion of an individual substance
- Every predicate of a subject must be contained within the subject at least "in-esse"
- One who understands perfectly the notion of the subject would also know the predicates which belong to it
- There is something in the being of every substance or in the haecceity (thingness) of a thing, vestiges of everything that has happened to it and that will happen to it and even traces of everyone that happens in the universe. But, God alone is capable of recognizing this and knowing the thing's haecceity perfectly.
9. That each singular substance expresses the whole universe in its own way, and that all its events, together with all their circumstances and the whole sequence of external things are included in its notion
- Two substances cannot resemble each other completely and differ only in number or spatial qualities
- A substance can only begin by creation and end via annihilation
- A substance is not divisible into two. Likewise two substances cannot be combined into one.
- Every substance is like a complete world and a mirror of God
- The glory of God is multiplied by the number of substances in the universe
- Every substance bears in some way the infinite wisdom of God and imitates it insofar it is capable
10. That the belief in substantial forms has some basis, but that these forms do not change anything in the phenomena and must not be used to explain particular effects
- Without using the forms (Platonic forms) we cannot "elevate our minds sufficiently well to the knowledge of incorporeal natures and the wonders of God" (Leibniz, 10).
11. That the Thoughts of Theologians and Philosophers who are called scholastics are not entirely to be disdained
- If we are to look at St. Thomas and the other scholastics we would find a great treasure of demonstrative truths
12. That the notions involved in extension contain something imaginary and cannot constitute the substance of body
- The nature of substance and body does not wholly lie in extension, that is size, shape and motion, but is something related to souls or substantial form
- Souls sustain existence of bodies from moment to moment and preserve the basis for knowledge of what they are
- Souls alone are susceptible to punishment and reward and citizens subject to God.
13.
- The individual notion of each person includes once and for all everything that will ever happen to him but these truths are nonetheless contingent because they are caused by either the Free Will of God or of his creation
- It would appear that if all that happens is included in the nation of a single substance we would be left with complete fatalism. However, there is a big difference between certainty and necessity. Everything that will occur is certain because God foresees all actions, but it does not follow that what happens happens necessarily.
- An effect is necessary when its opposite implies a contradiction. An effect is contingent when its opposite course is not a contradictory one.
- Whatever happens in conformity with the predeterminations is certain, but not necessary, fore he would have done the opposite without it causing a contradiction, despite it being impossible for him to take the opposite action
14.
- Every created substance depends on God who preserves them in the manner we preserve our thoughts, only completely and perfectly.
- Every created substance is independent of everything save for God.
- No substance truly acts upon or is enacted upon by another substance because every substance is sustained by itself and God.
15.
- A substance is of infinitely extension insofar as it expresses everything, but is limited insofar as it expresses everything imperfectly
- Substances act upon one another in only the sense that they serve to limit the extension of one another. When one substance is greatened another must be limited to accommodate the other's growth.
- Whenever a thing acts it improves its efficacy. Thus, when a thing increases its efficacy it achieves more perfection and is strengthened and another substance is weakened.
- Pleasure arises when a perceptional being increases itself and pain occurs when it is decreased.
- One can sin by seeking to increase and thus seeking power and pleasure.
16.
- Miracles and extraordinary influence from God on man seems impossible because all events are consequences according to nature's demands.
- Miracles exist but are always in conformity with the universal law and general order of the universe.
- Miracles are miracles because they cannot be presupposed or foreseen by any created mind.
- What we express is our essence or idea and that is unlimited, but our nature or our power is limited.
- Whatever surpasses the nature or power of created substances is supernatural, but nothing can surpass our essences.
17.
???
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Philosophy of Religion - Hick: Ch. 5 (B)
(Originally written February 7, 2007 in Book 7)
Philosophy of Religion
John Hick
Chapter 5 (continued)
A non-propositional view of revelation and faith
The Heilsgeschichte view of revelation became popular amongst protestants in the 20th century. According to this view revelation is God's coming within the realm of human experience by acting in history. This non-propositional view is connected with the modern emphasis on the personal nature of God.
Why does God not overwhelm humanity with a manifestation? Answer - there must necessarily be a freedom of will to believe or disbelieve in God in a loving, trusting relationship.
In this view tot become conscience of God is to see oneself as a created, dependent being.
In this view, faith is the correlative of freedom. "Faith is related to cognition as free will to conation" (Hick, 69).
In this view history can be viewed both naturalistic and/or religiously. This is shown numerous times in the Bible.
A corresponding view of the Bible and theological thinking
The Bible is both a work of God and the works of human beings.
The New Testament and the Hebrew Scriptures (The Old Testament) constitute the given basis of Christian thought.
The New Testament was formed by appealing to apostolic authority (though there is present debate on this).
God's self revelation in and through the stream of saving history is called "Heilsgeschichte"
The non-propositional view of revelation and faith rejects the notions of revealed and natural theology. It rejects the notion of revealed theology on the basis that revelation is God's actions in human experience, not a set of God's truths disclosed in some text. It rejects natural theology on the grounds that natural theology attempts to discover without faith what must be discovered through faith.
This rejection of natural and revealed theology is grounded in a form of Christian empiricism.
All religious knowledge must be ultimately based on human experience.
Reason is used to build upon this human experience.
Philosophy of Religion
John Hick
Chapter 5 (continued)
A non-propositional view of revelation and faith
The Heilsgeschichte view of revelation became popular amongst protestants in the 20th century. According to this view revelation is God's coming within the realm of human experience by acting in history. This non-propositional view is connected with the modern emphasis on the personal nature of God.
Why does God not overwhelm humanity with a manifestation? Answer - there must necessarily be a freedom of will to believe or disbelieve in God in a loving, trusting relationship.
In this view tot become conscience of God is to see oneself as a created, dependent being.
In this view, faith is the correlative of freedom. "Faith is related to cognition as free will to conation" (Hick, 69).
In this view history can be viewed both naturalistic and/or religiously. This is shown numerous times in the Bible.
A corresponding view of the Bible and theological thinking
The Bible is both a work of God and the works of human beings.
The New Testament and the Hebrew Scriptures (The Old Testament) constitute the given basis of Christian thought.
The New Testament was formed by appealing to apostolic authority (though there is present debate on this).
God's self revelation in and through the stream of saving history is called "Heilsgeschichte"
The non-propositional view of revelation and faith rejects the notions of revealed and natural theology. It rejects the notion of revealed theology on the basis that revelation is God's actions in human experience, not a set of God's truths disclosed in some text. It rejects natural theology on the grounds that natural theology attempts to discover without faith what must be discovered through faith.
This rejection of natural and revealed theology is grounded in a form of Christian empiricism.
All religious knowledge must be ultimately based on human experience.
Reason is used to build upon this human experience.
Thursday, December 7, 2006
Medieval Notes, Including John Scotus
(Originally written December 7, 2006 in Book 11)
The History of Philosophy vol. 2
Chapter 5 - The Medieval Interval
Plato and Aristotle dominated the Classical period. Augustine and Aquinas dominated the Medieval period; but, lived 8 centuries apart. Augustine and Aquinas dealt with different problems, whereas Plato and Aristotle dealt with the same problems.
The Dark Ages
The barbarian conquering of Rome caused enormous stress. The barbarians were incapable of sustaining such a complex culture like Rome's.
The collapse of a uniform society caused man to primarily focus on staying alive.
The Classical philosophy was lost to Europe in the Dark Ages.
Literacy declined to the point that Charlemagne complained that the clergy did not know enough Latin to interpret the Scriptures.
The Church
Anything surviving from the Roman World in the Dark Ages was due to the Church.
Christianity made converts out of the pagan and Arian barbarians.
"By the end of the Dark Ages, Christianity was more widely spread and Orthodoxy more firmly entrenched than before the barbarian invasions began" (Jones, 142).
The Rise of the Papacy
The early Church was ruled by bishops, not by the Pope.
The doctrine of Papal primacy made the Pope the head of the Church and gave it temporal authority.
A Christian king was subject to the Pope.
Pope Gregory VII in the 11th century pulled papal primacy to its extreme. The power of the Popes stopped Europe from instituting a unified government until the rise of nationalism in the early Modern period.
Monasticism
While the Papacy drove the Church to become a secular power, the spiritual nature was preserved by two things:
1) Monasticism
2) The Friars
Monasticism began in the 5th and 6th centuries A.D.
Monasticism got its credibility from St. Benedict.
Humility was the top virtue in monastic life.
The monastic movement constantly reformed to maintain a spiritual primacy over a temporal primacy. Though it wasn't perfect it worked well enough.
The Friars of St. Francis
Francis of Assisi (1182-1226)
Francis of Assisi was a mystic reformer and founded the Order of the Friars Minor.
He was dedicated to poverty, simplicity and good works.
He achieved a large measure of success in inflaming the hearts of the average man with the love of God.
The main difference between now and the Dark Ages is that men in the Dark Ages were ready at any moment to be touched by the otherworldly.
Feudalism
Particularism began to grow in the fragmented ruins of the old Empire.
Men with property gained power as central governments were too weak to perform duties.
"Immunity" was granted to land owners by the central government which gave them the power of controlling their lands with no government interference.
Small peasant farmers would "commend" their lands to these large land owners. "Commendation" was the act of giving up one's land for protection and security. The ones who commended their lands would live on them and work them still, but they would no longer own the land.
Charlemagne (742-814) organized a strong central government and was crowned Emperor by the Pope. But his kingdom collapsed shortly after his death.
Feudalism was born out of the rapid commending process that followed the collapse of Charlemagne.
Authority and power and administration became inextricable from land ownership.
Medieval society was dominated by the concept of status, not the concept of citizenship.
The Middle Ages had a very fragmented society.
Chivalry
Chivalry was an ideal that emphasized private honor and public service.
Along with the Church and feudalism Chivalry marked the culture of the Middle Ages.
St. Louis, King of France
Louis IX was born in 1214 and set out to recapture Jerusalem in 1248. It failed, but he tried again in 1270.
Louis IX described chivalry as "upright" and "worthy".
Uprightness involved courage, modesty, charitableness, sobriety, faithfulness and justice.
Louis IX saw sin as a disease, much like Augustine.
Louis IX did not extend his notions of charity and humility to the Jews.
Louis IX distrusted education. As St. Francis, Louis IX was satisfied with simple faith.
Louis IX saw outward dignity as vital in society. His count was elaborate and attendants were lavishly dressed to show their rank.
Feudalism was so deeply entrenched in Louis IX's society that his closest friend and biographer, Sire de Joinville would not swear an oath of allegiance to Louis' family in the event he died in Crusade because Joinville was not his liegeman.
Art and Letters
Architecture
The 12th and 13th centuries were a period of great artistic blossoming.
Vaulted circling and stained glass windows marked the new Gothic style. The abbey church of St. Denis, the Cathedral of Noyon, Enlis, Paris, Rheims and the Sainte Chapelle are perfect examples of the Gothic style. The architecture reflected Christian piety.
Painting and Poetry
Painting and poetry moved from static, unmoving depictions to depictions of living, breathing men in nature.
It focused on the world, but their was still an otherworldly element: case in point - Dante.
The chasm between the otherworld and this world was removed. The two worlds were no longer bitter hostiles at war with each other.
Science
Bartholomew the Englishmen
Bartholomew was one of the most popular science writers of the Middle Ages.
He used Aristotle only in a way to describe it in a very confusing manner.
Science was mixed with heresy and old wives tales.
Aristotle and Medieval Science
It took time to assimilate Aristotle to science.
Men in the Middle Ages were more concerned with salvation, not with accumulating the facts.
Vincent Beauvais
Bartholomew and Vincent Beauvais were very unscientific.
The Universities
Some monastic and cathedral schools popped up after Charlemagne's renaissance.
The Universities slowly arose over Europe to satisfy the new hunger for knowledge slowly awakened over the 8th-11th centuries.
Philosophy during the Medieval Interval
The cultural problem for the 13th century philosopher was to find a place for these this-worldly ends in a scheme of life that still had a basically otherworldly orientation. The success of Aquinas lies in solving this central problem.
There was virtually no philosophical development in the 8 centuries between Augustine and Aquinas, save for Boethius, Isidore of Seville and John Scotus Erigena.
John Scotus Erigena
John Scotus Erigena (ca. 810-877) was born in Ireland. He studied Greek in an Irish monastery at a time when Greek was nearly lost in all the west.
He travels to France in 847 and taught at Paris in the palace school that Charlemagne founded.
He was involved in deep theological topics like Free Will and the Eucharist. He avoided the extreme forms of predestination, but went too far and was condemned as a Pealagian. His views were condemned in 855. Then his views on the Eucharist were condemned (he denied the Doctrine of Transubstantiation)
He decided to take a safer task of translating Greek into Latin.
John Scotus Erigena was deeply concerned with synthesis. As a Christian, Erigena must have a synthesis, an overarching philosophy that fit with the Catholic dogma.
Nature
John began with the nature of reality.
He believed that things fall into two classes:
1) Things that are
2) Things that are not
Things that are not have different modes, they are modes of non-being
1) Sinful man
2) Changing particulars
3) Potential being
4) Things that are "beyond our intellect"
Things that are are those things that we can comprehend.
John Scotus Erigena's divisions are influence by Plato (most of the texts he translated were neoplatonic ones)
Like Plato and the Neoplatonists, John identified the form of the Good with God.
God
According to John, God is "beyond being" and thus, not to be. John had a problem in attempting to reconcile Neoplatonic metaphysics and Christian dogma.
John held that there were two ways for finite minds to approach God:
1) An affirmative way
2) A negative way
The affirmative way consists of stating things like God is being, God is good, etc. These assertions are neither wholly true nor wholly false.
Every positive or affirmative statement about God must be supplemented by a negative statement.
Instead of stating the negative and positive about God as "God is being and not-being" he stated then like "God is super being"
John Scotus Erigena believed that God was truly Good, but to say that God was good was misleading because it wasn't the whole truth.
Creation
John Scotus Erigena started with a paradox in dealing with creation. If God made the world He must move, but how can He who is immutable move?
John asserted that the concepts of making and creation (like the concepts of being and goodness) applied to God in only a metaphorical sense.
He also asserted that the transcendence of the the Creator and the dependence of the creature (Two vitally important Church doctrines) were contradictory.
Theophanies
John held the world to be a "theophany" of God (an appearance of God). It is not an illusion, but the chosen method of God to reveal Himself to man. Human minds are a part of this theophany and thus their understanding is a part of God's theophany.
Knowledge is Illumination
"Everything that exists is an aspect of the divine nature reflected from some perspective or other" (Jones, 179).
Knowledge is fundamentally an act of grace by God in which He illumines our mind.
Four-Fold Division of Nature
While nature is truly one and beyond being, the human mind divides and classifies as was God's intention. There are four divisions of nature:
1) God - the nature that creates and is uncreated
2) The Platonic archetypes - the nature that creates and is created
3) The Physical World - the nature that does not create and is created
4) God - The nature that does not create and is not created
"God issues into the world and returns from it to Himself" (Jones, 180).
God is not conscious until he creates His mind. The archetypes are the divine images of God. They do not exist independently. They are the divine mind.
The archetypes (primordial causes) are the sources of the essences of the particulars in the physical world.
The primordial causes are: goodness, being, life, wisdom, truth, intelligence, reason, virtue, justice, health, greatness, omnipotence, eternity and peace. While we view them as a plurality, they are really a unity.
Anything that exists in the physical world that is describable as one of these primordial causes is so because it takes part (a finite part) in them.
The physical world has being by participating in the various primordial substances.
Is John's view Christian?
There are some Neoplatonic interpretations of nature that readily fit within the framework of Catholic Christianity.
John's metaphysics is a rational system, but is in danger of collapsing into subjectivism and mysticism.
The mystic elements were too strong for a Christian standard at his time. A private mystical basis was not the solution the Church as an institution was looking for.
John's fourth level (not-created and non-creating) seems to destroy individuality. Man's eternal salvation is done through a return to God by all souls. It is not exactly Kosher with the Church. It is blasphemy and heresy.
John's neoplatonism also renders sin and evil as unreal.
John also had to interpret the Scriptures rather loosely.
He also used the writings of St. Dionysius the Areopagite as an almost canonical authority. Unfortunately, St. Dionysius the Areopagite was later shown to be a fake.
The Neoplatonic Problem
Neoplatonic metaphysics and Christian Dogma are antagonistic. The problem was to include some deeply entrenched Neoplatonic ideals of the Middle Ages into Christianity.
The Controversy over Universals
The thinkers of the 11th century were logicians, not metaphysicians. They focused their energy on two very technical problems:
1) The status of universals
2) the relation between the spheres of faith and reason
It was desirable, if only for pragmatic reasons, to prove the Christian truths.
Reason was an indispensable weapon agains infidels and heretics.
Men of the Middle Ages basically agreed there were three modes of cognition
1) Revelation
2) Reason
3) Perception
The problem of universals and the scope of faith and reason was (and is) an interrelated problem.
The History of Philosophy vol. 2
Chapter 5 - The Medieval Interval
Plato and Aristotle dominated the Classical period. Augustine and Aquinas dominated the Medieval period; but, lived 8 centuries apart. Augustine and Aquinas dealt with different problems, whereas Plato and Aristotle dealt with the same problems.
The Dark Ages
The barbarian conquering of Rome caused enormous stress. The barbarians were incapable of sustaining such a complex culture like Rome's.
The collapse of a uniform society caused man to primarily focus on staying alive.
The Classical philosophy was lost to Europe in the Dark Ages.
Literacy declined to the point that Charlemagne complained that the clergy did not know enough Latin to interpret the Scriptures.
The Church
Anything surviving from the Roman World in the Dark Ages was due to the Church.
Christianity made converts out of the pagan and Arian barbarians.
"By the end of the Dark Ages, Christianity was more widely spread and Orthodoxy more firmly entrenched than before the barbarian invasions began" (Jones, 142).
The Rise of the Papacy
The early Church was ruled by bishops, not by the Pope.
The doctrine of Papal primacy made the Pope the head of the Church and gave it temporal authority.
A Christian king was subject to the Pope.
Pope Gregory VII in the 11th century pulled papal primacy to its extreme. The power of the Popes stopped Europe from instituting a unified government until the rise of nationalism in the early Modern period.
Monasticism
While the Papacy drove the Church to become a secular power, the spiritual nature was preserved by two things:
1) Monasticism
2) The Friars
Monasticism began in the 5th and 6th centuries A.D.
Monasticism got its credibility from St. Benedict.
Humility was the top virtue in monastic life.
The monastic movement constantly reformed to maintain a spiritual primacy over a temporal primacy. Though it wasn't perfect it worked well enough.
The Friars of St. Francis
Francis of Assisi (1182-1226)
Francis of Assisi was a mystic reformer and founded the Order of the Friars Minor.
He was dedicated to poverty, simplicity and good works.
He achieved a large measure of success in inflaming the hearts of the average man with the love of God.
The main difference between now and the Dark Ages is that men in the Dark Ages were ready at any moment to be touched by the otherworldly.
Feudalism
Particularism began to grow in the fragmented ruins of the old Empire.
Men with property gained power as central governments were too weak to perform duties.
"Immunity" was granted to land owners by the central government which gave them the power of controlling their lands with no government interference.
Small peasant farmers would "commend" their lands to these large land owners. "Commendation" was the act of giving up one's land for protection and security. The ones who commended their lands would live on them and work them still, but they would no longer own the land.
Charlemagne (742-814) organized a strong central government and was crowned Emperor by the Pope. But his kingdom collapsed shortly after his death.
Feudalism was born out of the rapid commending process that followed the collapse of Charlemagne.
Authority and power and administration became inextricable from land ownership.
Medieval society was dominated by the concept of status, not the concept of citizenship.
The Middle Ages had a very fragmented society.
Chivalry
Chivalry was an ideal that emphasized private honor and public service.
Along with the Church and feudalism Chivalry marked the culture of the Middle Ages.
St. Louis, King of France
Louis IX was born in 1214 and set out to recapture Jerusalem in 1248. It failed, but he tried again in 1270.
Louis IX described chivalry as "upright" and "worthy".
Uprightness involved courage, modesty, charitableness, sobriety, faithfulness and justice.
Louis IX saw sin as a disease, much like Augustine.
Louis IX did not extend his notions of charity and humility to the Jews.
Louis IX distrusted education. As St. Francis, Louis IX was satisfied with simple faith.
Louis IX saw outward dignity as vital in society. His count was elaborate and attendants were lavishly dressed to show their rank.
Feudalism was so deeply entrenched in Louis IX's society that his closest friend and biographer, Sire de Joinville would not swear an oath of allegiance to Louis' family in the event he died in Crusade because Joinville was not his liegeman.
Art and Letters
Architecture
The 12th and 13th centuries were a period of great artistic blossoming.
Vaulted circling and stained glass windows marked the new Gothic style. The abbey church of St. Denis, the Cathedral of Noyon, Enlis, Paris, Rheims and the Sainte Chapelle are perfect examples of the Gothic style. The architecture reflected Christian piety.
Painting and Poetry
Painting and poetry moved from static, unmoving depictions to depictions of living, breathing men in nature.
It focused on the world, but their was still an otherworldly element: case in point - Dante.
The chasm between the otherworld and this world was removed. The two worlds were no longer bitter hostiles at war with each other.
Science
Bartholomew the Englishmen
Bartholomew was one of the most popular science writers of the Middle Ages.
He used Aristotle only in a way to describe it in a very confusing manner.
Science was mixed with heresy and old wives tales.
Aristotle and Medieval Science
It took time to assimilate Aristotle to science.
Men in the Middle Ages were more concerned with salvation, not with accumulating the facts.
Vincent Beauvais
Bartholomew and Vincent Beauvais were very unscientific.
The Universities
Some monastic and cathedral schools popped up after Charlemagne's renaissance.
The Universities slowly arose over Europe to satisfy the new hunger for knowledge slowly awakened over the 8th-11th centuries.
Philosophy during the Medieval Interval
The cultural problem for the 13th century philosopher was to find a place for these this-worldly ends in a scheme of life that still had a basically otherworldly orientation. The success of Aquinas lies in solving this central problem.
There was virtually no philosophical development in the 8 centuries between Augustine and Aquinas, save for Boethius, Isidore of Seville and John Scotus Erigena.
John Scotus Erigena
John Scotus Erigena (ca. 810-877) was born in Ireland. He studied Greek in an Irish monastery at a time when Greek was nearly lost in all the west.
He travels to France in 847 and taught at Paris in the palace school that Charlemagne founded.
He was involved in deep theological topics like Free Will and the Eucharist. He avoided the extreme forms of predestination, but went too far and was condemned as a Pealagian. His views were condemned in 855. Then his views on the Eucharist were condemned (he denied the Doctrine of Transubstantiation)
He decided to take a safer task of translating Greek into Latin.
John Scotus Erigena was deeply concerned with synthesis. As a Christian, Erigena must have a synthesis, an overarching philosophy that fit with the Catholic dogma.
Nature
John began with the nature of reality.
He believed that things fall into two classes:
1) Things that are
2) Things that are not
Things that are not have different modes, they are modes of non-being
1) Sinful man
2) Changing particulars
3) Potential being
4) Things that are "beyond our intellect"
Things that are are those things that we can comprehend.
John Scotus Erigena's divisions are influence by Plato (most of the texts he translated were neoplatonic ones)
Like Plato and the Neoplatonists, John identified the form of the Good with God.
God
According to John, God is "beyond being" and thus, not to be. John had a problem in attempting to reconcile Neoplatonic metaphysics and Christian dogma.
John held that there were two ways for finite minds to approach God:
1) An affirmative way
2) A negative way
The affirmative way consists of stating things like God is being, God is good, etc. These assertions are neither wholly true nor wholly false.
Every positive or affirmative statement about God must be supplemented by a negative statement.
Instead of stating the negative and positive about God as "God is being and not-being" he stated then like "God is super being"
John Scotus Erigena believed that God was truly Good, but to say that God was good was misleading because it wasn't the whole truth.
Creation
John Scotus Erigena started with a paradox in dealing with creation. If God made the world He must move, but how can He who is immutable move?
John asserted that the concepts of making and creation (like the concepts of being and goodness) applied to God in only a metaphorical sense.
He also asserted that the transcendence of the the Creator and the dependence of the creature (Two vitally important Church doctrines) were contradictory.
Theophanies
John held the world to be a "theophany" of God (an appearance of God). It is not an illusion, but the chosen method of God to reveal Himself to man. Human minds are a part of this theophany and thus their understanding is a part of God's theophany.
Knowledge is Illumination
"Everything that exists is an aspect of the divine nature reflected from some perspective or other" (Jones, 179).
Knowledge is fundamentally an act of grace by God in which He illumines our mind.
Four-Fold Division of Nature
While nature is truly one and beyond being, the human mind divides and classifies as was God's intention. There are four divisions of nature:
1) God - the nature that creates and is uncreated
2) The Platonic archetypes - the nature that creates and is created
3) The Physical World - the nature that does not create and is created
4) God - The nature that does not create and is not created
"God issues into the world and returns from it to Himself" (Jones, 180).
God is not conscious until he creates His mind. The archetypes are the divine images of God. They do not exist independently. They are the divine mind.
The archetypes (primordial causes) are the sources of the essences of the particulars in the physical world.
The primordial causes are: goodness, being, life, wisdom, truth, intelligence, reason, virtue, justice, health, greatness, omnipotence, eternity and peace. While we view them as a plurality, they are really a unity.
Anything that exists in the physical world that is describable as one of these primordial causes is so because it takes part (a finite part) in them.
The physical world has being by participating in the various primordial substances.
Is John's view Christian?
There are some Neoplatonic interpretations of nature that readily fit within the framework of Catholic Christianity.
John's metaphysics is a rational system, but is in danger of collapsing into subjectivism and mysticism.
The mystic elements were too strong for a Christian standard at his time. A private mystical basis was not the solution the Church as an institution was looking for.
John's fourth level (not-created and non-creating) seems to destroy individuality. Man's eternal salvation is done through a return to God by all souls. It is not exactly Kosher with the Church. It is blasphemy and heresy.
John's neoplatonism also renders sin and evil as unreal.
John also had to interpret the Scriptures rather loosely.
He also used the writings of St. Dionysius the Areopagite as an almost canonical authority. Unfortunately, St. Dionysius the Areopagite was later shown to be a fake.
The Neoplatonic Problem
Neoplatonic metaphysics and Christian Dogma are antagonistic. The problem was to include some deeply entrenched Neoplatonic ideals of the Middle Ages into Christianity.
The Controversy over Universals
The thinkers of the 11th century were logicians, not metaphysicians. They focused their energy on two very technical problems:
1) The status of universals
2) the relation between the spheres of faith and reason
It was desirable, if only for pragmatic reasons, to prove the Christian truths.
Reason was an indispensable weapon agains infidels and heretics.
Men of the Middle Ages basically agreed there were three modes of cognition
1) Revelation
2) Reason
3) Perception
The problem of universals and the scope of faith and reason was (and is) an interrelated problem.
Duns Scotus, William of Ockham and Universals
(Originally written December 7, 2006 in Book 7)
History of Philosophy I notes
Duns Scotus (1265-1308)
-Prefers univocal regarding language applied to God
Scouts maintained that not only does God's essence play a role in his existence, but individual men's essences play a role in their existence.
Principle of individuation
-Aquinas claimed that matter was what gave individual things their individuality
-Scotus believed it was an individual essence or a "haecceity" that distinguished us from all other things, not mere matter
Natural Theology
- Far less confident in the power of reason to teach us about God then Aquinas was
- Scotus' standards of proof are much more rigorous than Aquinas' standards
Problem of Induction
-First to identify the problem
- His solution was to focus on the cause and effect and state that there is a certain necessity in causal relations
-His solution was satisfactory until David Hume
Freedom of the Will
-Aquinas held that the intellect was primary, not the will
-Scotus held that the will is primary
The will is:
1. Contingent - has the power of contrary choice
2. Self-caused - the will has no other cause than itself (like God
The self-caused will is an early version of the libertarian doctrine of the will
William of Ockham (ca. 1285 - 1349)
-Born in London
-Franciscan, just like Scotus
-Even more negative regarding natural theology than Scotus
-Faith contradicts reason, but we must follow faith
-Regarded omnipotence as God's power to do literally anything
-God could produce the world in such a way that he made it without any matter
-The object of our knowledge is particulars, but we use universals
-Generally he is regarded as a nominalist, but he could be called a conceptualist
-What is explained on X number of principles is needless explained by more (Ockham's razor)
-Other things being equal, the simpler explanation is better or preferred (Ockham's razor)
-Ockham's Razor was useful in the history of Philosophy and the history of Science
Summary of the thoughts on Universals
Schools of thought on Universals
1. Realism (Plato, Anselm, Augustine) - there are eternal ideas, otherwise we couldn't know general things.
Problem: Where are the ideas
2. Nominalism (Stoics, Sophists) - there are no universals, only particulars
Problem: Can't account for use of general terms or general ideas
3. Conceptualism (Peter Abelard, Locke, Berkeley) - Universals exist as mental concepts
History of Philosophy I notes
Duns Scotus (1265-1308)
-Prefers univocal regarding language applied to God
Scouts maintained that not only does God's essence play a role in his existence, but individual men's essences play a role in their existence.
Principle of individuation
-Aquinas claimed that matter was what gave individual things their individuality
-Scotus believed it was an individual essence or a "haecceity" that distinguished us from all other things, not mere matter
Natural Theology
- Far less confident in the power of reason to teach us about God then Aquinas was
- Scotus' standards of proof are much more rigorous than Aquinas' standards
Problem of Induction
-First to identify the problem
- His solution was to focus on the cause and effect and state that there is a certain necessity in causal relations
-His solution was satisfactory until David Hume
Freedom of the Will
-Aquinas held that the intellect was primary, not the will
-Scotus held that the will is primary
The will is:
1. Contingent - has the power of contrary choice
2. Self-caused - the will has no other cause than itself (like God
The self-caused will is an early version of the libertarian doctrine of the will
William of Ockham (ca. 1285 - 1349)
-Born in London
-Franciscan, just like Scotus
-Even more negative regarding natural theology than Scotus
-Faith contradicts reason, but we must follow faith
-Regarded omnipotence as God's power to do literally anything
-God could produce the world in such a way that he made it without any matter
-The object of our knowledge is particulars, but we use universals
-Generally he is regarded as a nominalist, but he could be called a conceptualist
-What is explained on X number of principles is needless explained by more (Ockham's razor)
-Other things being equal, the simpler explanation is better or preferred (Ockham's razor)
-Ockham's Razor was useful in the history of Philosophy and the history of Science
Summary of the thoughts on Universals
Schools of thought on Universals
1. Realism (Plato, Anselm, Augustine) - there are eternal ideas, otherwise we couldn't know general things.
Problem: Where are the ideas
2. Nominalism (Stoics, Sophists) - there are no universals, only particulars
Problem: Can't account for use of general terms or general ideas
3. Conceptualism (Peter Abelard, Locke, Berkeley) - Universals exist as mental concepts
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Class notes on Aquinas (B)
(Originally written November 30, 2006 in Book 7)
Thomas Aquinas
Metaphysics:
Hierarchy of Substances:
God
Angels
Humans
Apes
Reptiles
Each member is placed in the category and placed by the amount of actuality it possess. The amount of excellence is determined by the amount of actuality a being possesses.
Angels, man, apes, etc. Each have their own hierarchy.
To Do List:
1. Go pay ticket
2. Come back to apartment and start laundry
3. Read 1 section of Zagzebski
4. Call Merkers
5. Box up CD's
6. Read 1 section of Zagzebski
7. Box up clothes
8. Read 1 section of Zagzebski
No specific order
-Read History I
-Read Logic
-Box up Mugs
-Read Epistemology
-Do a Precis! (or 2)
-Read Leibniz (new book)
-Read Genesis (new book)
Freedom and Determinism
-Freedom from coercion
-Freedom of contingency
-Freedom to choose a particular
-We are not free to choose God. All of us desire God and seek the love of God, but we don't manifest it correctly all the time
-Predestination (Augustinian view)
-There are divine exemplars (decrees) for all that come to pass
-God does not cause sin or damnation. God simply abandons some to their chosen sin and they damn themselves
-Why does God save the ones He does? We don't know why, but he doesn't do so arbitrarily
Thomas Aquinas
Metaphysics:
Hierarchy of Substances:
God
Angels
Humans
Apes
Reptiles
Each member is placed in the category and placed by the amount of actuality it possess. The amount of excellence is determined by the amount of actuality a being possesses.
Angels, man, apes, etc. Each have their own hierarchy.
To Do List:
1. Go pay ticket
2. Come back to apartment and start laundry
3. Read 1 section of Zagzebski
4. Call Merkers
5. Box up CD's
6. Read 1 section of Zagzebski
7. Box up clothes
8. Read 1 section of Zagzebski
No specific order
-Read History I
-Read Logic
-Box up Mugs
-Read Epistemology
-Do a Precis! (or 2)
-Read Leibniz (new book)
-Read Genesis (new book)
Freedom and Determinism
-Freedom from coercion
-Freedom of contingency
-Freedom to choose a particular
-We are not free to choose God. All of us desire God and seek the love of God, but we don't manifest it correctly all the time
-Predestination (Augustinian view)
-There are divine exemplars (decrees) for all that come to pass
-God does not cause sin or damnation. God simply abandons some to their chosen sin and they damn themselves
-Why does God save the ones He does? We don't know why, but he doesn't do so arbitrarily
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Book notes on Augustine
(Originally written November 14, 2006 in Book 11)
Notes on Augustine cont'd
The Inner Struggle
Acute sense of sin
Augustine has an acute or abnormal sense of sin.
The modern mind sees Augustine's youth as normal; whereas he sees it as evidence of a diseased soul.
Augustine claims to enjoy sin for the sake of sinning.
Attitude toward sex
Sex was evidence of corruption in Augustine's reflection.
Today's culture finds it hard to understand Augustine's sense of guilt. Despite being unmarried he remained faithful to one woman and compared to his contemporaries was a model of sexual morality.
Like Paul, and many other early Christians, Augustine had a particular horror of the sexual aspect of life possibly because he had a strong sexual drive.
He held that sexual activities should be rigidly limited to the purpose of procreation.
Intellectual Pride
Augustine felt he had committed the sin of "intellectual arrogance". He felt he could reason the mysteries of the universe and discover independently the nature of reality.
Augustine became skeptical of orthodoxy with the problem of evil and was troubled by the naive anthropomorphism of his mother's sect.
He saw that the Christian Scriptures were riddled with contradictions if taken literally.
Augustine's Manichaeism
The problem of evil caused Augustine to gravitate towards Manichaeism. He was a follower of Manichaeism for nine years.
The appeal of Manichaeism was its use of reason over faith contra to Catholic Christianity.
Augustine sought certitude above all else. Augustine developed a belief that if one died in error he/she was to stiffen eternal damnation.
Augustine's drive for intellectual certainty was not intellectual curiosity or the Greek search for happiness; it was a desperate need for salvation.
Years of intellectual effort left Augustine to conclude that truth could not be reached via reason.
Because of this revelation he regarded his time under the influence of Manichaeism as a sinful period of intellectual sin.
Augustine's Neoplatonism
In Milan, Augustine made the acquaintance of Ambrose. From Ambrose he learned that interpreting the Bible allegorically one could make the naïveté and its inconsistencies vanish.
By using Neoplatonic metaphysics he could further dispel these inconsistencies more.
Neoplatonism notion of a deity as a creative force or energy, rather than as a crudely anthropomorphic architect thing fit well into Augustine's scheme.
Neoplatonism also seemed to provide a solution to the problem of evil.
Augustine concluded that the physical world was a product of God's creative force and thus not at all evil. Evil is simply an incompleteness and a finitude resulting from the creature's inevitable separation from its maker.
If evil was a positive thing then the problem of evil would be impossible to overcome; but, if it were a negative thing as Neoplatonism held, Augustine concluded that there was no problem of evil.
Augustine had convinced himself of the truthfulness of Orthodoxy, but did not feel an inner sense of peace. Sin still plagued him.
He felt his will was divided. He was helpless.
Augustine's conversion
Augustine's conversion is a fascinating and revealing psychological account
Augustine's mission
From 386 AD on he was steadfastly a Christian. He knew he was still going to be tempted, but the inner peace he found in Christianity saved him. He sought to give others that inner peace if he could.
He was convinced that his conversion would be a lesson to others.
His fight against heresy was manifested especially strong in his fight against Manichaeism.
He sought to create a rational synthesis of Christianity, but he knew he would need God's help.
Doctrine of Catholic faith was fairly well set by Augustine's time; but, it was not neatly or tightly bound in formal doctrine.
Augustine sought to create a synthesis of loose Christian Doctrine, canonical works, Augustine's own sense of sin and worthlessness and his dualistic views into a Catholic doctrine.
Augustine divided his doctrine into two parts:
1) Concerning God
2) Concerning God's creations
Augustine's Concept of God
As a mystic and a devout Christian Augustine wrote with a fervent piety.
As a philosopher, God was the focal point of Augustine. He had strong metaphysical interest.
His interest in the nature of reality was primarily concerned with the supernatural. He sought to find a satisfactory object of religious faith.
As a Christian, Augustine used religious terms.
Plato and Augustine shared similar metaphysical outlooks.
God - Reality is immutable
Augustine (and Plato) held that ultimate reality must be immutable and impervious to change and decay.
Both concluded that because the sensible would change and it cannot be wholly real.
If God is perfect then He will not change because change will result in a loss of perfection.
The problem, the problem of change was a difficulty for Augustine. But, Augustine could not rely on old Greek strategies for dealing with change because God created the world, thus the world must be something. It can't be mere appearance.
Augustine arrived at a divided reality.
God-Reality is creative
Augustine did not solve Plato's problem, he substituted another more difficult one for it.
The problem of relationship between God and man substituted for the problem of appearance and reality. This new problem was further complicated by the Dogmatic law that God created the world ex nihilo.
The creation act was for Augustine a divine fiat.
God's creative ability and man's are different in kind, not in desire. Thus, is God's creative power intelligible?
Augustine as a philosopher wanted to give a rational account of creation, but religious sentiments kept him from abandoning faith altogether.
Augustine (like Plato) held that there must be a certainty in the world of flux. For Plato, mathematics was this certainty. For Augustine it was a self. If one doubts his own existence on proves he exists because no thing that does not exist cannot doubt.
Augustine was relatively unconcerned with the problem of knowledge. Reasons for this disinterest include:
1) a complete interest in peace or security
2) reason was inadequate for reaching truth.
Knowledge was validated by God's goodness, not logic for Augustine.
While Augustine was deeply religious, he was a phenomenal philosopher. His argument for the existence of self was the starting point of modern philosophy via Descartes.
God-Reality is Eternal
God is eternal. Plato held this, but Augustine's religious mind made the eternality of God more vital to his metaphysics.
God made Time and is thus not limited by it,
The past and future is divisible into the minutest of instances, but the present is only the exact moment we experience.
There are neither past things nor future things. There are:
1) Present of things past (memory)
2) Present of things present
3) Present of things future (expectation)
The past is measured as it passes. It is measurable because it has space. But there is no space for the present to be measured.
Time is not the motion of a body.
"We, therefore, measure neither future times, nor past, nor present, nor those passing by's and yet we do measure times" (Jones, 90).
Time is measured in one's mind.
God knows all things, past, present and future because he can measure all time in His mind.
Augustine's style is characteristically ambivalent to reason. He implores God's help along the way.
Augustine's conception of time:
1) Time flows
2) Time is a continuum
3) Past, present and future are somehow coexistent in individual minds.
4) There are three aspects of time:
a) present past (memory)
b) present present (experience)
c) present future (expectation)
The relation of time as man's conception to God's conception is this: man can hold in his mind the conception of time in the three aspects. He holds a finite amount of present past, present present, and present future. God holds in his mind all present pasts, present presents, and present futures. His infinite knowledge of time (and the events occurring in them) makes time irrelevant to God. Everything is now for God.
Augustine disliked the notion of infinity and thus developed his fine scheme. The inability to rationally fathom infinitude drew Augustine to believe God's mysterious nature is infinite.
Augustine's philosophy still suffers from its basis of mysticism. Mystic philosophy relies on the source of a few exclusive experiences. When philosophy rests on private knowledge like this it abandons its claim to rational inquiry.
God-Reality is All-God
God's all-good. This is another Platonic ideal that Augustine interpreted through Christianity.
To exist is good, and that the most real thing will be most good seemed to be a maxim or self-evident truth to Augustine.
Augustine was not content to say reality is good for man; he added that reality is good to man.
Providence, Evil and Free Will
Providence played a key role in Augustine. His emphasis on providence reflects the sense of uncertainty and insecurity men felt in his age.
Providence gave Augustine the security he sought.
God was identified with ultimate reality. Ultimate reality was identified with ultimate goodness. Evil was therefore a privation of ultimate goodness. It was a deficiency.
Evil, while starting from the Neoplatonist point of view, became a result from a deficiency in us.
The account of evil Augustine gives is advantageous, but it is philosophically unsatisfactory because:
1) It rests on an appeal to ignorance: "If we but knew enough, we would see that everything is really all right" (Jones, 97)
2) The Good is immutable. Evil is therefore mutability. But this makes change evil and how can change (like Augustine's conversion) be evil?
Augustine created a problem between foreknowledge and free will. If God has foreknowledge than man has no free will.
Augustine can be criticized for his account of providence on two reasons:
1) "The fact that God knows everything that is going to happen means that man is not free to choose what he does" (Jones, 99). Augustine's response was that God knows not everything that will happen, but he knows everything that is happening because He is an atemporal being. He sees past, present and future at the present.
2) "The fact that God does everything means that man does nothing" (Jones, 99). Augustine argued that God chooses to work through human wills.
Augustine's account of providence creates a problem of man's responsibility. If God does everything, man does nothing and thus cannot be held responsible.
The Basic Conflict in Augustine's Account of God
Augustine fought against the anthropomorphism of naive Christianity, but in doing so he lost much of the Christian concept of God.
His attempt to reconcile the personal God of primitive Christianity with the ultimate reality of Greek metaphysics failed.
While Augustine failed, he was on a good track. "Aquinas, for instance, showed far greater skill than Augustine in giving rational interpretation to the basic religious insights he and Augustine shared" (Jones, 101).
Notes on Augustine cont'd
The Inner Struggle
Acute sense of sin
Augustine has an acute or abnormal sense of sin.
The modern mind sees Augustine's youth as normal; whereas he sees it as evidence of a diseased soul.
Augustine claims to enjoy sin for the sake of sinning.
Attitude toward sex
Sex was evidence of corruption in Augustine's reflection.
Today's culture finds it hard to understand Augustine's sense of guilt. Despite being unmarried he remained faithful to one woman and compared to his contemporaries was a model of sexual morality.
Like Paul, and many other early Christians, Augustine had a particular horror of the sexual aspect of life possibly because he had a strong sexual drive.
He held that sexual activities should be rigidly limited to the purpose of procreation.
Intellectual Pride
Augustine felt he had committed the sin of "intellectual arrogance". He felt he could reason the mysteries of the universe and discover independently the nature of reality.
Augustine became skeptical of orthodoxy with the problem of evil and was troubled by the naive anthropomorphism of his mother's sect.
He saw that the Christian Scriptures were riddled with contradictions if taken literally.
Augustine's Manichaeism
The problem of evil caused Augustine to gravitate towards Manichaeism. He was a follower of Manichaeism for nine years.
The appeal of Manichaeism was its use of reason over faith contra to Catholic Christianity.
Augustine sought certitude above all else. Augustine developed a belief that if one died in error he/she was to stiffen eternal damnation.
Augustine's drive for intellectual certainty was not intellectual curiosity or the Greek search for happiness; it was a desperate need for salvation.
Years of intellectual effort left Augustine to conclude that truth could not be reached via reason.
Because of this revelation he regarded his time under the influence of Manichaeism as a sinful period of intellectual sin.
Augustine's Neoplatonism
In Milan, Augustine made the acquaintance of Ambrose. From Ambrose he learned that interpreting the Bible allegorically one could make the naïveté and its inconsistencies vanish.
By using Neoplatonic metaphysics he could further dispel these inconsistencies more.
Neoplatonism notion of a deity as a creative force or energy, rather than as a crudely anthropomorphic architect thing fit well into Augustine's scheme.
Neoplatonism also seemed to provide a solution to the problem of evil.
Augustine concluded that the physical world was a product of God's creative force and thus not at all evil. Evil is simply an incompleteness and a finitude resulting from the creature's inevitable separation from its maker.
If evil was a positive thing then the problem of evil would be impossible to overcome; but, if it were a negative thing as Neoplatonism held, Augustine concluded that there was no problem of evil.
Augustine had convinced himself of the truthfulness of Orthodoxy, but did not feel an inner sense of peace. Sin still plagued him.
He felt his will was divided. He was helpless.
Augustine's conversion
Augustine's conversion is a fascinating and revealing psychological account
Augustine's mission
From 386 AD on he was steadfastly a Christian. He knew he was still going to be tempted, but the inner peace he found in Christianity saved him. He sought to give others that inner peace if he could.
He was convinced that his conversion would be a lesson to others.
His fight against heresy was manifested especially strong in his fight against Manichaeism.
He sought to create a rational synthesis of Christianity, but he knew he would need God's help.
Doctrine of Catholic faith was fairly well set by Augustine's time; but, it was not neatly or tightly bound in formal doctrine.
Augustine sought to create a synthesis of loose Christian Doctrine, canonical works, Augustine's own sense of sin and worthlessness and his dualistic views into a Catholic doctrine.
Augustine divided his doctrine into two parts:
1) Concerning God
2) Concerning God's creations
Augustine's Concept of God
As a mystic and a devout Christian Augustine wrote with a fervent piety.
As a philosopher, God was the focal point of Augustine. He had strong metaphysical interest.
His interest in the nature of reality was primarily concerned with the supernatural. He sought to find a satisfactory object of religious faith.
As a Christian, Augustine used religious terms.
Plato and Augustine shared similar metaphysical outlooks.
God - Reality is immutable
Augustine (and Plato) held that ultimate reality must be immutable and impervious to change and decay.
Both concluded that because the sensible would change and it cannot be wholly real.
If God is perfect then He will not change because change will result in a loss of perfection.
The problem, the problem of change was a difficulty for Augustine. But, Augustine could not rely on old Greek strategies for dealing with change because God created the world, thus the world must be something. It can't be mere appearance.
Augustine arrived at a divided reality.
God-Reality is creative
Augustine did not solve Plato's problem, he substituted another more difficult one for it.
The problem of relationship between God and man substituted for the problem of appearance and reality. This new problem was further complicated by the Dogmatic law that God created the world ex nihilo.
The creation act was for Augustine a divine fiat.
God's creative ability and man's are different in kind, not in desire. Thus, is God's creative power intelligible?
Augustine as a philosopher wanted to give a rational account of creation, but religious sentiments kept him from abandoning faith altogether.
Augustine (like Plato) held that there must be a certainty in the world of flux. For Plato, mathematics was this certainty. For Augustine it was a self. If one doubts his own existence on proves he exists because no thing that does not exist cannot doubt.
Augustine was relatively unconcerned with the problem of knowledge. Reasons for this disinterest include:
1) a complete interest in peace or security
2) reason was inadequate for reaching truth.
Knowledge was validated by God's goodness, not logic for Augustine.
While Augustine was deeply religious, he was a phenomenal philosopher. His argument for the existence of self was the starting point of modern philosophy via Descartes.
God-Reality is Eternal
God is eternal. Plato held this, but Augustine's religious mind made the eternality of God more vital to his metaphysics.
God made Time and is thus not limited by it,
The past and future is divisible into the minutest of instances, but the present is only the exact moment we experience.
There are neither past things nor future things. There are:
1) Present of things past (memory)
2) Present of things present
3) Present of things future (expectation)
The past is measured as it passes. It is measurable because it has space. But there is no space for the present to be measured.
Time is not the motion of a body.
"We, therefore, measure neither future times, nor past, nor present, nor those passing by's and yet we do measure times" (Jones, 90).
Time is measured in one's mind.
God knows all things, past, present and future because he can measure all time in His mind.
Augustine's style is characteristically ambivalent to reason. He implores God's help along the way.
Augustine's conception of time:
1) Time flows
2) Time is a continuum
3) Past, present and future are somehow coexistent in individual minds.
4) There are three aspects of time:
a) present past (memory)
b) present present (experience)
c) present future (expectation)
The relation of time as man's conception to God's conception is this: man can hold in his mind the conception of time in the three aspects. He holds a finite amount of present past, present present, and present future. God holds in his mind all present pasts, present presents, and present futures. His infinite knowledge of time (and the events occurring in them) makes time irrelevant to God. Everything is now for God.
Augustine disliked the notion of infinity and thus developed his fine scheme. The inability to rationally fathom infinitude drew Augustine to believe God's mysterious nature is infinite.
Augustine's philosophy still suffers from its basis of mysticism. Mystic philosophy relies on the source of a few exclusive experiences. When philosophy rests on private knowledge like this it abandons its claim to rational inquiry.
God-Reality is All-God
God's all-good. This is another Platonic ideal that Augustine interpreted through Christianity.
To exist is good, and that the most real thing will be most good seemed to be a maxim or self-evident truth to Augustine.
Augustine was not content to say reality is good for man; he added that reality is good to man.
Providence, Evil and Free Will
Providence played a key role in Augustine. His emphasis on providence reflects the sense of uncertainty and insecurity men felt in his age.
Providence gave Augustine the security he sought.
God was identified with ultimate reality. Ultimate reality was identified with ultimate goodness. Evil was therefore a privation of ultimate goodness. It was a deficiency.
Evil, while starting from the Neoplatonist point of view, became a result from a deficiency in us.
The account of evil Augustine gives is advantageous, but it is philosophically unsatisfactory because:
1) It rests on an appeal to ignorance: "If we but knew enough, we would see that everything is really all right" (Jones, 97)
2) The Good is immutable. Evil is therefore mutability. But this makes change evil and how can change (like Augustine's conversion) be evil?
Augustine created a problem between foreknowledge and free will. If God has foreknowledge than man has no free will.
Augustine can be criticized for his account of providence on two reasons:
1) "The fact that God knows everything that is going to happen means that man is not free to choose what he does" (Jones, 99). Augustine's response was that God knows not everything that will happen, but he knows everything that is happening because He is an atemporal being. He sees past, present and future at the present.
2) "The fact that God does everything means that man does nothing" (Jones, 99). Augustine argued that God chooses to work through human wills.
Augustine's account of providence creates a problem of man's responsibility. If God does everything, man does nothing and thus cannot be held responsible.
The Basic Conflict in Augustine's Account of God
Augustine fought against the anthropomorphism of naive Christianity, but in doing so he lost much of the Christian concept of God.
His attempt to reconcile the personal God of primitive Christianity with the ultimate reality of Greek metaphysics failed.
While Augustine failed, he was on a good track. "Aquinas, for instance, showed far greater skill than Augustine in giving rational interpretation to the basic religious insights he and Augustine shared" (Jones, 101).
Boethius - Russell
(Originally written November 14, 2006 in Book 7)
Poor Book VII! How unfortunate to be the course of History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell. You both have been neglected of so long. For months have you been sitting idly.
The History will further sit, waiting for its pages to be read. But alas, Book VII will once again feel the touch of ink upon its pages. Rejoice! Rejoice! The time has come!
Classics of Philosophy 2nd Edition
Louis Pojman
Boethius
-480 - 524 AD
-Roman patrician, consul of Rome and minister to the Ostrogoth King Theodoric
-Last of the Roman philosophers
-1st of the scholastic theologians
Boethius was falsely accused of treason, imprisoned and then bludgeoned to death
Wow! I'm excited to read him now! Thanks Louis!
The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius' greatest work was written while he was in prison.
Philosophy is articulated as a beautiful woman by Boethius. The woman heals his ailing soul. She leads him from lonely despair to an understanding and resignation of Providence.
Philosophy, to Boethius, was an explanation of how chance and free will can be reconciled with divine foreknowledge.
The Consolation of Philosophy
1. Philosophy discusses the nature of chance
The question of Providence is bound up in many questions.
Chance, as the outcome of random action produced by no sequence of causes, does not exist.
God keeps everything in order, so random chance is impossible.
Chance, is true as defined by Aristotle. Whenever an intentional act causes an unintentional result, chance or accident has occurred.
"Chance therefore may be defined as an unexpected result from the coincidence of certain causes is matter done for some other purpose" (Pojman, 448).
2. Philosophy asserts the Existence of Free Will
Free will is necessary for reasoning nature. Since there is reasoning nature, there is free will.
Reason brings desire and refuse. Reason allows judgments. If there are judgments then objects must be desirable and refuse-able
Freedom is not equal in all beings. Heavenly will is uncorrupted and thus have the power to effect their desire.
Human wills are corrupted. The more they are in contemplation of the divine will, the more they are free to effect their desires.
Men become slaves to their vices and the more entrapped in their vices the more of a slave they become to their own freedom.
3. Boethius cannot reconcile God's foreknowledge with Human Free Will
There is an incompatibility between God's foreknowledge and man's free will. If God knows man's actions and his desires then they are necessary and thus, there is no free will.
Is God's foreknowledge the cause of necessary future events or is necessary future events the cause of God's foreknowledge?
Knowledge is unmixed with falsity.
How does God know future things if they are uncertain? If he has only opinion he is not God, which is impious and absurd.
If there is no free will, punishments and rewards are in vain.
Prayer is rendered useless in the loss of free will.
4. Philosophy tries to show how foreknowledge and free will may be reconciled
Step-by-step reasoning will never illuminate what foreknowledge is. It has failed over and over again and will continue to fail.
Knowledge of things presently occurring does not cause those things known to be necessary. Foreknowledge works this way too.
5. Philosophy discusses the various grades of cognition
Knowledge occurs by the comprehender's comprehension, not by the force of what the knowledge is of. I know 'A' because I comprehend 'A', not because 'A' exists.
The senses consider a thing as it appears.
The imagination considers a thing without relation to that thing's body.
The reason contemplates the universal aspects of a thing as it investigates the particular thing.
Insight goes further than reason and contemplates the idea of that certain thing.
Hierarchy of faculties:
Insight (highest)
Reason
Imagination
Senses (lowest)
The higher faculty always uses the lower faculties, but lower faculties can never use higher ones.
6. Philosophy discusses the difference between human reason and divine insight
The more faculties a being has the higher its cognitive ability.
Sense - non-moving animals
Imagination - Moving animals
Reason - man alone
Insight - God alone
The senses must yield to imagination. Both of these must yield to reason. And reason must yield to insight.
Reason cannot grasp foreknowledge; only insight can. Thus, since only God has insight, man cannot grasp foreknowledge.
7. Philosophy explains that God's insight views all things in their eternal design, while human reason can see them only from a temporal view point
God is eternal. "Eternity is the complete possession of an endless life enjoyed as one simultaneous whole" (Pojman, 452).
Temporal existence is grasping shifting moments.
Even if time were infinite it would not be eternal because it is an infinite succession of moments.
An eternal being could behold infinity all at once because infinitude does not encompass eternity. Eternity encompasses infinitude.
God is eternal while the universe is perpetual.
God's foreknowledge then exists in eternity, which is non-temporal. Foreknowledge occurs to him as present so really it is merely a present knowledge of a temporal thing. It appears as foreknowledge to us because we are temporal beings.
God's foreknowledge does not make things necessary to happen, but when any action of man's is examined in its own nature it is free and unrestrained.
There are two kinds of necessity:
1) Simple
2) Conditional
Simple necessity is things happen because they are necessary
Conditional necessity is things, if they are happening, are necessarily happening.
God's foreknowledge makes things conditionally necessary. He sees things happening, thus they are necessarily happening.
Thus, because the necessity that God's foreknowledge puts on man's actions is a conditional one. Man's free will is true and responsibility remains in tact.
Poor Book VII! How unfortunate to be the course of History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell. You both have been neglected of so long. For months have you been sitting idly.
The History will further sit, waiting for its pages to be read. But alas, Book VII will once again feel the touch of ink upon its pages. Rejoice! Rejoice! The time has come!
Classics of Philosophy 2nd Edition
Louis Pojman
Boethius
-480 - 524 AD
-Roman patrician, consul of Rome and minister to the Ostrogoth King Theodoric
-Last of the Roman philosophers
-1st of the scholastic theologians
Boethius was falsely accused of treason, imprisoned and then bludgeoned to death
Wow! I'm excited to read him now! Thanks Louis!
The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius' greatest work was written while he was in prison.
Philosophy is articulated as a beautiful woman by Boethius. The woman heals his ailing soul. She leads him from lonely despair to an understanding and resignation of Providence.
Philosophy, to Boethius, was an explanation of how chance and free will can be reconciled with divine foreknowledge.
The Consolation of Philosophy
1. Philosophy discusses the nature of chance
The question of Providence is bound up in many questions.
Chance, as the outcome of random action produced by no sequence of causes, does not exist.
God keeps everything in order, so random chance is impossible.
Chance, is true as defined by Aristotle. Whenever an intentional act causes an unintentional result, chance or accident has occurred.
"Chance therefore may be defined as an unexpected result from the coincidence of certain causes is matter done for some other purpose" (Pojman, 448).
2. Philosophy asserts the Existence of Free Will
Free will is necessary for reasoning nature. Since there is reasoning nature, there is free will.
Reason brings desire and refuse. Reason allows judgments. If there are judgments then objects must be desirable and refuse-able
Freedom is not equal in all beings. Heavenly will is uncorrupted and thus have the power to effect their desire.
Human wills are corrupted. The more they are in contemplation of the divine will, the more they are free to effect their desires.
Men become slaves to their vices and the more entrapped in their vices the more of a slave they become to their own freedom.
3. Boethius cannot reconcile God's foreknowledge with Human Free Will
There is an incompatibility between God's foreknowledge and man's free will. If God knows man's actions and his desires then they are necessary and thus, there is no free will.
Is God's foreknowledge the cause of necessary future events or is necessary future events the cause of God's foreknowledge?
Knowledge is unmixed with falsity.
How does God know future things if they are uncertain? If he has only opinion he is not God, which is impious and absurd.
If there is no free will, punishments and rewards are in vain.
Prayer is rendered useless in the loss of free will.
4. Philosophy tries to show how foreknowledge and free will may be reconciled
Step-by-step reasoning will never illuminate what foreknowledge is. It has failed over and over again and will continue to fail.
Knowledge of things presently occurring does not cause those things known to be necessary. Foreknowledge works this way too.
5. Philosophy discusses the various grades of cognition
Knowledge occurs by the comprehender's comprehension, not by the force of what the knowledge is of. I know 'A' because I comprehend 'A', not because 'A' exists.
The senses consider a thing as it appears.
The imagination considers a thing without relation to that thing's body.
The reason contemplates the universal aspects of a thing as it investigates the particular thing.
Insight goes further than reason and contemplates the idea of that certain thing.
Hierarchy of faculties:
Insight (highest)
Reason
Imagination
Senses (lowest)
The higher faculty always uses the lower faculties, but lower faculties can never use higher ones.
6. Philosophy discusses the difference between human reason and divine insight
The more faculties a being has the higher its cognitive ability.
Sense - non-moving animals
Imagination - Moving animals
Reason - man alone
Insight - God alone
The senses must yield to imagination. Both of these must yield to reason. And reason must yield to insight.
Reason cannot grasp foreknowledge; only insight can. Thus, since only God has insight, man cannot grasp foreknowledge.
7. Philosophy explains that God's insight views all things in their eternal design, while human reason can see them only from a temporal view point
God is eternal. "Eternity is the complete possession of an endless life enjoyed as one simultaneous whole" (Pojman, 452).
Temporal existence is grasping shifting moments.
Even if time were infinite it would not be eternal because it is an infinite succession of moments.
An eternal being could behold infinity all at once because infinitude does not encompass eternity. Eternity encompasses infinitude.
God is eternal while the universe is perpetual.
God's foreknowledge then exists in eternity, which is non-temporal. Foreknowledge occurs to him as present so really it is merely a present knowledge of a temporal thing. It appears as foreknowledge to us because we are temporal beings.
God's foreknowledge does not make things necessary to happen, but when any action of man's is examined in its own nature it is free and unrestrained.
There are two kinds of necessity:
1) Simple
2) Conditional
Simple necessity is things happen because they are necessary
Conditional necessity is things, if they are happening, are necessarily happening.
God's foreknowledge makes things conditionally necessary. He sees things happening, thus they are necessarily happening.
Thus, because the necessity that God's foreknowledge puts on man's actions is a conditional one. Man's free will is true and responsibility remains in tact.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Orthodoxy and Heresy
(Originally written November 12, 2006 in Book 11)
Heresy and Orthodoxy
Gradual Emergence of Orthodoxy
The Jesus Movement became a world religion through the ideas of orthodoxy, holiness, apostolic ideal and catholic universalism.
The orthodoxy of the early church developed by attacking individual doctrines deemed heretical. The forensic ability and dialectical skill of the Fathers had more to do with the formation of orthodoxy more than the merit of doctrines.
By the fourth century the outlines of orthodoxy had been drawn, but the orthodoxy was not yet in full effect.
The Gnostic Heresy
Gnosticism states that salvation is acquired through knowledge, not faith.
Gnosticism believed that there was one Supreme Being and This Being created larger supernatural beings. (One of these was YHWH).
These lesser beings are in rebellion against the Absolute god and hold man hostage. Christ descended to save man. Salvation comes to those who have a divine spark that enables the to understand the knowledge given to them.
The Knowledge which led to salvation was a secret knowledge. Plato used the term, but meant a public objective knowledge, whereas Gnostics meant a suprarational knowledge.
Gnosticism attempted to synthesize all the Neoplatonist and mystery cults into one unified entity. This obviously offended the catholic church.
The Gnostics interpreted every scripture as allegory, which also offended Christian sentimentalities.
Syncretism was a major component of Gnosticism. Christianity's method of rejecting all other views, rather then synthesizing then proved to be a lasting one.
The Arian Heresy
Arianism focused on the problem of a Triune Godhead. How could a monotheistic religion have three Gods?
Aries, the founder claimed that Jesus was the logos of God, but was not equal with God the Father. Jesus was a created entity.
Christ was the first creation who later became Incarnated.
Athanasius, the preeminent anti-Arian claimed that God and Christ are of the same substance. But to avoid another heresy (Patripassianism, which claimed God the Father was crucified) he held that the Father and the Son, through the same substance, were distinct persons. Catholicism concluded that God is three in one and how that is is simply a mystery that must be accepted.
Aries was a bit of a rationalist attempting to resolve the issue of three as one in the Godhead.
Tertullian, contra to Arius was completely against any rational attempt to understand the divinity.
He held that any attempt to understand was a mark of weak faith.
The Arian Heresy marks the Church's subversion of reason. The Church would face no controversy so long as man deprecated their ability.
The Pelagian Heresy
The Pelagian Heresy came from the Judaic conception of omnipotence and omniscience.
Both Arius and Pelagius believed they were teaching Christian Orthodoxy and both had some evidence on their side.
Pelagius preached free will in man and stated Paul's mysticism led men to be slothful in Christian living and making excuses for the vices Paul preached against.
If God is all powerful and all knowing man has no fee will. If man has no free will God is unjust for blaming us for sin. Pelagius believed free will was necessary for responsibility.
Pelagius was deemed a heretic, but the Pelagian heresy has reemerged numerous times in the history of the Church.
The Manichean Heresy
Mani tried to resolve the problem of evil. It was regarded as heretical because they employed reason and not the authorities to come to their conclusions.
Manicheanism was dualistic. God was all-good, but not all powerful. Satan created the physical world.
Mani and Christ were prophets went from God to free men from the evil of the body. Manicheanism was thus, very, very ascetic.
The Albigensian heresy in the late Middle Ages was a rearticulation of the Manichaen heresy.
Relation of faith to Reason
Athanasius called the Trinity a mystery that must be accepted as faith, but to appeal to the pagan masses and to confound heretics, Christianity needed a systematic theology. The relationship between faith and reason was critical in forming this theology.
Greek and Christian views contrasted
God is the primary, almost exclusive object of concern in Christianity. In Greek philosophy the concern was to give an account of man's relation to nature.
The shift in emphasis changed all of philosophical thought.
Christianity aimed at perfection, thus were constantly subject to failure.
Christianity is too pessimistic to the modern mind, but Greek philosophy is too naive and optimistic. The major goal of philosophy since the Renaissance is to find a mean between the two.
The methodology of Christian philosophy had to be radically different from the Greek. Exegesis became a large part of philosophy.
Heresy and Orthodoxy
Gradual Emergence of Orthodoxy
The Jesus Movement became a world religion through the ideas of orthodoxy, holiness, apostolic ideal and catholic universalism.
The orthodoxy of the early church developed by attacking individual doctrines deemed heretical. The forensic ability and dialectical skill of the Fathers had more to do with the formation of orthodoxy more than the merit of doctrines.
By the fourth century the outlines of orthodoxy had been drawn, but the orthodoxy was not yet in full effect.
The Gnostic Heresy
Gnosticism states that salvation is acquired through knowledge, not faith.
Gnosticism believed that there was one Supreme Being and This Being created larger supernatural beings. (One of these was YHWH).
These lesser beings are in rebellion against the Absolute god and hold man hostage. Christ descended to save man. Salvation comes to those who have a divine spark that enables the to understand the knowledge given to them.
The Knowledge which led to salvation was a secret knowledge. Plato used the term, but meant a public objective knowledge, whereas Gnostics meant a suprarational knowledge.
Gnosticism attempted to synthesize all the Neoplatonist and mystery cults into one unified entity. This obviously offended the catholic church.
The Gnostics interpreted every scripture as allegory, which also offended Christian sentimentalities.
Syncretism was a major component of Gnosticism. Christianity's method of rejecting all other views, rather then synthesizing then proved to be a lasting one.
The Arian Heresy
Arianism focused on the problem of a Triune Godhead. How could a monotheistic religion have three Gods?
Aries, the founder claimed that Jesus was the logos of God, but was not equal with God the Father. Jesus was a created entity.
Christ was the first creation who later became Incarnated.
Athanasius, the preeminent anti-Arian claimed that God and Christ are of the same substance. But to avoid another heresy (Patripassianism, which claimed God the Father was crucified) he held that the Father and the Son, through the same substance, were distinct persons. Catholicism concluded that God is three in one and how that is is simply a mystery that must be accepted.
Aries was a bit of a rationalist attempting to resolve the issue of three as one in the Godhead.
Tertullian, contra to Arius was completely against any rational attempt to understand the divinity.
He held that any attempt to understand was a mark of weak faith.
The Arian Heresy marks the Church's subversion of reason. The Church would face no controversy so long as man deprecated their ability.
The Pelagian Heresy
The Pelagian Heresy came from the Judaic conception of omnipotence and omniscience.
Both Arius and Pelagius believed they were teaching Christian Orthodoxy and both had some evidence on their side.
Pelagius preached free will in man and stated Paul's mysticism led men to be slothful in Christian living and making excuses for the vices Paul preached against.
If God is all powerful and all knowing man has no fee will. If man has no free will God is unjust for blaming us for sin. Pelagius believed free will was necessary for responsibility.
Pelagius was deemed a heretic, but the Pelagian heresy has reemerged numerous times in the history of the Church.
The Manichean Heresy
Mani tried to resolve the problem of evil. It was regarded as heretical because they employed reason and not the authorities to come to their conclusions.
Manicheanism was dualistic. God was all-good, but not all powerful. Satan created the physical world.
Mani and Christ were prophets went from God to free men from the evil of the body. Manicheanism was thus, very, very ascetic.
The Albigensian heresy in the late Middle Ages was a rearticulation of the Manichaen heresy.
Relation of faith to Reason
Athanasius called the Trinity a mystery that must be accepted as faith, but to appeal to the pagan masses and to confound heretics, Christianity needed a systematic theology. The relationship between faith and reason was critical in forming this theology.
Greek and Christian views contrasted
God is the primary, almost exclusive object of concern in Christianity. In Greek philosophy the concern was to give an account of man's relation to nature.
The shift in emphasis changed all of philosophical thought.
Christianity aimed at perfection, thus were constantly subject to failure.
Christianity is too pessimistic to the modern mind, but Greek philosophy is too naive and optimistic. The major goal of philosophy since the Renaissance is to find a mean between the two.
The methodology of Christian philosophy had to be radically different from the Greek. Exegesis became a large part of philosophy.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Providence, Virtue and The Nozick Machines
(Originally Written November 11, 2006 in Epistemology)
3 views on providence:
1. Augustinianism - God predestined everything
2. Molinism (Middle Knowledge) - God created the best world out of all the possible ones
3. Simple foreknowledge - God created the world, but didn't ordain everything
Zagzebski:
Virtue - good in the possessor and more
The Acquisition of Virtue
-Virtues must be acquired
-Virtues are not skills
-Skills can be possessed without being practiced, but virtues cannot
-Some skills are not worth having whereas all virtues are always worth having
-Skills involve mastering of techniques, no technique needs to be mastered for a virtue
-A person can forget a skill, but not a virtue
-It is possible for someone to act in a consistent way with a virtue without possessing it, but this is not possible with any skill
-Virtues have a contrary or contraries. There is no anti-skill.
-A virtue is intrinsically valuable, whereas a skill has value(s) in the utility
Intellectual Virtues vs. Intellectual skills:
Virtues
-Attention to detail
-Open mindedness
-Adaptability
-Insight
-Intellectual humility
Skills
-Logical skills
-Fact-finding skills
-Mechanical skills
-Spatial reasoning skills
-Mathematical skills
-Verbal skills
Virtues & vices are habituated
Nozick's Thought Experiment
-Experience machine
-Transformation Machine
-Results Machine
3 views on providence:
1. Augustinianism - God predestined everything
2. Molinism (Middle Knowledge) - God created the best world out of all the possible ones
3. Simple foreknowledge - God created the world, but didn't ordain everything
Zagzebski:
Virtue - good in the possessor and more
The Acquisition of Virtue
-Virtues must be acquired
-Virtues are not skills
-Skills can be possessed without being practiced, but virtues cannot
-Some skills are not worth having whereas all virtues are always worth having
-Skills involve mastering of techniques, no technique needs to be mastered for a virtue
-A person can forget a skill, but not a virtue
-It is possible for someone to act in a consistent way with a virtue without possessing it, but this is not possible with any skill
-Virtues have a contrary or contraries. There is no anti-skill.
-A virtue is intrinsically valuable, whereas a skill has value(s) in the utility
Intellectual Virtues vs. Intellectual skills:
Virtues
-Attention to detail
-Open mindedness
-Adaptability
-Insight
-Intellectual humility
Skills
-Logical skills
-Fact-finding skills
-Mechanical skills
-Spatial reasoning skills
-Mathematical skills
-Verbal skills
Virtues & vices are habituated
Nozick's Thought Experiment
-Experience machine
-Transformation Machine
-Results Machine
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Class and book notes on Kant
(Originally written September 10, 2006 in Book 8)
A priori knowledge
Classifications and Definitions
"The problem of synthetic a priori knowledge involves epistemological, metaphysical and semantic considerations" (Pojman, 367).
"A priori and a posteriori are latin terms that were first developed in the Middle Ages by scholastic philosophers.
Leibniz used both to prove knowledge. Kant further developed the notions.
Is there synthetic a priori knowledge? Kant held that it was necessary from a logic standpoint.
"A. Epistemological Categories
1. A priori knowledge does not depend on evidence from sense experience. (Plato's innate ideas and Leibniz's 'truths of reason') for example, mathematics and logic.
2. A posteriori knowledge depends on evidence from Sense experience. (Plato's 'appearance' and Leibniz's 'truths of fact') - empirical knowledge.
B. Metaphysical Categories
1. Necessary truths 'are' true in all possible worlds (for example, the statement that, 'God exists' according to the ontological argument).
2. Contingent truths 'are' true in the actual world but not in all possible worlds (for example, the fact you exist and were born after January 1, 1800)
C. Semantical categories
1. Analytic-predicate is contained in the subject, explicative, not ampliative (for example, 'all mothers are women')
2. Synthetic - predicate is not contained in the subject but adds something to the subject ampliative, not explicative (for example, Mary is a mother)" (Pojman, 367-8)
Combinations
Synthetic a priori knowledge is affirmed by rationalists and denied by empiricists.
Neither believe that there are such things as analytic a posteriori knowledge because that implies a contradiction.
Kant, a radical rationalist, held that all knowledge was grounded in a priori knowledge.
"The essential claim of those who hold to synthetic a priori knowledge is that the mind can grasp connexions between ideas (concepts) that are not strictly analytical related" (Pojman, 368).
Kant's Chart of Knowledge
(clarifications are for my own sake)
Synthetic a priori knowledge
-Math, i.e. 5+7=12
-Exclusionary: i.e. nothing red is green
-Presuppositions of experience: space, time and causality
-Moral judgments - the categorical imperative
-The Laws of Logic: i.e. The principle of non-contradiction
-Metaphysical - The existence of God, Free-Will
Until Kant, people believed our knowledge must conform to objects. This had led to a failure to establish a priori knowledge. Kant switched it around so that objects conform to out knowledge, making a priori knowledge possible. This is Kant's so-called Copernican revolution.
Prolegomena: Preamble on the Peculiarities of all Metaphysical Knowledge
S1. Of the Sources of Metaphysics
Sciences differ from one another based on one or all of these:
1) object
2) sources of knowledge
3) kind of knowledge
As for metaphysics and its knowledge, it can never be, or come from things, empirical.
It can not be from external experiences because that is physics; nor can it e from internal experiences because that is psychology. Therefore, ti must come from a priori knowledge. It comes from pure understanding and pure reason.
Metaphysics is pure philosophical knowledge.
S2. Concerning the kind of knowledge which can alone be called metaphysical
Metaphysical judgments are judgments that are explicative, that is, they add nothing to their content.
Synthetical judgments are judgments that are expansive, that is, they increase the knowledge.
Analytical judgments merely analyze the subject in the predicate: 'All bodies are extended'.
Synthetical judgments add something to the subject in the predicate: 'All bodies have weight'
The common principle in all analytical judgments is the law of contradiction.
A priori knowledge
Classifications and Definitions
"The problem of synthetic a priori knowledge involves epistemological, metaphysical and semantic considerations" (Pojman, 367).
"A priori and a posteriori are latin terms that were first developed in the Middle Ages by scholastic philosophers.
Leibniz used both to prove knowledge. Kant further developed the notions.
Is there synthetic a priori knowledge? Kant held that it was necessary from a logic standpoint.
"A. Epistemological Categories
1. A priori knowledge does not depend on evidence from sense experience. (Plato's innate ideas and Leibniz's 'truths of reason') for example, mathematics and logic.
2. A posteriori knowledge depends on evidence from Sense experience. (Plato's 'appearance' and Leibniz's 'truths of fact') - empirical knowledge.
B. Metaphysical Categories
1. Necessary truths 'are' true in all possible worlds (for example, the statement that, 'God exists' according to the ontological argument).
2. Contingent truths 'are' true in the actual world but not in all possible worlds (for example, the fact you exist and were born after January 1, 1800)
C. Semantical categories
1. Analytic-predicate is contained in the subject, explicative, not ampliative (for example, 'all mothers are women')
2. Synthetic - predicate is not contained in the subject but adds something to the subject ampliative, not explicative (for example, Mary is a mother)" (Pojman, 367-8)
Combinations
Synthetic a priori knowledge is affirmed by rationalists and denied by empiricists.
Neither believe that there are such things as analytic a posteriori knowledge because that implies a contradiction.
Kant, a radical rationalist, held that all knowledge was grounded in a priori knowledge.
"The essential claim of those who hold to synthetic a priori knowledge is that the mind can grasp connexions between ideas (concepts) that are not strictly analytical related" (Pojman, 368).
Kant's Chart of Knowledge
Analytic
|
Synthetic
|
|
A Priori
|
-Entailments
-Identity Statements
-Tautologies
-Definitions
|
-Mathematics
-Exclusionary
-Presuppositions of experience
-Moral Judgments
-Laws of Logic
-Metaphysical
|
A Posteriori
|
XX
|
-Empirical
“All bodies are heavy”
“John is a bachelor”
|
The Kantian Theory About Synthetic A Priori Knowledge
The question: How are synthetic a priori judgments possible? This is Kant's primary concern in his Critique of Pure Reason.
Kant (via Ewing) makes four claims about synthetic a priori judgments
1. They are logically necessary - wholes that determine their own parts
2. They are not derivable from particular sensations (but empirical experience is the trigger to cause them to arise)
3. They are presupposed in all of our experience
4. They are contributed by our minds.
Synthetic a priori knowledge is of the conditions of experience, not of reality.
A.J. Ayer critiques the notion of the synthetic a priori knowledge from a conventionalist's point of view. He believes that all the supposed a priori knowledge can actually be reduced to analytic truths.
A.C. Ewing counters Ayer and is in favor of it. Maintaining that if nothing else, the laws of logic are a priori.
W.V. Quine denies the notion of containment being meaningful. (Containment is the notion of an idea being expressed in the definition of the word: bachelor contains the ideas 'unmarried' and 'man'). Since Quine denies containment then he makes no distinction betwixt analytic and synthetic judgments. This also rids him of a priori judgments.
H.P. Grace and P.F. Stranson disagree with Quine.
Roderick Chisholm defends a priori and analytic knowledge.
Saul Kripke throws a major curveball, contending that is possible to have a posteriori necessary truths and non-necessary a priori knowledge.
VII.1. A Priori Knowledge
Immanuel Kant
Kant (1724-1804) was born in Königsberg and never left the town.
He was deeply pious and Lutheran
He was inhuman in his orderliness. Some citizens of Königsberg set their clocks by Kant's walks.
The Critique of Pure Reason started a revolution in theory of knowledge.
He was "woke from his dogmatic slumber" by Hume.
Kant held that we have incredible structured minds that interpret and categorize all experiences that we have. This is the "Kant's Copernican Revolution"
Kant's distinctions between a priori and a posteriori knowledge is famous.
A priori knowledge is what we know prior to experience. A posteriori is knowledge we gain through experience.
Hume considered all knowledge of matters of fact a posteriori and only analytic statements a priori.
Kant rejects Hume's theory and states that it is possible to have a priori knowledge of matters of fact.
Kant holds that all knowledge begins with experience, but it does not mean that all knowledge arises out of experience.
Kant also holds that mathematical truth is synthetic (the predicate ads something to the subject) not analytical.
Other synthetic a priori knowledge is knowledge of time, of space and of causality.
A priori
|
A Posteriori
|
|
Analytic
|
Tautologies & entailments
|
None
|
Synthetic
|
Causality, Space and time, 5+7=12, and the moral law
|
Empirical judgments
|
Basically, an analytic judgment explicitly states a subject and its definition in the predicate. If an analytic statement contradicts itself it is false.
There are two types of synthetical judgments:
1) a priori
2) a posteriori
Synthetical judgments cannot be deduced solely from the Law of Contradiction, but they are still subject to it.
Judgments of experience are always synthetical by nature.
Mathematical judgments are synthetical. This is a fact that eluded people for years.
All mathematical judgments are a priori because they are necessarily true.
Arithmetic judgments like 5+7=12 are definitely true because there is nothing in the notions '5', +, '7' that demands the sum of 12.
Linehan - I think I disagree. The concept of '12', if we truly know it can be analyzed and known as, '0+12, 1+11, 2+10, 3+9, 4+8, 5+7, 6+6, and so forth, provided that we know the notion of '7".
Geometrical judgments are likewise synthetical because they require us to use intuition tadas.
"the essential and distinguishing feature of pure mathematical knolsedge among all after a priori knowledge is that it cannot proceed from concepts, but only from construction of concepts" (Pojman, 373).
Kant criticizes Hume for believing mathematics contained only analytical propositions and metaphysics having only synthetical a priori propositions. But, had Hume realized that mathematics were a priori synthetical propositions he would not have discarded metaphysics.
Metaphysical judgments are synthetical. But, judgments pertaining to metaphysics are analytical.
Definitions like a substance is that which exists as a subject is an analytical judgment pertaining to metaphysics. The concept "substance" is metaphysical but the judgment is analytical and therefore, not a metaphysical judgment.
Metaphysics is different from every other science in the way it produces its a priori cognitions.
Metaphysics receives from outside itself analytic judgments, but uses those analytic judgments to accomplish its end, which is to form a priori synthetical judgments.
"The generation of a priori knowledge by intuition as well as concepts, in fine, of synthetical propositions a priori, especially in philosophical knowledge, constitutes the essential subject of metaphysics" (Pojman, 374).
S3. A remark on the general division of judgment into analytical and synthetical:
The distinction is extremely important, but it is difficult to find in other men's work. It is obscure, and difficult to put into words. Once one discovers it though, they will be able to see the difference in places where they never saw it before.
S4. The General Question of the Prolegomena: Is Metaphysics Possible?
We cannot assume that metaphysics exists as a science, but we can confidently state that there are a priori synthetical cognitions (i.e. pure mathematics).
The question is not whether, but how is metaphysics possible?
S5. The General Problem: How is knowledge from pure reason possible?
Metaphysics stands or falls on the ability or inability to have synthetic a priori knowledge.
There can be an incredibly well put together metaphysical system with tons of truths, but if the architect of that system has not given an account to how one comes to know a priori synthetic judgments then, "to all that which thou protest me thus, I refuse to give credence, and hate"
If we did not see true synthetical a priori judgments in life then we would see that the question of how to come by that knowledge as insoluble.
To solve this we must divide it into four parts:
1) How is pure mathematics possible?
2) How is pure natural science possible?
3) How is metaphysics in general possible?
4) How is metaphysics as a science possible?
I am so irritated! Kant spends this entire last section suspending others from metaphysics but gives no definite answer. Ahh! I am thoroughly agitated right now. This is on e of the biggest disappointments in my brief (about fourteen months now) investigation into philosophy!
Metaphysical judgments are synthetical. But, judgments pertaining to metaphysics are analytical.
Definitions like a substance is that which exists as a subject is an analytical judgment pertaining to metaphysics. The concept "substance" is metaphysical but the judgment is analytical and therefore, not a metaphysical judgment.
Metaphysics is different from every other science in the way it produces its a priori cognitions.
Metaphysics receives from outside itself analytic judgments, but uses those analytic judgments to accomplish its end, which is to form a priori synthetical judgments.
"The generation of a priori knowledge by intuition as well as concepts, in fine, of synthetical propositions a priori, especially in philosophical knowledge, constitutes the essential subject of metaphysics" (Pojman, 374).
S3. A remark on the general division of judgment into analytical and synthetical:
The distinction is extremely important, but it is difficult to find in other men's work. It is obscure, and difficult to put into words. Once one discovers it though, they will be able to see the difference in places where they never saw it before.
S4. The General Question of the Prolegomena: Is Metaphysics Possible?
We cannot assume that metaphysics exists as a science, but we can confidently state that there are a priori synthetical cognitions (i.e. pure mathematics).
The question is not whether, but how is metaphysics possible?
S5. The General Problem: How is knowledge from pure reason possible?
Metaphysics stands or falls on the ability or inability to have synthetic a priori knowledge.
There can be an incredibly well put together metaphysical system with tons of truths, but if the architect of that system has not given an account to how one comes to know a priori synthetic judgments then, "to all that which thou protest me thus, I refuse to give credence, and hate"
If we did not see true synthetical a priori judgments in life then we would see that the question of how to come by that knowledge as insoluble.
To solve this we must divide it into four parts:
1) How is pure mathematics possible?
2) How is pure natural science possible?
3) How is metaphysics in general possible?
4) How is metaphysics as a science possible?
I am so irritated! Kant spends this entire last section suspending others from metaphysics but gives no definite answer. Ahh! I am thoroughly agitated right now. This is on e of the biggest disappointments in my brief (about fourteen months now) investigation into philosophy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)