The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter XXVIII Stoicism
Zeno, the founder of Stoicism was a materialist who combined Cynicism with Heraclitus. Later, Stoicism took on a bit of Platonism and eventually materialism died out.
Stoicism is the least Greek form of philosophy with the earliest Stoics coming from Syria and the later ones being primarily Roman.
Zeno was primarily concerned with virtue and ethics. Everything else was important only in how it pertained to virtue.
Zeno denied the existence of chance. Zeno believed in a determinism that was rigid, but set up by a beneficent creator through natural laws.
"In the life of an individual man, virtue is the sole good; such things as health, happiness,
possessions, are of no account. Since virtue resides in the will, everything really good or bad in a
man's life depends only upon himself. He may become poor, but what of it? He can still be virtuous. A tyrant may put him in prison, but he can still persevere in living in harmony with Nature. He may be sentenced to death, but he can die nobly, like Socrates" (Russell, 254-55).
There is a coldness to Stoicism as not only bad passions are condemned, but all passions.
"The Stoic is not virtuous in order to do good, but does good in order to
be virtuous" (Russell, 256).
"Kant--who resembles them--says that you must be kind to your brother, not because you are fond of him, but because the moral law enjoins kindness; I doubt, however, whether, in private life, he lived down to this precept" (Russell, 256).
Gradually stoicism incorporated other elements and became Platonic in nature under Panaetius (who in turn influenced Cicero). Under Posidonius (circa 135 - 51 BC) the Platonic element was stronger in Stoicism then in the Skeptical theories present at the Academy.
The three Roman Stoics: Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius were much more important historically than philosophically.
Seneca turned out to be the tutor of Nero and was forced to commit suicide in A.D. 65. His dying legacy of a virtuous life remained important to his followers and to later Christians.
Epictetus, a slave who flourished between 60 and 100 AD was originally a slave and then served as a minister for the emperors until Domitian banished all philosophers.
Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 121 - 180) was an emperor. His Meditations were a personal journal of Stoic virtue.
Stoicism is a philosophy of a tired age, not a hopeful one. Stoicism suited both Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus because it was a philosophy of survival.
"If we understand that virtue is the only true good, we shall see that no real evil can befall us" (Russell, 263).
"Every man is an actor in a play, in which God has assigned the parts; it is our duty to perform our part worthily, whatever it may be" (Russell, 264).
Aurelius taught that life in harmony with the universe is what was good and one should act accordingly.
Aurelius taught that all men were brothers and that we are to love them even when they do wrong because they only do wrong out of ignorance.
Although Stoics were mostly concerned with ethics, they made great strides in the theory of knowledge as well.
The theory of knowledge avoided Plato's distrust of the perceptions. They concluded that while the perceptions might not be certain, they are probable on the whole and worthy of trust.
The Stoics also believed in innate ideas and principles.
The Stoic notion of the equality of man and the doctrine of natural law, when backed by the weight of Christianity saw the end of despotism in the 17th century.
Showing posts with label Kant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kant. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Notes on Dreadful Freedom
(Originally Written October 22, 2009 in The Journal)
OK Ashley, you've heard my sob stories about loneliness and depression and this new unrequited love. You've heard of the destruction of my body, the breaking of my heart and the crushing of my soul. But now let's witness my glory - my mind. How about some philosophy.
Dreadful Freedom
Marjorie Grene
Chapter 1 - Why existentialism
Existentialists insist on their essential optimism that man makes himself.
Existentialism in a sense is a reaction against the speculative idealism of Hegel.
Existentialism comes from Kierkegaard's phrase "existential dialectic".
In existentialism, existence is prior to essence. This means that the consciousness of one's own soul comes before anything else becomes clear.
Existentialism revolts against system building and focuses on more pressing human concerns.
The relation of cause to effect is measured by the efficacy of an act.
The relation of cause and effect is indistinguishable from means and end.
Sartre and Dewey (pragmatists) criticize philosophies of the past for stabilizing the norms that kept ruling parties in power.
Pragmatism and existentialism are similar in aim at first glance.
Sartre resets values from past to future. The past value is an emphasis on the bourgeois privilege whereas if values are set with the future in mind it leads to revolution.
Pragmatism fails though because fact cannot produce value. Science cannot distinguish between good and evil.
Value for Sartre lies between the way things are and the way things ought to be. The success of man (and failure) lies between the thing as it is and the thing as it should be.
The perception between the way things are and the way they should be is the fundamental insight of existential philosophy.
Values are created solely by the acts of man. What they take as good or bad, beautiful or ugly in their quest to give meaning to a meaningless world.
Positivistic ethics aims at being descriptive not normative.
As in Kantian ethics, existentialists claim there is no good or evil apart from will and there is no will without freedom.
Existentialism does not derive values from mere facts.
Some existentialists demand a return to faith in the Christian God as a necessary way out of our present moral chaos (Marcel & Kierkegaard).
Atheistic existentialists however claim that the return to the Christian God is removing the freedom of man and basing values once again on facts, though these facts are not sense-data but cosmic in origin.
Chapter 2: Soren Kierkegaard: The self against the system
The aim of Kierkegaard, his one problem was: to find out where the misunderstanding lies between speculation and Christianity.
Kierkegaard believed that the misunderstanding had its roots in the nature of personal existence.
Kierkegaard's work has a slight anti-scientific tone but it is really a revolt against Hegelian speculation.
Camus had a very strong anti-scientific tone.
Kierkegaard worries that by focusing on physiology and explaining the whole man in its scope will cause man to lose sight of the important field of ethics.
Kierkegaard argues that the system in never capable of explaining existence until it is complete and thus becoming timeless. Existence as it is happening is never complete and thus, the system is incapable of explaining existence.
Kierkegaard criticizes the systematizers by claiming that they build a palace to live next door in the barn.
The system builders acquire far flung knowledge and ignore the simple understanding of one's self, which is the only important understand.
The system, in its grandeur is deceiving. It uses wordy logical fallacies to appear logical.
Kierkegaard does not propound an orthodox form of Christianity. He denies any "objective truth of Christianity", instead stating the whole problem for every serious Christian is their own path to faith.
Kierkegaard focuses on the inwardness of the subjective journey of the one real entity (the individual) to the infinite being, known by faith.
Kierkegaard turns from the impersonal and trivial truths (though consistent) to the passionate truth realized only subjectively and meaningful. This truth is meaningful because it is contradictory.
By embracing total subjectivity, Kierkegaard renounced all abstraction and left only contradiction and paradox. Since abstraction is gone one cannot transfer through words one's experience to another. paradox is the only way and this is indirect communication.
Philosophy for Kierkegaard, like Kant is focused on the question, what is man? It deals with human problems, not the essence of cosmic reality.
Kierkegaard relies heavily on Plato, not Neo-Platonism, but the Dialogues themselves.
Kierkegaard states we live, or ought to live, in the awareness that here and now may be our last moment.
Existentialism focuses on the contingency of life.
Existentialism pays close attention to the meaninglessness that continually underlies the significance in human life.
OK Ashley, you've heard my sob stories about loneliness and depression and this new unrequited love. You've heard of the destruction of my body, the breaking of my heart and the crushing of my soul. But now let's witness my glory - my mind. How about some philosophy.
Dreadful Freedom
Marjorie Grene
Chapter 1 - Why existentialism
Existentialists insist on their essential optimism that man makes himself.
Existentialism in a sense is a reaction against the speculative idealism of Hegel.
Existentialism comes from Kierkegaard's phrase "existential dialectic".
In existentialism, existence is prior to essence. This means that the consciousness of one's own soul comes before anything else becomes clear.
Existentialism revolts against system building and focuses on more pressing human concerns.
The relation of cause to effect is measured by the efficacy of an act.
The relation of cause and effect is indistinguishable from means and end.
Sartre and Dewey (pragmatists) criticize philosophies of the past for stabilizing the norms that kept ruling parties in power.
Pragmatism and existentialism are similar in aim at first glance.
Sartre resets values from past to future. The past value is an emphasis on the bourgeois privilege whereas if values are set with the future in mind it leads to revolution.
Pragmatism fails though because fact cannot produce value. Science cannot distinguish between good and evil.
Value for Sartre lies between the way things are and the way things ought to be. The success of man (and failure) lies between the thing as it is and the thing as it should be.
The perception between the way things are and the way they should be is the fundamental insight of existential philosophy.
Values are created solely by the acts of man. What they take as good or bad, beautiful or ugly in their quest to give meaning to a meaningless world.
Positivistic ethics aims at being descriptive not normative.
As in Kantian ethics, existentialists claim there is no good or evil apart from will and there is no will without freedom.
Existentialism does not derive values from mere facts.
Some existentialists demand a return to faith in the Christian God as a necessary way out of our present moral chaos (Marcel & Kierkegaard).
Atheistic existentialists however claim that the return to the Christian God is removing the freedom of man and basing values once again on facts, though these facts are not sense-data but cosmic in origin.
Chapter 2: Soren Kierkegaard: The self against the system
The aim of Kierkegaard, his one problem was: to find out where the misunderstanding lies between speculation and Christianity.
Kierkegaard believed that the misunderstanding had its roots in the nature of personal existence.
Kierkegaard's work has a slight anti-scientific tone but it is really a revolt against Hegelian speculation.
Camus had a very strong anti-scientific tone.
Kierkegaard worries that by focusing on physiology and explaining the whole man in its scope will cause man to lose sight of the important field of ethics.
Kierkegaard argues that the system in never capable of explaining existence until it is complete and thus becoming timeless. Existence as it is happening is never complete and thus, the system is incapable of explaining existence.
Kierkegaard criticizes the systematizers by claiming that they build a palace to live next door in the barn.
The system builders acquire far flung knowledge and ignore the simple understanding of one's self, which is the only important understand.
The system, in its grandeur is deceiving. It uses wordy logical fallacies to appear logical.
Kierkegaard does not propound an orthodox form of Christianity. He denies any "objective truth of Christianity", instead stating the whole problem for every serious Christian is their own path to faith.
Kierkegaard focuses on the inwardness of the subjective journey of the one real entity (the individual) to the infinite being, known by faith.
Kierkegaard turns from the impersonal and trivial truths (though consistent) to the passionate truth realized only subjectively and meaningful. This truth is meaningful because it is contradictory.
By embracing total subjectivity, Kierkegaard renounced all abstraction and left only contradiction and paradox. Since abstraction is gone one cannot transfer through words one's experience to another. paradox is the only way and this is indirect communication.
Philosophy for Kierkegaard, like Kant is focused on the question, what is man? It deals with human problems, not the essence of cosmic reality.
Kierkegaard relies heavily on Plato, not Neo-Platonism, but the Dialogues themselves.
Kierkegaard states we live, or ought to live, in the awareness that here and now may be our last moment.
Existentialism focuses on the contingency of life.
Existentialism pays close attention to the meaninglessness that continually underlies the significance in human life.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Chapter 3 (A)
(Originally Written Feb. 28, 2008 in the Journal)
Baumgarten (the founder of aesthetics) states the object of logical knowledge is truth and the object of aesthetic or sensual knowledge is beauty.
"Beauty is the perfect recognized through the senses; truth is the perfect perceived through reason; goodness is the perfect reached by moral will" (Maude, 92).
Baumgarten sees beauty as a correspondence of the relations of the parts to the parts and of the parts to the whole.
The aim of beauty he states, is to excite a desire.
Baumgarten's followers did nothing more than separate the pleasant from the beautiful.
Sulzer, Mendelssohn and Moritz claimed that the aim of art is not beauty, but goodness.
Johann Georg Sulzer held that which contains goodness can be called beautiful. He contended that the aim of humanity was welfare in social life. He intended to achieve this through moral education; and art, serves this purpose only.
Moses Mendelssohn held that art is the development of beauty until it becomes true and good. He held that the end of art is therefore, moral perfection.
While Baumgarten was concerned with the Perfect or the Absolute, Mendelssohn and Sulzer divided into three forms: truth, goodness and beauty. Beauty then merges back into both the good and the true.
Johann Winckelmann (a German art historian) said that only external beauty is the aim of art. Winckelmann separated beauty from goodness and divided it into three categories:
1. Beauty of form
2. Beauty of idea
3. Beauty of expression
He claimed that beauty of expression could only happen after both beauty of form and beauty of idea had first been accomplished. Winckelmann held that beauty of expression is the highest aim of art. He claimed that it was attained in antique art and therefore, modern art should be aimed at imitating ancient art.
The German aestheticians like Lessing, Herder, and Goethe understood beauty in the way of Winckelmann until Immanuel Kant changed it all.
Aesthetic theories arose in England, France, Italy and Holland that were also equally cloudy and contradictory The started their theories with a conception of the beautiful as existing absolutely and somehow it intermingled with goodness or at least had the same roots as it.
Shaftsbury held that which is beautiful is harmonious and proportionable, that which is harmonious and proportionable is true, and what is beautiful and true is agreeable and good. Shaftsbury held that beauty is only recognized by the mind. He held that God is the fundamental beauty and that beauty and goodness proceed from the same fount.
Hutchenson held that the aim of art is beauty. Beauty's essence consists in evoking a perception of uniformity and variety in us. Hutchenson held we are guided by an internal sense to what art is. He also held that in this internal sense one could contradict the ethical sense and that beauty does not always correspond with goodness and could actually run contrary to it.
Lord Kanes held that beauty is what is pleasant. Therefore, for him, beauty rests solely in taste.
Burke held that the sublime and the beautiful were the aim of art and have their origin in self-preservation and society. He also claimed that art is a means for the maintenance of the race through the individual. The first self-preservation (and the preservation of the individual) is through 1) nourishment, 2) defense, and 3) war. The second self-preservation (the preservation of the society) is achieved through 1) sex and 2) propagation. Self-defense and war are the source of the sublime. Sociability and the sex instinct are the source of beauty.
Yves Marie André held that there are three types of beauty:
1. Divine
2. Natural
3. Artificial
Charles Batteux held that art consists in imitating the beauty of nature. The end of art is enjoyment.
The French and the English held that taste decides what is beautiful. They also hold that the laws of taste cannot be determined.
Pagano held that art consists of uniting the beauties dispersed in nature. He held that the capacity to perceive these beauties is taste and the capacity to bring them together is artistic genius. He held that beauty is goodness made visible and that goodness is inner beauty.
Muratori stated that art is an egotistical sensation founded on the desire for the preservation of self and society.
Hemsterhuis, the Dutch writer, influenced the Germans, particularly Goethe. He held that beauty is that which gives the most pleasure. He held that enjoyment of the beautiful is the highest form of cognition to which men can attain.
Kant held that:
1. Man has a knowledge of nature outside him and himself in nature.
2. He seeks truth outside himself. He seeks goodness inside himself.
3. Seeking truth is pure reason. Seeking goodness is practical reason.
4. Aesthetic feeling is a judging capacity without reason and produces pleasure without desire.
5. Beauty is in subjective meaning. It is that which without reasoning and without practical advantages, nonetheless pleases.
Schiller held that the aim of art is beauty, which is the source of pleasure without practical advantage.
Fichte held that the perception of the beautiful proceeds from nature. Nature has two sides; 1) the sum of our limitations and 2) the sum of our free idealistic activity. In the sum of our limitations we see deformity. In the sum of our free idealistic activity we see beauty. He held that beauty therefore does not exist in the world, but in the beautiful soul (Schöner Geist). He also held that art is the manifestation of this beautiful soul and that the aim of art is the education of the whole man.
Schlegel held that beauty is understood too incompletely. He held that beauty is in art, nature and love. The truly beautiful is expressed by the union of art, nature and love.
Adam Müller held that there are two types of beauty:
1. General beauty which attracts people as the sun attracts the planets
2. Individual beauty which consists in the observer becoming like the sun and attracting beauty.
Thus, a world which harmonizes all contradictions is the highest beauty. He held that art is a reproduction of this universal harmony and that the highest art is the art of life.
Schelling held "art is the production or result of that conception of things by which the subject becomes its own object, or the object its own subject" (Maude, 99). He held that beauty is the perception of the infinite in the finite. The chief characteristic of works of art is unconscious infinity. Art unites the subjective and the objective, nature with reason and the unconscious with the conscious. He held that because of this, art is the highest means of knowledge. "Beauty is the contemplation of things in themselves as they exist in the prototype" (Maude, 99). The artist does not produce the beautiful by knowledge or skill, but by the beauty inside himself.
Krause held that positive beauty is the manifestation of the idea in an individual form; art is the actualization of the beauty existent in man's free spirit.
Hegel held that God manifests himself in nature and art as beauty. God manifests himself in two ways: on the object in nature and in the subject in spirit. Only the soul and what pertains to it is truly beautiful. The beauty of nature is only the reflection of a spiritual content. The sensuous manifestation of spirit is only appearance and this is the only reality of the beautiful. Art, religion and philosophy are means of being and expressing to the consciousness the deepest problems of humanity and the highest truths of the spirit. Hegel held that truth and beauty are one and the same. The idea as itself is truth. The idea, manifested externally, is beauty.
Weisse held that art is the introduction of the absolute spiritual reality of beauty into the external, dead, indifferent matter. Weisse held that the idea of truth entails a contradiction between the subjective and the objective and then the individual ego discerns the universal. Beauty is a reconciled truth.
In addition to Hegelian aesthetic theories there were contemporary and contradictory German theories like Herbart's and Schopenhauer's.
Hebart denied that there can be such a thing as beauty in itself. He held that there are certain relations we call beautiful and that art consists of finding these relations.
Schopenhauer held that the will objectifies itself in the world on various planes. The highest plane has the highest beauty but, each plane contains its own beauty.
Hartmann held that beauty lies in the seeming or "schien" produced by the artist. "The thing in itself is not beautiful, but it is transformed into beauty by the artist".
Schnaase held that there is no beauty in the world. Art gives what nature cannot. Beauty is disclosed then in art.
Kirchmann held there are six realms of history:
1. Knowledge
2. Wealth
3. Morality
4. Faith
5. Politics
6. Beauty - this is art.
Helmholtz held that beauty is manifested by the artist unconsciously and therefore cannot be analyzed.
Bergmann denied defining beauty objectively is possible. He held that beauty is held subjectively and therefore the job of aesthetics is to define what pleases whom.
Jungmann held that:
1. Beauty is a suprasensible quality of things.
2. Beauty produces pleasure by contemplation
3. Beauty is the foundation of love.
Cousin held beauty always has a moral foundation.
Jouffrey held that the visible world is the clothing by means of which we see beauty.
Lévêque held that beauty was a force behind nature and revealed itself in ordered energy.
Ravaisson held that beauty was the ultimate aim and purpose of the world.
Baumgarten (the founder of aesthetics) states the object of logical knowledge is truth and the object of aesthetic or sensual knowledge is beauty.
"Beauty is the perfect recognized through the senses; truth is the perfect perceived through reason; goodness is the perfect reached by moral will" (Maude, 92).
Baumgarten sees beauty as a correspondence of the relations of the parts to the parts and of the parts to the whole.
The aim of beauty he states, is to excite a desire.
Baumgarten's followers did nothing more than separate the pleasant from the beautiful.
Sulzer, Mendelssohn and Moritz claimed that the aim of art is not beauty, but goodness.
Johann Georg Sulzer held that which contains goodness can be called beautiful. He contended that the aim of humanity was welfare in social life. He intended to achieve this through moral education; and art, serves this purpose only.
Moses Mendelssohn held that art is the development of beauty until it becomes true and good. He held that the end of art is therefore, moral perfection.
While Baumgarten was concerned with the Perfect or the Absolute, Mendelssohn and Sulzer divided into three forms: truth, goodness and beauty. Beauty then merges back into both the good and the true.
Johann Winckelmann (a German art historian) said that only external beauty is the aim of art. Winckelmann separated beauty from goodness and divided it into three categories:
1. Beauty of form
2. Beauty of idea
3. Beauty of expression
He claimed that beauty of expression could only happen after both beauty of form and beauty of idea had first been accomplished. Winckelmann held that beauty of expression is the highest aim of art. He claimed that it was attained in antique art and therefore, modern art should be aimed at imitating ancient art.
The German aestheticians like Lessing, Herder, and Goethe understood beauty in the way of Winckelmann until Immanuel Kant changed it all.
Aesthetic theories arose in England, France, Italy and Holland that were also equally cloudy and contradictory The started their theories with a conception of the beautiful as existing absolutely and somehow it intermingled with goodness or at least had the same roots as it.
Shaftsbury held that which is beautiful is harmonious and proportionable, that which is harmonious and proportionable is true, and what is beautiful and true is agreeable and good. Shaftsbury held that beauty is only recognized by the mind. He held that God is the fundamental beauty and that beauty and goodness proceed from the same fount.
Hutchenson held that the aim of art is beauty. Beauty's essence consists in evoking a perception of uniformity and variety in us. Hutchenson held we are guided by an internal sense to what art is. He also held that in this internal sense one could contradict the ethical sense and that beauty does not always correspond with goodness and could actually run contrary to it.
Lord Kanes held that beauty is what is pleasant. Therefore, for him, beauty rests solely in taste.
Burke held that the sublime and the beautiful were the aim of art and have their origin in self-preservation and society. He also claimed that art is a means for the maintenance of the race through the individual. The first self-preservation (and the preservation of the individual) is through 1) nourishment, 2) defense, and 3) war. The second self-preservation (the preservation of the society) is achieved through 1) sex and 2) propagation. Self-defense and war are the source of the sublime. Sociability and the sex instinct are the source of beauty.
Yves Marie André held that there are three types of beauty:
1. Divine
2. Natural
3. Artificial
Charles Batteux held that art consists in imitating the beauty of nature. The end of art is enjoyment.
The French and the English held that taste decides what is beautiful. They also hold that the laws of taste cannot be determined.
Pagano held that art consists of uniting the beauties dispersed in nature. He held that the capacity to perceive these beauties is taste and the capacity to bring them together is artistic genius. He held that beauty is goodness made visible and that goodness is inner beauty.
Muratori stated that art is an egotistical sensation founded on the desire for the preservation of self and society.
Hemsterhuis, the Dutch writer, influenced the Germans, particularly Goethe. He held that beauty is that which gives the most pleasure. He held that enjoyment of the beautiful is the highest form of cognition to which men can attain.
Kant held that:
1. Man has a knowledge of nature outside him and himself in nature.
2. He seeks truth outside himself. He seeks goodness inside himself.
3. Seeking truth is pure reason. Seeking goodness is practical reason.
4. Aesthetic feeling is a judging capacity without reason and produces pleasure without desire.
5. Beauty is in subjective meaning. It is that which without reasoning and without practical advantages, nonetheless pleases.
Schiller held that the aim of art is beauty, which is the source of pleasure without practical advantage.
Fichte held that the perception of the beautiful proceeds from nature. Nature has two sides; 1) the sum of our limitations and 2) the sum of our free idealistic activity. In the sum of our limitations we see deformity. In the sum of our free idealistic activity we see beauty. He held that beauty therefore does not exist in the world, but in the beautiful soul (Schöner Geist). He also held that art is the manifestation of this beautiful soul and that the aim of art is the education of the whole man.
Schlegel held that beauty is understood too incompletely. He held that beauty is in art, nature and love. The truly beautiful is expressed by the union of art, nature and love.
Adam Müller held that there are two types of beauty:
1. General beauty which attracts people as the sun attracts the planets
2. Individual beauty which consists in the observer becoming like the sun and attracting beauty.
Thus, a world which harmonizes all contradictions is the highest beauty. He held that art is a reproduction of this universal harmony and that the highest art is the art of life.
Schelling held "art is the production or result of that conception of things by which the subject becomes its own object, or the object its own subject" (Maude, 99). He held that beauty is the perception of the infinite in the finite. The chief characteristic of works of art is unconscious infinity. Art unites the subjective and the objective, nature with reason and the unconscious with the conscious. He held that because of this, art is the highest means of knowledge. "Beauty is the contemplation of things in themselves as they exist in the prototype" (Maude, 99). The artist does not produce the beautiful by knowledge or skill, but by the beauty inside himself.
Krause held that positive beauty is the manifestation of the idea in an individual form; art is the actualization of the beauty existent in man's free spirit.
Hegel held that God manifests himself in nature and art as beauty. God manifests himself in two ways: on the object in nature and in the subject in spirit. Only the soul and what pertains to it is truly beautiful. The beauty of nature is only the reflection of a spiritual content. The sensuous manifestation of spirit is only appearance and this is the only reality of the beautiful. Art, religion and philosophy are means of being and expressing to the consciousness the deepest problems of humanity and the highest truths of the spirit. Hegel held that truth and beauty are one and the same. The idea as itself is truth. The idea, manifested externally, is beauty.
Weisse held that art is the introduction of the absolute spiritual reality of beauty into the external, dead, indifferent matter. Weisse held that the idea of truth entails a contradiction between the subjective and the objective and then the individual ego discerns the universal. Beauty is a reconciled truth.
In addition to Hegelian aesthetic theories there were contemporary and contradictory German theories like Herbart's and Schopenhauer's.
Hebart denied that there can be such a thing as beauty in itself. He held that there are certain relations we call beautiful and that art consists of finding these relations.
Schopenhauer held that the will objectifies itself in the world on various planes. The highest plane has the highest beauty but, each plane contains its own beauty.
Hartmann held that beauty lies in the seeming or "schien" produced by the artist. "The thing in itself is not beautiful, but it is transformed into beauty by the artist".
Schnaase held that there is no beauty in the world. Art gives what nature cannot. Beauty is disclosed then in art.
Kirchmann held there are six realms of history:
1. Knowledge
2. Wealth
3. Morality
4. Faith
5. Politics
6. Beauty - this is art.
Helmholtz held that beauty is manifested by the artist unconsciously and therefore cannot be analyzed.
Bergmann denied defining beauty objectively is possible. He held that beauty is held subjectively and therefore the job of aesthetics is to define what pleases whom.
Jungmann held that:
1. Beauty is a suprasensible quality of things.
2. Beauty produces pleasure by contemplation
3. Beauty is the foundation of love.
Cousin held beauty always has a moral foundation.
Jouffrey held that the visible world is the clothing by means of which we see beauty.
Lévêque held that beauty was a force behind nature and revealed itself in ordered energy.
Ravaisson held that beauty was the ultimate aim and purpose of the world.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Notes on Burke and Kant
(Originally Written January 5, 2008 in the Journal)
Actually Mr. Burke, I have a thought: any piece of art must be sublime in order to invoke emotion. The artist must master the use of the sublime. Sublime can be the syntax of art as language? Sublime as syntax, I like that. But does it work?
Study points: What are the components of language? Words, grammar, syntax... How does a language form? History, evolution? Are there paradigm shifts in language?
"Judgments about the Beautiful"
By: Immanuel Kant
Taste is the faculty of estimating an object by means of a delight or aversion apart from any interest.
When taste finds the object to be delightful, the object is called beautiful.
In order to make a judgment of taste (i.e. such and such is beautiful) one must be completely disinterested.
"The Beautiful is that which, apart from a concept, pleases universally".
What is beautiful is so, universally. That which is agreeable is particular. Whatever is agreeable, is 'agreeable-to-me'.
There are two types of Beauty:
1. Free beauty (pulchritudo vaga)
2. Dependent beauty (pulchritudo adhaerens)
Free beauty has no presupposition of what the object should be.
Dependent beauty presupposes a concept of what the object should be.
Those who are dependent beauties have a concept attached to them. Thus, a man/woman is a dependent beauty and each individual must be measured against the perfect concept of man.
Fine art is the art of genius.
Genius is natural endowment, talent.
Genius gives the rule to art.
Talent is an innate faculty of the artist.
Every art form presupposes rules which are at its foundation and render creation possible.
Only genius can give rule to fine art. Only genius can be the foundation of fine art and therefore genius is a necessary part of creating fine art.
Genius is a talent for producing art for which no definite rule can be given.
Originality is the primary property of genius. As such. genius cannot be taught.
Genius must establish itself as a rule to be imitated while being original itself.
Genius cannot account for how or why the thought came into his head, only that it did.
Actually Mr. Burke, I have a thought: any piece of art must be sublime in order to invoke emotion. The artist must master the use of the sublime. Sublime can be the syntax of art as language? Sublime as syntax, I like that. But does it work?
Study points: What are the components of language? Words, grammar, syntax... How does a language form? History, evolution? Are there paradigm shifts in language?
"Judgments about the Beautiful"
By: Immanuel Kant
Taste is the faculty of estimating an object by means of a delight or aversion apart from any interest.
When taste finds the object to be delightful, the object is called beautiful.
In order to make a judgment of taste (i.e. such and such is beautiful) one must be completely disinterested.
"The Beautiful is that which, apart from a concept, pleases universally".
What is beautiful is so, universally. That which is agreeable is particular. Whatever is agreeable, is 'agreeable-to-me'.
There are two types of Beauty:
1. Free beauty (pulchritudo vaga)
2. Dependent beauty (pulchritudo adhaerens)
Free beauty has no presupposition of what the object should be.
Dependent beauty presupposes a concept of what the object should be.
Those who are dependent beauties have a concept attached to them. Thus, a man/woman is a dependent beauty and each individual must be measured against the perfect concept of man.
Fine art is the art of genius.
Genius is natural endowment, talent.
Genius gives the rule to art.
Talent is an innate faculty of the artist.
Every art form presupposes rules which are at its foundation and render creation possible.
Only genius can give rule to fine art. Only genius can be the foundation of fine art and therefore genius is a necessary part of creating fine art.
Genius is a talent for producing art for which no definite rule can be given.
Originality is the primary property of genius. As such. genius cannot be taught.
Genius must establish itself as a rule to be imitated while being original itself.
Genius cannot account for how or why the thought came into his head, only that it did.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Aesthetics - What is Beauty? What is Art?
(Originally Written on December 25, 2007 in the Journal)
Aesthetics - What is Beauty? What is Art?
Part I: What is Beauty?
Questions for consideration:
1) Is beauty subjective, objective, or a combination thereof?
2) What is taste?
Part II: Explore different mediums, define art (as a language?)
Research Topics
Immanuel Kant
David Hume
Ludwig Wittgenstein
John Dewey
Leo Tolstoy
Plato
Nelson Goodman
Arthur C. Danto
Martin Heidegger
Jerrold Levinson
Terry Eagleton
Michel Foucault
Friedrich Nietzsche
Aristotle
Edmund Burke
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Topics: mediums, perception of art, why create?
"Of the Standard of Taste"
By: David Hume
It is useful for us to seek a "standard of taste".
A standard of taste is "a rule by which the various sentiments of men may be reconciled".
Aesthetics - What is Beauty? What is Art?
Part I: What is Beauty?
Questions for consideration:
1) Is beauty subjective, objective, or a combination thereof?
2) What is taste?
Part II: Explore different mediums, define art (as a language?)
Research Topics
Immanuel Kant
David Hume
Ludwig Wittgenstein
John Dewey
Leo Tolstoy
Plato
Nelson Goodman
Arthur C. Danto
Martin Heidegger
Jerrold Levinson
Terry Eagleton
Michel Foucault
Friedrich Nietzsche
Aristotle
Edmund Burke
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Topics: mediums, perception of art, why create?
"Of the Standard of Taste"
By: David Hume
It is useful for us to seek a "standard of taste".
A standard of taste is "a rule by which the various sentiments of men may be reconciled".
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Beyond Good and Evil 11-19
(Originally written August 7, 2007 in Book 16)
Beyond Good & Evil
Friedrich Nietzsche
11
Kant asked, "How are synthetic judgments a priori possible" and he replied by "virtue of a faculty".
His answer is circular and equivalent to "How does opium induce sleep? By a faculty of sleepiness"/
The question we ought to ask is "why is belief in such judgments necessary?" (Nietzsche, 209).
These judgments can be false but belief in them as true is necessary as a perspective for life.
12
We must rid ourselves of atomism especially soul atomism and the belief in the indestructible, indivisible and eternal soul.
But we need not throw out the soul entirely. We can use a "moral soul" hypothesis.
13
All living things seek first and foremost to discharge its strength.
"Life itself is will to power" (Nietzsche, 211).
Self-preservation is only a frequent result of the will to power.
14
Physics is merely an interpretation and exegesis of the world to suit us, not a world-explanation.
15
Our sense organs cannot be phenomena in physiology otherwise we would be left with the absurd thought that:
1) the world is a product of our organs
2) our body is part of the world
3) our organs are a product of our body
4) our organs are products of our organs
5) Our organs are self-caused
(which is absurd)
16
We should free ourselves of the seduction of words and phrases like, "I think" (Descartes), "I will" (Schopenhauer), "immediate certainty", "absolute knowledge", and "the thing itself" because they involve a contradiction in adjecto (contradiction between the noun and the adjective).
17
We cannot say "I think" because a thought comes when it wishes not when I wish it.
We cannot say "it thinks" because this involves interpretation of the process, not the process itself.
18
Refutations of theories add charm to the theory and therefore, make it more appealing.
19
We speak of the will as if it is the most easily known thing to us, but willing is, above all else, something complicated.
The will is a complex of thinking and sensation. It is also an affect. It is the affect of command.
Beyond Good & Evil
Friedrich Nietzsche
11
Kant asked, "How are synthetic judgments a priori possible" and he replied by "virtue of a faculty".
His answer is circular and equivalent to "How does opium induce sleep? By a faculty of sleepiness"/
The question we ought to ask is "why is belief in such judgments necessary?" (Nietzsche, 209).
These judgments can be false but belief in them as true is necessary as a perspective for life.
12
We must rid ourselves of atomism especially soul atomism and the belief in the indestructible, indivisible and eternal soul.
But we need not throw out the soul entirely. We can use a "moral soul" hypothesis.
13
All living things seek first and foremost to discharge its strength.
"Life itself is will to power" (Nietzsche, 211).
Self-preservation is only a frequent result of the will to power.
14
Physics is merely an interpretation and exegesis of the world to suit us, not a world-explanation.
15
Our sense organs cannot be phenomena in physiology otherwise we would be left with the absurd thought that:
1) the world is a product of our organs
2) our body is part of the world
3) our organs are a product of our body
4) our organs are products of our organs
5) Our organs are self-caused
(which is absurd)
16
We should free ourselves of the seduction of words and phrases like, "I think" (Descartes), "I will" (Schopenhauer), "immediate certainty", "absolute knowledge", and "the thing itself" because they involve a contradiction in adjecto (contradiction between the noun and the adjective).
17
We cannot say "I think" because a thought comes when it wishes not when I wish it.
We cannot say "it thinks" because this involves interpretation of the process, not the process itself.
18
Refutations of theories add charm to the theory and therefore, make it more appealing.
19
We speak of the will as if it is the most easily known thing to us, but willing is, above all else, something complicated.
The will is a complex of thinking and sensation. It is also an affect. It is the affect of command.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
The Birth of Tragedy Section 13-19
(Originally written July 4, 2007 in Book 15)
The Birth of Tragedy
Friedrich Nietzsche
Section 13
Through Socrates and Euripides the Greek culture placed greater emphasis on enlightenment and knowledge.
Socrates found that the 'wisest' of all Greeks really know nothing and only operated by instinct.
Socrates is the anti-mystic. Rather than relying on instinctive wisdom as the mystic does he uses consciousness to develop a hyper logical system.
The dying Socrates replaced all the old hero of Greece and became the image to which every young Grecian strived for.
Section 14
Socrates and his followers despised tragedy, but found solace and joy in the fables of Aesop.
"Poems are useful: they can tell the truth by means of parable to those who are not very bright" (Nietzsche, 90).
Socrates saw that tragedy did not tell the truth and that it was aimed at those who were not very bright. For these reasons it is doubly contemptible.
Plato also held tragedy in contempt, but his own artistic impulses necessitated him to create an art that was borne of the old ones.
Plato saw art as an imitation of a shadow and thus lower than even the contemptible empirical world.
Plato's dialogues blended narrative, lyric, drama, prose and poetry. He broke the strict law of uniformity of linguistics and created a whole new genre of art.
Plato's dialogues served as the savior of old poetry and the template for the novel.
The Apollonian tendency withdrew to logical schematism and the Dionysian transformed into Naturalism.
The optimistic maxims of
1) Virtue is knowledge
2) Man sins only from ignorance
3) The virtuous man is happy man served to fully kill tragedy.
Optimism destroys the essence of tragedy.
Though harsh against art in life at death Socrates obeyed the divine call to music asking, "Perhaps art is even a necessary correlative of, and supplement for science" (Nietzsche, 93).
Section 15
The Socratic way of life which exists today prompts a constant regeneration of art. The infinite of Socrates guarantees the infinity of art.
Socrates, to be recognized as truthful, must be viewed as the "theoretical man whose significance and aim it is our task to try and understand" (Nietzsche, 94).
The artist clings to the mystery while the theoretical man clings to what was once mystery and is non-known.
Lessing [who is Lessing?] is the most honest theoretical man because he announced that he cared more for the search for truth then for truth itself.
With Socrates, a profound illusion was born. This illusion holds that through unshakeable through using causality one can penetrate the deepest abyss of being and can furthermore correct the errors in being.
This metaphysical illusion accompanies science as an instinct and leads science time and time again to its limits where it must transform into art.
Socrates was the first man to live and die by the instinct of science. The dying Socrates is admired because he has absolved all fear of death through knowledge and reason.
Socrates stands as the turning point of history.
Pessimism in a practical sense will take over wherever art does not appear, especially as religion or science.
Socrates is the anti-pessimist. His optimistic faith that nature is intelligible and that sin is error, which is correctible denies pessimism a foothold.
Science needs art to protect it from its own boundaries. At the boundaries of science man becomes pessimistic if not reminded by art.
Section 16
There is a dichotomy between an insatiable lust for optimistic knowledge and the tragic need for art.
Apollo is the genius of the principium individuationis in which redemption through illusion is truly obtained. Dionysus is the mystical union in which the Apollonian principle is broken. It is from these two sources in which all art is born.
We may regard nature and music as two different expressions of the same thing.
Music is a universal language. It resembles geometrical figures and numbers as a definitive universalism. Music as a universal language is experienced a priori.
Music is not a copy of the physical world, but a copy of the will itself. As such, it stands in relation to the world as the will stands in relation to the world.
The world is embodied music as the world is embodied will.
Music, according to Schopenhauer, is the immediate language of the will.
Image and concept attain a higher significance under the influence of a truly corresponding music.
Music incites to the symbolic intuition of Dionysian Universality and music allows the symbolic image to emerge in its highest significance.
Music gives birth to the myth, most importantly the tragic myth: "the myth which expresses Dionysian knowledge in symbols" (Nietzsche, 103).
It is only through music that individuals can understand the joy of the annihilation of the individual.
Apollonian art triumphs the joys of this life by overshadowing suffering with beauty. Dionysian art overcomes the suffering of this life through the belief in the eternal life of the unified will.
Section 17
Dionysian art seeks to convince of us of the eternal joy of existence. But as Apollonian art does this through phenomena, Dionysian art seeks this from behind phenomena.
Myth was annihilated by the faith in science. Music is the way for myth to be reborn.
Aristophanes saw Socrates, Euripides and the music of the New Dithyrambic poets which mirrored phenomena, not the will itself, as enemies and destroyers of art.
By setting music to be descriptive of phenomena, music has been robbed of its power to create myth.
Music which merely represents phenomena is wretchedly poorer than the phenomena itself.
In Euripides, we see the triumph of scientific knowledge and the demise of artistic reflection. The phenomenal particulars win out over the universals.
Tragedy revealed a metaphysical comfort through music. But with music stripped of its myth-bearing power there is no metaphysical comfort and knowledge leaves us rawer than before we knew. There is no solace in science apart from art.
The new spirit of Greek art, deprived of myth, was to seek comfort in an earthly, phenomenal dissolution of tragedy. The hated deus ex machina replaced the metaphysical comfort.
The Dionysian spirit having been banished from the stage fled into the degenerate form of cult.
With the deus ex machina the Dionysian spirit was driven underground and individualism heralded the deus ex machina as the true comfort.
Metaphysical, universal comfort was lost and replaced by momentary particular comforts.
Section 18
There are three cultures:
1. Socratic (Alexandrian)
2. Hellenic (Artistic)
3. Tragic (Buddhistic)
The Alexandrian culture idolizes the theoretical man, reason, knowledge and science above all else.
The Socratic culture is delusional optimistic in believing that it possesses limitless power.
Myth is the necessary prerequisite of religion.
The tragic (Buddhistic) culture replaces science with wisdom at its highest end.
The Socratic culture will tremble with fear once its optimism has been shattered by learning of its power limitations.
Section 19
The Socratic culture is the culture of the opera.
The Socratic culture endures the music of opera to hear the words. All the while he trembles at the thought of giving the music too much appreciation and undoing the base of his culture.
The art of the opera responds to a powerful need, but it is a non-aesthetic need. It responds to the need for faith in the existence of the artistic and good man.
The origin of opera is the fulfillment of a non-aesthetic need: the glorification of man. It stands contra to the dogma of the inherently corrupt and lost man.
Opera is a birthing of the theoretical man, not the artist. The non-musical heroes of Opera demand t hat words are nobler than the tones as the soul is nobler than the body.
The opera is a crude unmusical combination of image, music and words.
"The premise of the opera is a false belief concerning the artistic process: the idyllic belief that every sentient man is an artist" (Nietzsche, 117).
The cultured Renaissance man let himself be led back to the primitive artistic man by imitation of Greek tragedy.
The opera does not touch sorrow as art ought to, but rather emphasizes the cheery optimism of eternal rediscovery.
Those who seek to destroy the unmusical opera would have to destroy the whole of the Socratic culture.
Art in the Socratic culture is empty because it is void of its true purpose: "to save the eye from gazing into the horrors of night and to deliver the subject by the healing balm of illusion from the spasms of the agitation of the will" (Nietzsche, 118).
Music is powerless when it is alienated from its true dignity as the Dionysian mirror of the world and as an expression of the will itself.
Music cannot be a slave to the phenomena or be a mere imitation of the formal characteristics of phenomena.
The Socratic culture cannot explain nor tolerate the reemergence of the Dionysian spirit which has taken place in music from Bach to Beethoven to Wagner.
The Dionysian spirit of this German music is the sole purifying fire in the Alexandrian culture of knowledge lust.
"All that we now call culture, education, civilization must some day appear before the unerring judge, Dionysus" (Nietzsche, 120).
Kant and Schopenhauer made it possible for the spirit of German philosophy to destroy Socratic scientific optimism.
The oneness of German music and philosophy points to the emergence of a Hellenic society. The Alexandrian age seems to be receding backwards to the Dawn of a new tragic age.
The Birth of Tragedy
Friedrich Nietzsche
Section 13
Through Socrates and Euripides the Greek culture placed greater emphasis on enlightenment and knowledge.
Socrates found that the 'wisest' of all Greeks really know nothing and only operated by instinct.
Socrates is the anti-mystic. Rather than relying on instinctive wisdom as the mystic does he uses consciousness to develop a hyper logical system.
The dying Socrates replaced all the old hero of Greece and became the image to which every young Grecian strived for.
Section 14
Socrates and his followers despised tragedy, but found solace and joy in the fables of Aesop.
"Poems are useful: they can tell the truth by means of parable to those who are not very bright" (Nietzsche, 90).
Socrates saw that tragedy did not tell the truth and that it was aimed at those who were not very bright. For these reasons it is doubly contemptible.
Plato also held tragedy in contempt, but his own artistic impulses necessitated him to create an art that was borne of the old ones.
Plato saw art as an imitation of a shadow and thus lower than even the contemptible empirical world.
Plato's dialogues blended narrative, lyric, drama, prose and poetry. He broke the strict law of uniformity of linguistics and created a whole new genre of art.
Plato's dialogues served as the savior of old poetry and the template for the novel.
The Apollonian tendency withdrew to logical schematism and the Dionysian transformed into Naturalism.
The optimistic maxims of
1) Virtue is knowledge
2) Man sins only from ignorance
3) The virtuous man is happy man served to fully kill tragedy.
Optimism destroys the essence of tragedy.
Though harsh against art in life at death Socrates obeyed the divine call to music asking, "Perhaps art is even a necessary correlative of, and supplement for science" (Nietzsche, 93).
Section 15
The Socratic way of life which exists today prompts a constant regeneration of art. The infinite of Socrates guarantees the infinity of art.
Socrates, to be recognized as truthful, must be viewed as the "theoretical man whose significance and aim it is our task to try and understand" (Nietzsche, 94).
The artist clings to the mystery while the theoretical man clings to what was once mystery and is non-known.
Lessing [who is Lessing?] is the most honest theoretical man because he announced that he cared more for the search for truth then for truth itself.
With Socrates, a profound illusion was born. This illusion holds that through unshakeable through using causality one can penetrate the deepest abyss of being and can furthermore correct the errors in being.
This metaphysical illusion accompanies science as an instinct and leads science time and time again to its limits where it must transform into art.
Socrates was the first man to live and die by the instinct of science. The dying Socrates is admired because he has absolved all fear of death through knowledge and reason.
Socrates stands as the turning point of history.
Pessimism in a practical sense will take over wherever art does not appear, especially as religion or science.
Socrates is the anti-pessimist. His optimistic faith that nature is intelligible and that sin is error, which is correctible denies pessimism a foothold.
Science needs art to protect it from its own boundaries. At the boundaries of science man becomes pessimistic if not reminded by art.
Section 16
There is a dichotomy between an insatiable lust for optimistic knowledge and the tragic need for art.
Apollo is the genius of the principium individuationis in which redemption through illusion is truly obtained. Dionysus is the mystical union in which the Apollonian principle is broken. It is from these two sources in which all art is born.
We may regard nature and music as two different expressions of the same thing.
Music is a universal language. It resembles geometrical figures and numbers as a definitive universalism. Music as a universal language is experienced a priori.
Music is not a copy of the physical world, but a copy of the will itself. As such, it stands in relation to the world as the will stands in relation to the world.
The world is embodied music as the world is embodied will.
Music, according to Schopenhauer, is the immediate language of the will.
Image and concept attain a higher significance under the influence of a truly corresponding music.
Music incites to the symbolic intuition of Dionysian Universality and music allows the symbolic image to emerge in its highest significance.
Music gives birth to the myth, most importantly the tragic myth: "the myth which expresses Dionysian knowledge in symbols" (Nietzsche, 103).
It is only through music that individuals can understand the joy of the annihilation of the individual.
Apollonian art triumphs the joys of this life by overshadowing suffering with beauty. Dionysian art overcomes the suffering of this life through the belief in the eternal life of the unified will.
Section 17
Dionysian art seeks to convince of us of the eternal joy of existence. But as Apollonian art does this through phenomena, Dionysian art seeks this from behind phenomena.
Myth was annihilated by the faith in science. Music is the way for myth to be reborn.
Aristophanes saw Socrates, Euripides and the music of the New Dithyrambic poets which mirrored phenomena, not the will itself, as enemies and destroyers of art.
By setting music to be descriptive of phenomena, music has been robbed of its power to create myth.
Music which merely represents phenomena is wretchedly poorer than the phenomena itself.
In Euripides, we see the triumph of scientific knowledge and the demise of artistic reflection. The phenomenal particulars win out over the universals.
Tragedy revealed a metaphysical comfort through music. But with music stripped of its myth-bearing power there is no metaphysical comfort and knowledge leaves us rawer than before we knew. There is no solace in science apart from art.
The new spirit of Greek art, deprived of myth, was to seek comfort in an earthly, phenomenal dissolution of tragedy. The hated deus ex machina replaced the metaphysical comfort.
The Dionysian spirit having been banished from the stage fled into the degenerate form of cult.
With the deus ex machina the Dionysian spirit was driven underground and individualism heralded the deus ex machina as the true comfort.
Metaphysical, universal comfort was lost and replaced by momentary particular comforts.
Section 18
There are three cultures:
1. Socratic (Alexandrian)
2. Hellenic (Artistic)
3. Tragic (Buddhistic)
The Alexandrian culture idolizes the theoretical man, reason, knowledge and science above all else.
The Socratic culture is delusional optimistic in believing that it possesses limitless power.
Myth is the necessary prerequisite of religion.
The tragic (Buddhistic) culture replaces science with wisdom at its highest end.
The Socratic culture will tremble with fear once its optimism has been shattered by learning of its power limitations.
Section 19
The Socratic culture is the culture of the opera.
The Socratic culture endures the music of opera to hear the words. All the while he trembles at the thought of giving the music too much appreciation and undoing the base of his culture.
The art of the opera responds to a powerful need, but it is a non-aesthetic need. It responds to the need for faith in the existence of the artistic and good man.
The origin of opera is the fulfillment of a non-aesthetic need: the glorification of man. It stands contra to the dogma of the inherently corrupt and lost man.
Opera is a birthing of the theoretical man, not the artist. The non-musical heroes of Opera demand t hat words are nobler than the tones as the soul is nobler than the body.
The opera is a crude unmusical combination of image, music and words.
"The premise of the opera is a false belief concerning the artistic process: the idyllic belief that every sentient man is an artist" (Nietzsche, 117).
The cultured Renaissance man let himself be led back to the primitive artistic man by imitation of Greek tragedy.
The opera does not touch sorrow as art ought to, but rather emphasizes the cheery optimism of eternal rediscovery.
Those who seek to destroy the unmusical opera would have to destroy the whole of the Socratic culture.
Art in the Socratic culture is empty because it is void of its true purpose: "to save the eye from gazing into the horrors of night and to deliver the subject by the healing balm of illusion from the spasms of the agitation of the will" (Nietzsche, 118).
Music is powerless when it is alienated from its true dignity as the Dionysian mirror of the world and as an expression of the will itself.
Music cannot be a slave to the phenomena or be a mere imitation of the formal characteristics of phenomena.
The Socratic culture cannot explain nor tolerate the reemergence of the Dionysian spirit which has taken place in music from Bach to Beethoven to Wagner.
The Dionysian spirit of this German music is the sole purifying fire in the Alexandrian culture of knowledge lust.
"All that we now call culture, education, civilization must some day appear before the unerring judge, Dionysus" (Nietzsche, 120).
Kant and Schopenhauer made it possible for the spirit of German philosophy to destroy Socratic scientific optimism.
The oneness of German music and philosophy points to the emergence of a Hellenic society. The Alexandrian age seems to be receding backwards to the Dawn of a new tragic age.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Notes for the Aesthetics Final
(Originally written May 14, 2007 in Book 16)
Studying for the Aesthetics Final. Only 2.5 hours to go!
I. Eco on Television & Mass Art
Eco feels that contemporary art, especially television and mass art and pop music is dominated by repetition.
A. The Serial - the repetition of the same abstract type (i.e. Soap Operas)
B. The Retake - Recycling characters from previously successful stories (i.e. Star Wars, Superman)
C. The Remake - telling the same story over again (i.e. Romeo & Juliet, Dr. Jekyll)
D. The Series - Fixed number of characters and situations and narrative scheme (Friends, Seinfeld)
Eco claims that the series respond to man's infinite need of hearing the same story repeated.
Also the series enables us to reward ourselves for guessing what will happen.
E. Loop series - a series with characters that have enormous pasts but no futures
F. Spiral - Characters are deepened and enriched but nothing new happens to them
II. Nehamas: Plato & The Mass Media
Nehamas applies Plato's critique of poetry to contemporary mass Media
Plato argued that poetry is dangerous because it is a medium that is suited for representation and imitation of vulgar subjects and shameful behavior.
Nehamas notes that mass media is strikingly similar to the poetry of Plato's age.
III. Carrol: Defining Mass Art
Carroll aims at defining mass art without passing judgment on it.
He claims that mass art is exoteric (as opposed to Avant-Garde art as being esoteric)
Mass art is meant for mass audience.
Mass art is designed so it can be enjoyed by a lot of people with little effort.
Mass art requires a mass delivery technology.
Formal Definition: "X" is mass art if and only if X is a multiple instance or type artwork, produced and distributed by mass technology, intentionally designed to be enjoyed virtually effortlessly by a largely untutored audience.
Mass art is nonetheless art according to Carrol because it is descendant of traditional art forms.
He denies that Mass Art can be labeled as bad simply because it is mass art because mass art is its own genre.
IV. Gracy K - Why is Rock Music so Noisy?
Gracy K claims rock is so "noisy" because of the distortion of amplified electric guitars.
The distortion of tone produced by volume adjustments in what accounts for the noisiness of rock music.
V. Rudinon: Can White People Sing the Blues?
Arguments against it and their problems:
1) The Proprietary Argument - Blues as a genre belongs to the African American community and when whites perform the blues they misappropriate the cultural heritage of Black Americans.
Problem - "Red Herring" The history of music is full of instances of borrowing genres among cultures.
2) The experiential access argument - One cannot understand the blues or authentically express oneself in it unless one knows what it is like to live as a Black American
Problem - This argument is the myth of ethnic memory - Not all Black Americas fully comprehend what their ancestors went through. And it observes the universal human element of the blues.
Rudinon contends that the blues can be authentically played by whites if one recognizes the proper sources of inspiration and technique which spawned the blues.
VI. Adorno
Adorno was a Marxist and was against all commodification of art.
Adorno felt that pop music does not resist the temptation to be commodified and is therefore is gross simplification of art.
Artistic music is individualized and unique. Pop music is standardized and not unique.
Stages of listening to Pop Music:
1) Vague Remembrance - I've heard this before
2) Actual Identification - I have heard this before
3) Subsumption by label - The listener knows the band or album or some lyrics
4) Self-reflection (act of identification) - identifies with the music
5) Psychological transfer - judges the song good and further identifies with it
6) Disillusionment - shallowness of song becomes apparent. Listener despises the songs and those who still like it.
7) Recycling - Song comes back as a "golden oldie" and is repackaged for new consumers
Brown points out numerous problems with Adorno's argument.
1) Adorno puts all pop music in a single category
2) Adorno is guilty of tonal chauvinism
3) Adorno picks the best classical music and compares it with the worst pop music
4) Adorno overlooks the point that classical music would become disillusioned if it were played at the quantity pop music is
5) Adorno overlooks that not all pop music is standardized (i.e. Tom Waits)
6) Classical music is also subject to commodification
VII. Shusterman - Form & Funk
Susterman aims to defend pop music against its critics.
A. The Passivity Argument
- Pop Music involves no aesthetic challenge and requires and induces passivity because of the simple and repetitive nature of it.
Objector: not all effort is intellectual effort, there can be "somatic" forms of effort
B. The Formal Complexity Argument
- High art has a formal complexity that is lacking in pop arts. High art focuses on form not content
Objection: Their argument mistakenly opposes form and content
C. The Argument from Aesthetic Autonomy
- Genuine art operates autonomously and resists commodification and serves only art itself. Pop art serves many functions.
Objection: Why should art not fulfill other roles and human codes.
VIII Solomon: Kitsch
A. Kitsch provokes excessive or immature expressions of emotion
Problems: A) The Purpose of art is to provoke emotion
B) How much emotion is too much?
B. Kitsch manipulates emotion
problems: A) The use of reason manipulation
B) We manipulate emotions in many ways in everyday life
C. Kitsch evokes cheap or superficial emotions
Problems: This is bias to ethnicity because what is cheap is relative to one's ethnicity and social class
D. Kitsch is self-indulgent
Objection - There is nothing wrong with enjoying one's emotions
E. Kitsch distorts our perceptions and interferes with rational thought and understanding
Objection - All emotions distort our perception to some degree
IX. Theories of Humor
A) Superiority Theory: People laugh when they feel a sudden sense of superiority to some one: "Sudden glory" - Hobbes
B) Incongruity Theory - People laugh when they see two things put together that are somehow incongruous - Kant
C) Relief Theory: People laugh to relieve nervous tension resulting from anxiety or nervousness - Freud
X. Cohen: Jokes
A. Sense of humor - a capacity to be amused by the amusing
B. The point of telling a joe is the attainment of community. There is an intimacy in sharing laughter that provide community.
C. Heretic Jokes: Jokes that make sense to those with special information
D. Affective Jokes: Jokes that call upon a certain attitude or prejudice
XI. Hayman and Pratt: What are Comics?
A. Medium-biased definition: classifies comics in terms of material components by which they are typically produced. Comics are pictures with ink and newsprint in papers or comic books.
Problem: Would Peanuts not still be a comic if it were printed on canvas?
B. Word Balloon definition - comics contain word balloons
Problem: Many comics do not have word balloons
C. Pictorial Narrative definition - X is a comic if and only if it is a sequence of discrete pictures that comprise a narrative with or without a text.
Problem: What about the Far Side or Family Circus?
XII. Goldblatt: Ventriloquism
A. Ecstasis - Greek concept of stepping beside or outside of one's self.
B. Ventriloquism - the paradigm case of stopping beside one's self in art, but in all art one must look at it from outside one's self
XIII. Crawford: Nature and Art
A. Dialectical relationship between natural and artifactual
Natural - what is not made by man
Artifactual - What is man-made
The combination is the "aesthetic attention or appreciation"
B. Ruins are aesthetically valuable because of their basic form and unity but also because
1) Future learning
2) Past leaning
are both Aesthetically interesting
C. Classical approach to ruins - consists in the missing fragments so the viewer can imaginatively reconstruct them
D. Romantic approach to ruins - consists of the viewer's sense of history and association with mystery
XIV. Carlson: Aesthetic Appreciation of the Natural Environment
A. Appreciating the beauty of nature poses Aesthetic problems
B. Several Approaches to aesthetic appreciation of nature:
1) Object of Art Model - appreciate the physical object itself
Problem: any physical object itself as a part of an environment and cannot be divorced from its setting
2) Landscape Model - beauty of nature as a landscape
problem: this reduces nature to two-dimensional scene
3) Human Chauvinistic Aesthetic - Denies aesthetic appreciation of nature
Problem: Goes against the natural impulse to aesthetically appreciate natural objects
4) AOE - Aesthetic appreciation through engaging with all of nature
Problem - Way too subjective aesthetic approach
5) Natural Environment Model (Carlson's approach) - stresses the importance of it being a natural system and does not assimilate natural objects to art objects
XV Vance and Mattock on government funding of Art
XVI Feinberg and Berger: Pornography
A. Berger's 3 Conditions for censorship
1) There most be strong evidence of a very likely and serious harm
2) The harm must be clearly directly linked with the expression
3) It must be unlikely that further speech or expression can be used effectively to combat the harm
B. Berger claims that pornography ought not to be censored because it does not fit any of the three criteria
C. Feinberg argues against censoring pornography because violent pornography's authors and vendors do not solicit rape or urger rape or advocate rape
MacKinnon: Pornography
A. MacKinnon rejects arguments like Feinberg who frame the harm of porn in empirically traceable causal roles
B. McKinnon claims that porn's real herm is that it contributes to a sexist social order
C. Pornography construes social reality and becomes invisible harm
D. She denies that the harm caused by porn must be empirically visible with the harm a car wreck causes.
XVIII Peck: Porn as Propaganda
A. Art is guided by illusion and allusion. Art gives us clues we must decipher for ourselves.
B. Sex is (in Christianity's view) a symbolic reflection of the nature of God and occurs only in the context of a proper relationship
C. Sex in art, according to Peck, should:
- Feature the primacy of relationship
- Preserve the illusion
- Be Redemptive in character
D. Under his view pornography fails all 3 criteria
E. Pornography destroys the illusion quality of artistic conceptions of sex
XIX. Carroll: Film
A. The Power of films lie in their capacity to direct audience attention
B. Variable framing - ensures the audience will see what the producer/director wants:
1) Indexing - moving the camera toward an object
2) Bracketing - including certain objects and excluding others
3) Sealing - changing the size of an object through positioning
C. Erotetic narrative - telling a story by generating questions that subsequent scenes answer
- This leaves audiences satisfied because they feel they have learned all there is to know.
XX. Woltersorff: Norms in Art
A. Non-aesthetic merits
- Truth
- Desirable efforts
- Genetic Aspects
- Audience approval
B. Aesthetic Merits
- Unity
- Complexity
- Fittingness Intensity
C. Beautiful or aesthetically excellent artifacts have aesthetic merits and beauty is therefore, a complex concept
XXI. Ryken: What is Christian Art?
Ways a work can be Christian:
1) Allusion - referencing Christian themes or ideas
2) Inclusively Christian - themes that have intersecting points with other religions
3) Exclusively Christian - themes that are uniquely Christian
XXII. Spiegel: Aesthetic model of providence and divine omnipathos
A. Aesthetic model of providence - God sustains everything by creating everything at each moment: beauty is central to this
B. The world as divine art - God is a cosmic artist and the world is his masterpiece
C. God is omnipathos - God experiences all emotions at once as He experiences all knowledge at once.
Studying for the Aesthetics Final. Only 2.5 hours to go!
I. Eco on Television & Mass Art
Eco feels that contemporary art, especially television and mass art and pop music is dominated by repetition.
A. The Serial - the repetition of the same abstract type (i.e. Soap Operas)
B. The Retake - Recycling characters from previously successful stories (i.e. Star Wars, Superman)
C. The Remake - telling the same story over again (i.e. Romeo & Juliet, Dr. Jekyll)
D. The Series - Fixed number of characters and situations and narrative scheme (Friends, Seinfeld)
Eco claims that the series respond to man's infinite need of hearing the same story repeated.
Also the series enables us to reward ourselves for guessing what will happen.
E. Loop series - a series with characters that have enormous pasts but no futures
F. Spiral - Characters are deepened and enriched but nothing new happens to them
II. Nehamas: Plato & The Mass Media
Nehamas applies Plato's critique of poetry to contemporary mass Media
Plato argued that poetry is dangerous because it is a medium that is suited for representation and imitation of vulgar subjects and shameful behavior.
Nehamas notes that mass media is strikingly similar to the poetry of Plato's age.
III. Carrol: Defining Mass Art
Carroll aims at defining mass art without passing judgment on it.
He claims that mass art is exoteric (as opposed to Avant-Garde art as being esoteric)
Mass art is meant for mass audience.
Mass art is designed so it can be enjoyed by a lot of people with little effort.
Mass art requires a mass delivery technology.
Formal Definition: "X" is mass art if and only if X is a multiple instance or type artwork, produced and distributed by mass technology, intentionally designed to be enjoyed virtually effortlessly by a largely untutored audience.
Mass art is nonetheless art according to Carrol because it is descendant of traditional art forms.
He denies that Mass Art can be labeled as bad simply because it is mass art because mass art is its own genre.
IV. Gracy K - Why is Rock Music so Noisy?
Gracy K claims rock is so "noisy" because of the distortion of amplified electric guitars.
The distortion of tone produced by volume adjustments in what accounts for the noisiness of rock music.
V. Rudinon: Can White People Sing the Blues?
Arguments against it and their problems:
1) The Proprietary Argument - Blues as a genre belongs to the African American community and when whites perform the blues they misappropriate the cultural heritage of Black Americans.
Problem - "Red Herring" The history of music is full of instances of borrowing genres among cultures.
2) The experiential access argument - One cannot understand the blues or authentically express oneself in it unless one knows what it is like to live as a Black American
Problem - This argument is the myth of ethnic memory - Not all Black Americas fully comprehend what their ancestors went through. And it observes the universal human element of the blues.
Rudinon contends that the blues can be authentically played by whites if one recognizes the proper sources of inspiration and technique which spawned the blues.
VI. Adorno
Adorno was a Marxist and was against all commodification of art.
Adorno felt that pop music does not resist the temptation to be commodified and is therefore is gross simplification of art.
Artistic music is individualized and unique. Pop music is standardized and not unique.
Stages of listening to Pop Music:
1) Vague Remembrance - I've heard this before
2) Actual Identification - I have heard this before
3) Subsumption by label - The listener knows the band or album or some lyrics
4) Self-reflection (act of identification) - identifies with the music
5) Psychological transfer - judges the song good and further identifies with it
6) Disillusionment - shallowness of song becomes apparent. Listener despises the songs and those who still like it.
7) Recycling - Song comes back as a "golden oldie" and is repackaged for new consumers
Brown points out numerous problems with Adorno's argument.
1) Adorno puts all pop music in a single category
2) Adorno is guilty of tonal chauvinism
3) Adorno picks the best classical music and compares it with the worst pop music
4) Adorno overlooks the point that classical music would become disillusioned if it were played at the quantity pop music is
5) Adorno overlooks that not all pop music is standardized (i.e. Tom Waits)
6) Classical music is also subject to commodification
VII. Shusterman - Form & Funk
Susterman aims to defend pop music against its critics.
A. The Passivity Argument
- Pop Music involves no aesthetic challenge and requires and induces passivity because of the simple and repetitive nature of it.
Objector: not all effort is intellectual effort, there can be "somatic" forms of effort
B. The Formal Complexity Argument
- High art has a formal complexity that is lacking in pop arts. High art focuses on form not content
Objection: Their argument mistakenly opposes form and content
C. The Argument from Aesthetic Autonomy
- Genuine art operates autonomously and resists commodification and serves only art itself. Pop art serves many functions.
Objection: Why should art not fulfill other roles and human codes.
VIII Solomon: Kitsch
A. Kitsch provokes excessive or immature expressions of emotion
Problems: A) The Purpose of art is to provoke emotion
B) How much emotion is too much?
B. Kitsch manipulates emotion
problems: A) The use of reason manipulation
B) We manipulate emotions in many ways in everyday life
C. Kitsch evokes cheap or superficial emotions
Problems: This is bias to ethnicity because what is cheap is relative to one's ethnicity and social class
D. Kitsch is self-indulgent
Objection - There is nothing wrong with enjoying one's emotions
E. Kitsch distorts our perceptions and interferes with rational thought and understanding
Objection - All emotions distort our perception to some degree
IX. Theories of Humor
A) Superiority Theory: People laugh when they feel a sudden sense of superiority to some one: "Sudden glory" - Hobbes
B) Incongruity Theory - People laugh when they see two things put together that are somehow incongruous - Kant
C) Relief Theory: People laugh to relieve nervous tension resulting from anxiety or nervousness - Freud
X. Cohen: Jokes
A. Sense of humor - a capacity to be amused by the amusing
B. The point of telling a joe is the attainment of community. There is an intimacy in sharing laughter that provide community.
C. Heretic Jokes: Jokes that make sense to those with special information
D. Affective Jokes: Jokes that call upon a certain attitude or prejudice
XI. Hayman and Pratt: What are Comics?
A. Medium-biased definition: classifies comics in terms of material components by which they are typically produced. Comics are pictures with ink and newsprint in papers or comic books.
Problem: Would Peanuts not still be a comic if it were printed on canvas?
B. Word Balloon definition - comics contain word balloons
Problem: Many comics do not have word balloons
C. Pictorial Narrative definition - X is a comic if and only if it is a sequence of discrete pictures that comprise a narrative with or without a text.
Problem: What about the Far Side or Family Circus?
XII. Goldblatt: Ventriloquism
A. Ecstasis - Greek concept of stepping beside or outside of one's self.
B. Ventriloquism - the paradigm case of stopping beside one's self in art, but in all art one must look at it from outside one's self
XIII. Crawford: Nature and Art
A. Dialectical relationship between natural and artifactual
Natural - what is not made by man
Artifactual - What is man-made
The combination is the "aesthetic attention or appreciation"
B. Ruins are aesthetically valuable because of their basic form and unity but also because
1) Future learning
2) Past leaning
are both Aesthetically interesting
C. Classical approach to ruins - consists in the missing fragments so the viewer can imaginatively reconstruct them
D. Romantic approach to ruins - consists of the viewer's sense of history and association with mystery
XIV. Carlson: Aesthetic Appreciation of the Natural Environment
A. Appreciating the beauty of nature poses Aesthetic problems
B. Several Approaches to aesthetic appreciation of nature:
1) Object of Art Model - appreciate the physical object itself
Problem: any physical object itself as a part of an environment and cannot be divorced from its setting
2) Landscape Model - beauty of nature as a landscape
problem: this reduces nature to two-dimensional scene
3) Human Chauvinistic Aesthetic - Denies aesthetic appreciation of nature
Problem: Goes against the natural impulse to aesthetically appreciate natural objects
4) AOE - Aesthetic appreciation through engaging with all of nature
Problem - Way too subjective aesthetic approach
5) Natural Environment Model (Carlson's approach) - stresses the importance of it being a natural system and does not assimilate natural objects to art objects
XV Vance and Mattock on government funding of Art
XVI Feinberg and Berger: Pornography
A. Berger's 3 Conditions for censorship
1) There most be strong evidence of a very likely and serious harm
2) The harm must be clearly directly linked with the expression
3) It must be unlikely that further speech or expression can be used effectively to combat the harm
B. Berger claims that pornography ought not to be censored because it does not fit any of the three criteria
C. Feinberg argues against censoring pornography because violent pornography's authors and vendors do not solicit rape or urger rape or advocate rape
MacKinnon: Pornography
A. MacKinnon rejects arguments like Feinberg who frame the harm of porn in empirically traceable causal roles
B. McKinnon claims that porn's real herm is that it contributes to a sexist social order
C. Pornography construes social reality and becomes invisible harm
D. She denies that the harm caused by porn must be empirically visible with the harm a car wreck causes.
XVIII Peck: Porn as Propaganda
A. Art is guided by illusion and allusion. Art gives us clues we must decipher for ourselves.
B. Sex is (in Christianity's view) a symbolic reflection of the nature of God and occurs only in the context of a proper relationship
C. Sex in art, according to Peck, should:
- Feature the primacy of relationship
- Preserve the illusion
- Be Redemptive in character
D. Under his view pornography fails all 3 criteria
E. Pornography destroys the illusion quality of artistic conceptions of sex
XIX. Carroll: Film
A. The Power of films lie in their capacity to direct audience attention
B. Variable framing - ensures the audience will see what the producer/director wants:
1) Indexing - moving the camera toward an object
2) Bracketing - including certain objects and excluding others
3) Sealing - changing the size of an object through positioning
C. Erotetic narrative - telling a story by generating questions that subsequent scenes answer
- This leaves audiences satisfied because they feel they have learned all there is to know.
XX. Woltersorff: Norms in Art
A. Non-aesthetic merits
- Truth
- Desirable efforts
- Genetic Aspects
- Audience approval
B. Aesthetic Merits
- Unity
- Complexity
- Fittingness Intensity
C. Beautiful or aesthetically excellent artifacts have aesthetic merits and beauty is therefore, a complex concept
XXI. Ryken: What is Christian Art?
Ways a work can be Christian:
1) Allusion - referencing Christian themes or ideas
2) Inclusively Christian - themes that have intersecting points with other religions
3) Exclusively Christian - themes that are uniquely Christian
XXII. Spiegel: Aesthetic model of providence and divine omnipathos
A. Aesthetic model of providence - God sustains everything by creating everything at each moment: beauty is central to this
B. The world as divine art - God is a cosmic artist and the world is his masterpiece
C. God is omnipathos - God experiences all emotions at once as He experiences all knowledge at once.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Philosophy of Religion - Hick: Ch. 8 (B)
(Originally written April 20, 2007 in Book 7)
Philosophy of Religion
John H. Hick
A Philosophical Framework for Religious Pluralism
We can assume that the Real (an ultimate being) is one, but that human perceptions of the real are many.
Immanuel Kant distinguished between the noumenal and phenomenal world:
1) Noumenal World - the world as it is
2) Phenomenal World - the world as it appears to the human consciousness
Kant used this distinction in psychological/epistemological theorizing, but it can be applied physiologically. The table I perceive would be a swirling universe of discharging energy to a micro observer.
"The way the world appears to us is the way the world is for us as we inhabit and interact with it" (Hick, 120).
The Real can also be understood as having a noumenal existence, while our interactions with the Real are said to be a phenomenal one. Thus the Real is one and our experience with it is pluralistic.
The various gods of religions are different personae of the Real. Each personae is unique and embodied in a particular religion.
Philosophy of Religion
John H. Hick
A Philosophical Framework for Religious Pluralism
We can assume that the Real (an ultimate being) is one, but that human perceptions of the real are many.
Immanuel Kant distinguished between the noumenal and phenomenal world:
1) Noumenal World - the world as it is
2) Phenomenal World - the world as it appears to the human consciousness
Kant used this distinction in psychological/epistemological theorizing, but it can be applied physiologically. The table I perceive would be a swirling universe of discharging energy to a micro observer.
"The way the world appears to us is the way the world is for us as we inhabit and interact with it" (Hick, 120).
The Real can also be understood as having a noumenal existence, while our interactions with the Real are said to be a phenomenal one. Thus the Real is one and our experience with it is pluralistic.
The various gods of religions are different personae of the Real. Each personae is unique and embodied in a particular religion.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Class notes on God as a causal agent
(Originally written March 26, 2007 in Book 25)
Class Notes
Objections to God as a direct causal agent
1. Laws of nature cannot be violated; miracles are a violation
2. If miracles can occur, God would be changeable
3. Miracles are correctives to our understanding of the laws of nature, not violations of the laws
4. Miracles are not rationally believed in
5. Providence violates the the simplicity of God
6. God is eternal, how can an infinite God contain a finite attribute?
7. If God has to intervene in what he created to fix it it implies a defect in his creation
8. Miracles can be explained by natural occurrences; we just don't understand them
9. Miracles are always a result of natural causes
10. How can a non-physical being directly cause a physical change
11. If God is directly intervening in the world, and there is evil in the world, then God is not good.
12. Anomalies in nature do not prove direct intervention
13. Miracles intervene in human freedom
14. Every actualization of a potential through an immediate contingent cause; therefore, a remote cause is not necessary
15. If God governed directly it would destroy the perfection of the causal order
16. If God is outside of time but his causal action would have to be inside of time
Divine Providence and Miracles
Is God a direct causal agent in the world?
Views of God's interaction:
Classical theology
Deist
Neo-Thomism (primary cause working through secondary causes)
Kenotic God (limiting his power willingly)
Existential theology
Linguistic theology
Process theology
Neo-Thomism and Divine Providence
God as an end for everything
Action <- Man <- God
Miracles
- an effect in the physical world that surpasses all known human powers and beyond natural powers
Objection to miracles
- Principle of uniformity
Spinoza:
1. Miracles are a violation of natural laws
2. Natural laws are immutable
3. It is impossible for immutable laws to be violated
4. Therefore, miracles are impossible
Hume, Kant and Flew all argued agains miracles based on the principle of uniformity
God can't do anything against nature
Evidence for miracles is scarce and unpredictable by nature
God cannot violate the law of nature because the law of nature stems from God. So any violation of the law of nature is a violation of God's personal nature.
What is a secondary cause?
Could quantum mechanics explain God's intervening in human/natural affairs?
God effects the secondary cause (quantum mechanics) in effecting the probability at the molecular level.
Problems with this is that new technology is discovered accounting for previously unexplainable events.
Antony Flew
Science:
- Laws from observation
- Limited to this method by definition
Unexplained events are either miracles (outside of science) or anomaly (inside of science)
No unexplained event can ever be considered a miracle. At worst it is a not yet explained anomaly.
Are miracles possible?
Are miracles knowable?
Are miracles recognizable?
Hume critiqued miracles on the basis of whether they are knowable. Flew critiqued miracles on rather they are recognizable.
Superseding Miracles - where the laws of nature are superseded, direct action by God
Constellation Miracle - no law of nature is violated, but many circumstances come together in such away that they could have occurred by accident is less probable than it occurring by divine intervention
Reasonable presumption - reasonableness of a presumption
Worldview
If you do not have a worldview favorable to theism then you will not be convinced of miracles existing.
Circumstances, reasonable presumption and whether or not divine agency is the best explanation for the event all play a part in regarding something as a miracle.
Class Notes
Objections to God as a direct causal agent
1. Laws of nature cannot be violated; miracles are a violation
2. If miracles can occur, God would be changeable
3. Miracles are correctives to our understanding of the laws of nature, not violations of the laws
4. Miracles are not rationally believed in
5. Providence violates the the simplicity of God
6. God is eternal, how can an infinite God contain a finite attribute?
7. If God has to intervene in what he created to fix it it implies a defect in his creation
8. Miracles can be explained by natural occurrences; we just don't understand them
9. Miracles are always a result of natural causes
10. How can a non-physical being directly cause a physical change
11. If God is directly intervening in the world, and there is evil in the world, then God is not good.
12. Anomalies in nature do not prove direct intervention
13. Miracles intervene in human freedom
14. Every actualization of a potential through an immediate contingent cause; therefore, a remote cause is not necessary
15. If God governed directly it would destroy the perfection of the causal order
16. If God is outside of time but his causal action would have to be inside of time
Divine Providence and Miracles
Is God a direct causal agent in the world?
Views of God's interaction:
Classical theology
Deist
Neo-Thomism (primary cause working through secondary causes)
Kenotic God (limiting his power willingly)
Existential theology
Linguistic theology
Process theology
Neo-Thomism and Divine Providence
God as an end for everything
Action <- Man <- God
Miracles
- an effect in the physical world that surpasses all known human powers and beyond natural powers
Objection to miracles
- Principle of uniformity
Spinoza:
1. Miracles are a violation of natural laws
2. Natural laws are immutable
3. It is impossible for immutable laws to be violated
4. Therefore, miracles are impossible
Hume, Kant and Flew all argued agains miracles based on the principle of uniformity
God can't do anything against nature
Evidence for miracles is scarce and unpredictable by nature
God cannot violate the law of nature because the law of nature stems from God. So any violation of the law of nature is a violation of God's personal nature.
What is a secondary cause?
Could quantum mechanics explain God's intervening in human/natural affairs?
God effects the secondary cause (quantum mechanics) in effecting the probability at the molecular level.
Problems with this is that new technology is discovered accounting for previously unexplainable events.
Antony Flew
Science:
- Laws from observation
- Limited to this method by definition
Unexplained events are either miracles (outside of science) or anomaly (inside of science)
No unexplained event can ever be considered a miracle. At worst it is a not yet explained anomaly.
Are miracles possible?
Are miracles knowable?
Are miracles recognizable?
Hume critiqued miracles on the basis of whether they are knowable. Flew critiqued miracles on rather they are recognizable.
Superseding Miracles - where the laws of nature are superseded, direct action by God
Constellation Miracle - no law of nature is violated, but many circumstances come together in such away that they could have occurred by accident is less probable than it occurring by divine intervention
Reasonable presumption - reasonableness of a presumption
Worldview
If you do not have a worldview favorable to theism then you will not be convinced of miracles existing.
Circumstances, reasonable presumption and whether or not divine agency is the best explanation for the event all play a part in regarding something as a miracle.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Allegorical & Contemporary Language Problems
(Originally written March 19, 2007 in Book 13)
Analogical Predication: The Only Alternative
If terms cannot be applied to God in a univocal or an equivocal sense, they must be applied analogically.
The analogical way of speaking about God helps to solve Parmenides' paradox because being is not taken as univocal. Being is analogical and thus things essentially differ in being.
Being cannot be univocal because it would mean that everything that hath being would be one. Being cannot be equivocal because whatever hath being hath being and what else cannot hath being or they are one. Therefore, Being must analogical.
God does not have properties at all. "God is the perfections that his creatures only have by causal participation" (263).
Univocal Concepts but Analogical Predication
Scotus was correct that any concept applied to men and God must be univocally understood. Aquinas was correct in stating that concepts must be analogically affirmed of God.
The attribute of man and God are same but the application of that attribute differs in God and man.
Whatever concept is understood of God must be understood univocally, but must be predicated (attributed to) of God must be predicated analogically.
Finite Concepts and Finite Predications
Aquinas held God is one in reality, but many things logically.
We cannot know the substance of God, but we can predicate many things about God substantively.
While there is an infinite difference in perfection between Creator and creatures, there is not a total dissimilarity. Thus, concepts are univocally understood.
A creature must bear some similarity to its creator.
The Causal Basis for Analogy Between God and Creatures
Analogy is based on intrinsic causality.
Analogy is based on efficient causality.
Analogy is based on essential causality. God is the cause of the very being of the world, not only its beginning.
Analogy is not based on material causality. God is the cause of the existence of matter, but he is not material. God is the cause of all perfections in the world, but not the imperfection resulting from the limiting conditions of a material world.
Analogy is based on principal, not instrumental causality.
God is the principal, intrinsic, essential and efficient cause of the being and perfection of the world.
Objections and Responses
1) Why select some, but not all qualities drawn from the world and apply them to God?
- Only some things flow from God's efficient, principal, essential and intrinsic causality.
2) Words are divorced from their finite mode or conditions are devoid of meaning.
- The univocal concept of the words remains the same while the way in which they are predicated charges.
-Terms applied to God are not made meaningless only extended without limitations
3) Analogy rests on the assumption that causality provides without limitations.
-If something is caused it must be caused by something. God cannot give what he does not have. Thus if God does not have existence He cannot give existence.
4) Any analogous predication of God as a "First cause" involves an infinite regress of meaning to identify the univocal element.
-The only way to predicate something of a finite being and an infinite being must be analogous because if it is univocal it predicates it equivocally. An infinite being cannot have the same mode as a finite being. It must be predicated analogously.
5) Even assuming the metaphysical assumption that there is a similarity among beings, that ontology is not univocally expressible.
-This is not a mere theistic. It is the only alternative to monism.
6) Since Wittgenstein the distinction between equivocal and univocal is obsolete, and thus, the notion of analogy is obsolete.
7) A general theory of analogy does not work.
This is not an analogical theory, but rather a metaphysical scheme in which language fits. This metaphysical scheme is rooted in reality and thus, the language is so rooted.
13. Model Religious Language
The Background of the Contemporary Language Problem
Hume is the source of the contemporary problems of religious language.
Hume: Two kinds of propositions
There are only two kinds of meaningful statements:
1. Statements expressing elation of ideas
- true by definition
- not informative about the real world
2. Statements about matters of fact
Kant called he former analytic and the latter synthetic.
Wittgenstein: Linguistic Silence
Wittgenstein held that what was mystical (religious experience) cannot be expressed in words.
He held that we are to eliminate religious language, not religious experience.
Ayer: Religious Language and Verification
In Language, Truth and Logic A. J. Ayer attempted to eliminate all metaphysics and theology.
He held that no statement can be meaningful unless it is tautological or empirically verifiable.
But Ayer's principle of verifiability is neither tautological nor verifiable and thus, meaningless on his grounds.
Ayer was neither atheistic nor agnostic. He was non-cognitivistic. He held that no cognitively meaningful statement can be made about a transcendent reality.
2/15/07 - 3/19/07
Analogical Predication: The Only Alternative
If terms cannot be applied to God in a univocal or an equivocal sense, they must be applied analogically.
The analogical way of speaking about God helps to solve Parmenides' paradox because being is not taken as univocal. Being is analogical and thus things essentially differ in being.
Being cannot be univocal because it would mean that everything that hath being would be one. Being cannot be equivocal because whatever hath being hath being and what else cannot hath being or they are one. Therefore, Being must analogical.
God does not have properties at all. "God is the perfections that his creatures only have by causal participation" (263).
Univocal Concepts but Analogical Predication
Scotus was correct that any concept applied to men and God must be univocally understood. Aquinas was correct in stating that concepts must be analogically affirmed of God.
The attribute of man and God are same but the application of that attribute differs in God and man.
Whatever concept is understood of God must be understood univocally, but must be predicated (attributed to) of God must be predicated analogically.
Finite Concepts and Finite Predications
Aquinas held God is one in reality, but many things logically.
We cannot know the substance of God, but we can predicate many things about God substantively.
While there is an infinite difference in perfection between Creator and creatures, there is not a total dissimilarity. Thus, concepts are univocally understood.
A creature must bear some similarity to its creator.
The Causal Basis for Analogy Between God and Creatures
Analogy is based on intrinsic causality.
Analogy is based on efficient causality.
Analogy is based on essential causality. God is the cause of the very being of the world, not only its beginning.
Analogy is not based on material causality. God is the cause of the existence of matter, but he is not material. God is the cause of all perfections in the world, but not the imperfection resulting from the limiting conditions of a material world.
Analogy is based on principal, not instrumental causality.
God is the principal, intrinsic, essential and efficient cause of the being and perfection of the world.
Objections and Responses
1) Why select some, but not all qualities drawn from the world and apply them to God?
- Only some things flow from God's efficient, principal, essential and intrinsic causality.
2) Words are divorced from their finite mode or conditions are devoid of meaning.
- The univocal concept of the words remains the same while the way in which they are predicated charges.
-Terms applied to God are not made meaningless only extended without limitations
3) Analogy rests on the assumption that causality provides without limitations.
-If something is caused it must be caused by something. God cannot give what he does not have. Thus if God does not have existence He cannot give existence.
4) Any analogous predication of God as a "First cause" involves an infinite regress of meaning to identify the univocal element.
-The only way to predicate something of a finite being and an infinite being must be analogous because if it is univocal it predicates it equivocally. An infinite being cannot have the same mode as a finite being. It must be predicated analogously.
5) Even assuming the metaphysical assumption that there is a similarity among beings, that ontology is not univocally expressible.
-This is not a mere theistic. It is the only alternative to monism.
6) Since Wittgenstein the distinction between equivocal and univocal is obsolete, and thus, the notion of analogy is obsolete.
7) A general theory of analogy does not work.
This is not an analogical theory, but rather a metaphysical scheme in which language fits. This metaphysical scheme is rooted in reality and thus, the language is so rooted.
13. Model Religious Language
The Background of the Contemporary Language Problem
Hume is the source of the contemporary problems of religious language.
Hume: Two kinds of propositions
There are only two kinds of meaningful statements:
1. Statements expressing elation of ideas
- true by definition
- not informative about the real world
2. Statements about matters of fact
Kant called he former analytic and the latter synthetic.
Wittgenstein: Linguistic Silence
Wittgenstein held that what was mystical (religious experience) cannot be expressed in words.
He held that we are to eliminate religious language, not religious experience.
Ayer: Religious Language and Verification
In Language, Truth and Logic A. J. Ayer attempted to eliminate all metaphysics and theology.
He held that no statement can be meaningful unless it is tautological or empirically verifiable.
But Ayer's principle of verifiability is neither tautological nor verifiable and thus, meaningless on his grounds.
Ayer was neither atheistic nor agnostic. He was non-cognitivistic. He held that no cognitively meaningful statement can be made about a transcendent reality.
2/15/07 - 3/19/07
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Cosmological Arguments and Rebuttals
(Originally written March 13, 2007 in Book 13)
Al-Farabi's Necessary Existence Argument
Arabian and Jewish forms of the cosmological argument later influenced Christian arguments
The Islamic Philosopher Al-Farabi distinguished between existence and essence. He argued:
1) There exists beings whose essence is distinct from their existence. These are possible beings.
2) These beings have existence only accidentally. It is not part of their very essence to exist. It is logically possible that they might not have existed.
3) Anything that exists accidentally (not essentially) must have derived their existence from another.
4) There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of existence.
5) Therefore, there must be a first cause of existence whose essence and existence are identical. This being must be a necessary being because the First Cause cannot be a mere possible being since all possible beings do not explain their own existence.
Avicenna's First Cause Argument
1) There are possible beings
2) Whatever possible beings exist have a cause for their being
3) There cannot be an infinite series of being.
4) Therefore, there must be a first cause for all possible things.
5) This first Cause must be a necessary Being because that which is the cause of all possible beings cannot itself be a possible being.
6) Whatever is essentially One can create immediately only one effect (intelligence)
7) Thinking is creating and God necessarily thinks, since he is a necessary being
8) Therefore, there is an necessary emanation from God of ten intelligences (Angels) that control the various spheres of the universe and the last of which (called Agent Intellect) forms the four elements of the cosmos and by which the human mind (possible intellect) is informed of all truth.
Avicenna's God was a necessary being who created 10 gods who created everything else.
The Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) argued for a first mover, a first Cause and a Necessary Being.
He argued that "I AM" implied absolute existence which applied to God alone.
Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove God's Existence
Aquinas' arguments were not entirely new
1) Maimonides had arguments similar to the first three
2) Al-Farabi and Avicenna had the first two
3) Anselm had an argument similar to the 4th argument
4) Aquinas' 5th argument was similar to Thierry of Chartes and William of Conches' adaptation of Plato's Timaeus argument
Aquinas was much more Aristotelian in his thought than any of his Christian predecessors.
He argued from:
1) Motion
2) Efficient Causality
3) Possibility and necessity
4) Gradation (perfection)
5) to a First Cause
Duns Scotus: Argument from Producibility
John Duns Scotus modified Aquinas' argument in two ways:
1) He began with the producibility of being, not merely from produced beings
2) He amplified the argument against an invite regress of dependent causes
Duns Scotus' arg.
1) Some being is produced
a) This is learned via experience
b) This is true independent of experience
c) It would be true even if God had not willed to create anything
2) What is produced is producible either by itself, by nothing or by something else
3) No being can produce itself
4) Something cannot be caused by nothing
5) Therefore, being is producible only by some being that is productive
6) There cannot be an infinite regress of productive beings, each producing the being of the one following it because
a) this is an essentially related series of causes, not an accidentally related one
-where the primary cause is more nearly perfect than the secondary one
-where the secondary cause depends on the primary one for its very causality
-where the cause must be simultaneously present to the effect
b) An infinite series of essentially related causes is impossible because:
-if the whole series is dependent for its causalities then there must be something beyond the series that counts for the causality in the series
-If the infinite series were causing the effect, then there would have to be an infinite number of causes simultaneously causing a single effect, and this is impossible
-where ever there are prior causes there must be a prime cause
-higher causes are more nearly perfect than lower causes and this implies a perfect cause at the head of all other less-than-perfect causes
-an infinite regress of causes implies imperfection. But an imperfect series implies something perfect beyond the series as ground for the imperfect
7) Therefore, there must be a first productive cause of all producible beings
8) This first Cause of all producible beings must be one because:
-It is perfect in knowledge and there cannot be two beings that know everything perfectly
-It is perfect in will, hence it loves itself more completely than anything else
-It is infinitely good and there cannot be two as such because one would be more than infinitely good which is impossible
-It is infinite in power. If there were two that were infinite in power than there would be two primary causes of the same effect, and this is impossible
-Absolutely infinite cannot be excelled in perfection because there cannot be anything more perfect than that which is wholly perfect
-There cannot be two necessary beings because one would possess what the other lacked and if it lacked any perfection it would not be necessary
-Omnipotent will cannot be in two beings because then one could render the other impotent
Ockham's Reservations about the Cosmological Argument
William of Ockham (1290-1350) raised three objections to the cosmological argument:
1) He denied that an essentially related infinite series was impossible
2) He argued that efficient causes are only known via experience. (Causality is "that whose existence or presence is followed by something")
3) He denied that one could prove that there was only one God in the absolute sense of the word. Christian theists insist that the unity of God refers to the "most perfect" Being possible. But the proposition "God exists" is not self evident because a self-evident proposition cannot be doubted and "God exists" is doubted. Since God's unity rests on the proposition "God exists" and it is impossible to know via experience and it is not self-evident there is no way to demonstrate that God is absolutely one.
Descartes' A posteriori Proof for God
Descartes' Proof
1) I am doubting
2) If I am doubting, I am thinking
3) Doubt is an imperfect form of thinking
4) But if I know the imperfect, then I must be aware of the perfect
5) But my imperfect mind cannot be the cause of the idea of perfection that I have
6) Only a perfect Mind is an adequate cause for the idea of perfection
7) Therefore, a perfect mind must exist as the cause of this perfection.
Both Augustine and Descartes have a posteriori arguments for the existence of God which is platonic and has an affinity for the ontological argument.
Leibniz: The argument from Sufficient Reason
Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) provided the most influential form of the cosmological argument in modern times. He argued:
1. The entire world is changing
2. Whatever is changing lacks within itself the reason for its own existence.
3. There is a sufficient reason for its own existence.
4. Therefore, there must be a cause beyond this world for its existence.
5. This cause is either its own sufficient cause or beyond it.
6. There cannot be an infinite regress of sufficient reasons.
7. Therefore, there must be a first Cause that is its own sufficient reason.
Christian Wolff (1679-1754), Leibniz's disciple offered the proof that became the pattern of the cosmological argument for the modern world.
1. The human soul exists.
2. Nothing exists without a sufficient reason why it exists.
3. The reason for our existence must be contained in ourselves or beyond ourselves.
4. The reason for our existence is not in ourselves.
5. The reason for our existence thus lies beyond ourselves.
6. One does not arrive at sufficient reason for his existence until he reaches a being that has its reason for existence within itself.
7. A being that has its reason for existence within itself is a necessary being.
8. Therefore, there must be a necessary being beyond us that is the sufficient reason for our existence.
9. It is logically impossible for a necessary being not to exist.
10. Therefore, this necessary being is identical with the self-existent God of Scripture.
Leibniz's argument (and Wolff's) rests on the principle of sufficient reason which posits itself as a self-evidently true analytic principle.
The argument is a posteriori, but not existential. The necessity of its conclusion is based on a conceptually certainty, not an existential (actual) certainty.
Hume's Skeptical Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument
David Hume (1711-1776) laid down the most fundamental arguments against the cosmological argument:
1) Only a finite cause need be inferred from finite effects
2) No propositions about existence can be logically necessary
3) The words "necessary being" have no consistent meaning. It is possible to think of anything of not existing, even God; and, what might not exist does not need to exist.
4) If "necessary being" means only imperishable, then the universe may be the necessary being.
5) An infinite series is possible. An eternal series cannot have a cause because causes imply priority in time, but nothing can be prior in time to an eternal series. Thus, an eternal series is possible.
6) There is no way to establish the principle of causality
7) The universe as a whole does not need a cause, only the parts do.
8) Theistic argument convince only those who like abstract reasoning.
Kant's Agnosticism on Theistic Argumentation
1) The cosmological argument depends on the invalid ontological argument
2) Existential statements are not necessary
3) A noumenal (real) cause cannot be derived from a phenomenal effect
4) What is logically necessary is not ontologically necessary
5) The cosmological argument leads to metaphysical contradictions
6) The concept of a "necessary being" is not self-clarifying
7) An infinite regress is logically possible
Taylor's restatement of the cosmological argument:
1) The Universe as a whole does not explain its own existence
2) Whatever does not explain its own existence calls for an explanation beyond itself.
3) An infinite regress of reasons is impossible
4) Therefore, there must be a first self-sufficient (independent)_ cause of the whole universe
Taylor's conclusion is rationally inescapable, but it is Leibnizian in that it relies on the principle of sufficient reason. Thus, it is open to similar criticisms.
Hackett's Arguments Based on Explanation
Samuel C. Hackett offered two arguments in the Leibnizian tradition.
The first conceptual argument:
1) The world order is possible only on the basis of several necessary conditions:
- There need to be objective a priori principles of knowledge
- There need to objective essences that define the properties of things in the world
- There needs to be a reason why of all the possible worlds this is the one that exists
2) These realities show all of the properties that are associated with the structuring activity of a mind
3) Therefore, these realities can be understood as the workings of an absolute mind.
4) Therefore, there exists an absolute mind as necessary condition to the logical possibility of this world.
His second, causal argument:
1) If anything exists, an absolutely necessary and transcendent Being exists
2) Something exists
3) Therefore, an absolutely necessary and transcendent Being exists
Hackett's arguments suffer from an unwarranted assumption that a sufficient cause must be an ultimate cause. A finite cause may suffice.
Ross' argument based on Explanation
James F. Ross provided two versions of the argument based on explanation
First:
1) If something is not the case, there must be an explanation for it not being so.
2) Considering the state of affairs, "God does not exist" cannot be the case.
3) Therefore, since "God dos not exist" cannot be the case, "God exists" must be the case. Thus, God exists.
Craig's Kalam Argument
William Lane Craig has produced an argument based on the need to posit an original cause for the universe. He has three premises:
1) Whatever beings to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Premise 1 seems intuit, but is questionable and uneasy to prove via demonstration
Premise 2 is completely questionable.
The argument, if it stands, does not prove theism because it does not eliminate pantheism.
Teleological and moral arguments depend on the principle of sufficient reason and/or causality. Both of which are questionable.
The ontological argument depends on the cosmological argument because it is theoretically possible that nothing ever existed at all.
The cosmological argument (in Leibnizian form) is rationally inescapable only if the principle of sufficient reason is rationally inescapable. But the principle of sufficient reason is neither analytically or self-evidently true.
The cosmological arguments leaves the actual for the conceptual at call thing world contingent and stating a necessary Being is one whose non-existence is logically impossible. This opens it to Kant's criticism that it confuses the principle of existential causality with the principle of sufficient reason.
The Kalam argument does not prove a theistic God, but a God that could be pantheistic.
9: The Cosmological Argument Reevaluated
Most attempts to defend the cosmological argument in a non-Leibnizian way emanate from Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas did not base his argument on the principle of sufficient reason, but on existential causality.
The Leibnizian type argument is built on logical necessity, whereas the Thomistic argument is based on existential undeniability.
The Cosmological Argument Restated
1. Some limited, changing being(s) exist
2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being
4. Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings
5. The first cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, simple, unchanging and one
6. The first uncaused cause is identical with the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
It is logically possible that nothing ever existed. That is, it is possible to conceive of the nonexistence of everything.
Linehan: But logic is an affirmation of existence, so to conceive of the nonexistence of everything is a logical inference and thus, self-defeating?
Any being that undergoes a change is a contingent being. Necessary Beings are immutable.
Whatever changes in existence must be composed of actuality and potentiality.
The fact that there is change is proof that there is potential and actualization of potential.
No potential actualizes itself.
There must be some actuality outside of composed beings (beings possessing potential and actuality) to explain why they exist.
Actuality is a thing's existence and its potentiality is its essence.
An efficient cause is a necessary and sufficient condition to account for the actualization of a potential.
An infinite regress is a series without a first or beginning cause.
A self-caused thing is impossible because it would have had to exist before it existed in order to cause itself.
A way out of this dilemma is to argue that the infinite regress is circular or mutually dependent.
But this argument is obviously circular and thus, fallacious.
To deny causality within an infinite regress is simply an attempt to explain away the need for an explanation (a real need) on ground for the ungrounded finite being.
A being that needs ground for his own existence cannot be the ground of another being that needs to be grounded. One contingent being cannot ground another contingent being.
There must be a first Cause of the existence of every finite thing that exists.
The first Cause is the efficient Cause.
The Frist Cause is an uncaused cause. It can neither be self-caused (impossible) or caused by another (thus negating its status as the first cause).
The uncaused cause must be an unlimited being. If caused things are limited, uncaused things must be unlimited.
An unlimited Being must be a Necessary Being because it can not be limited by contingency.
God is not a logically necessary Being, He is an ontologically necessary being.
The uncaused Being must be an eternal Being. If nothing ever existed (a logical possibility) then nothing would ever exist because nothing can cause itself.
The uncaused Cause must be a simple, undivided Being. The uncaused Cause is pure actuality with no potentiality.
The uncaused Cause of existence must be immutable. What is changeable possess potentiality, thus pure actuality is unchangeable.
An uncaused Cause must be one Being. There cannot be two pure actualities. Pure actuality is indivisible.
The pure actuality possess all of the perfections of being infinite. Thus, the uncaused cause is the source of all perfections.
Al-Farabi's Necessary Existence Argument
Arabian and Jewish forms of the cosmological argument later influenced Christian arguments
The Islamic Philosopher Al-Farabi distinguished between existence and essence. He argued:
1) There exists beings whose essence is distinct from their existence. These are possible beings.
2) These beings have existence only accidentally. It is not part of their very essence to exist. It is logically possible that they might not have existed.
3) Anything that exists accidentally (not essentially) must have derived their existence from another.
4) There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of existence.
5) Therefore, there must be a first cause of existence whose essence and existence are identical. This being must be a necessary being because the First Cause cannot be a mere possible being since all possible beings do not explain their own existence.
Avicenna's First Cause Argument
1) There are possible beings
2) Whatever possible beings exist have a cause for their being
3) There cannot be an infinite series of being.
4) Therefore, there must be a first cause for all possible things.
5) This first Cause must be a necessary Being because that which is the cause of all possible beings cannot itself be a possible being.
6) Whatever is essentially One can create immediately only one effect (intelligence)
7) Thinking is creating and God necessarily thinks, since he is a necessary being
8) Therefore, there is an necessary emanation from God of ten intelligences (Angels) that control the various spheres of the universe and the last of which (called Agent Intellect) forms the four elements of the cosmos and by which the human mind (possible intellect) is informed of all truth.
Avicenna's God was a necessary being who created 10 gods who created everything else.
The Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) argued for a first mover, a first Cause and a Necessary Being.
He argued that "I AM" implied absolute existence which applied to God alone.
Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove God's Existence
Aquinas' arguments were not entirely new
1) Maimonides had arguments similar to the first three
2) Al-Farabi and Avicenna had the first two
3) Anselm had an argument similar to the 4th argument
4) Aquinas' 5th argument was similar to Thierry of Chartes and William of Conches' adaptation of Plato's Timaeus argument
Aquinas was much more Aristotelian in his thought than any of his Christian predecessors.
He argued from:
1) Motion
2) Efficient Causality
3) Possibility and necessity
4) Gradation (perfection)
5) to a First Cause
Duns Scotus: Argument from Producibility
John Duns Scotus modified Aquinas' argument in two ways:
1) He began with the producibility of being, not merely from produced beings
2) He amplified the argument against an invite regress of dependent causes
Duns Scotus' arg.
1) Some being is produced
a) This is learned via experience
b) This is true independent of experience
c) It would be true even if God had not willed to create anything
2) What is produced is producible either by itself, by nothing or by something else
3) No being can produce itself
4) Something cannot be caused by nothing
5) Therefore, being is producible only by some being that is productive
6) There cannot be an infinite regress of productive beings, each producing the being of the one following it because
a) this is an essentially related series of causes, not an accidentally related one
-where the primary cause is more nearly perfect than the secondary one
-where the secondary cause depends on the primary one for its very causality
-where the cause must be simultaneously present to the effect
b) An infinite series of essentially related causes is impossible because:
-if the whole series is dependent for its causalities then there must be something beyond the series that counts for the causality in the series
-If the infinite series were causing the effect, then there would have to be an infinite number of causes simultaneously causing a single effect, and this is impossible
-where ever there are prior causes there must be a prime cause
-higher causes are more nearly perfect than lower causes and this implies a perfect cause at the head of all other less-than-perfect causes
-an infinite regress of causes implies imperfection. But an imperfect series implies something perfect beyond the series as ground for the imperfect
7) Therefore, there must be a first productive cause of all producible beings
8) This first Cause of all producible beings must be one because:
-It is perfect in knowledge and there cannot be two beings that know everything perfectly
-It is perfect in will, hence it loves itself more completely than anything else
-It is infinitely good and there cannot be two as such because one would be more than infinitely good which is impossible
-It is infinite in power. If there were two that were infinite in power than there would be two primary causes of the same effect, and this is impossible
-Absolutely infinite cannot be excelled in perfection because there cannot be anything more perfect than that which is wholly perfect
-There cannot be two necessary beings because one would possess what the other lacked and if it lacked any perfection it would not be necessary
-Omnipotent will cannot be in two beings because then one could render the other impotent
Ockham's Reservations about the Cosmological Argument
William of Ockham (1290-1350) raised three objections to the cosmological argument:
1) He denied that an essentially related infinite series was impossible
2) He argued that efficient causes are only known via experience. (Causality is "that whose existence or presence is followed by something")
3) He denied that one could prove that there was only one God in the absolute sense of the word. Christian theists insist that the unity of God refers to the "most perfect" Being possible. But the proposition "God exists" is not self evident because a self-evident proposition cannot be doubted and "God exists" is doubted. Since God's unity rests on the proposition "God exists" and it is impossible to know via experience and it is not self-evident there is no way to demonstrate that God is absolutely one.
Descartes' A posteriori Proof for God
Descartes' Proof
1) I am doubting
2) If I am doubting, I am thinking
3) Doubt is an imperfect form of thinking
4) But if I know the imperfect, then I must be aware of the perfect
5) But my imperfect mind cannot be the cause of the idea of perfection that I have
6) Only a perfect Mind is an adequate cause for the idea of perfection
7) Therefore, a perfect mind must exist as the cause of this perfection.
Both Augustine and Descartes have a posteriori arguments for the existence of God which is platonic and has an affinity for the ontological argument.
Leibniz: The argument from Sufficient Reason
Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) provided the most influential form of the cosmological argument in modern times. He argued:
1. The entire world is changing
2. Whatever is changing lacks within itself the reason for its own existence.
3. There is a sufficient reason for its own existence.
4. Therefore, there must be a cause beyond this world for its existence.
5. This cause is either its own sufficient cause or beyond it.
6. There cannot be an infinite regress of sufficient reasons.
7. Therefore, there must be a first Cause that is its own sufficient reason.
Christian Wolff (1679-1754), Leibniz's disciple offered the proof that became the pattern of the cosmological argument for the modern world.
1. The human soul exists.
2. Nothing exists without a sufficient reason why it exists.
3. The reason for our existence must be contained in ourselves or beyond ourselves.
4. The reason for our existence is not in ourselves.
5. The reason for our existence thus lies beyond ourselves.
6. One does not arrive at sufficient reason for his existence until he reaches a being that has its reason for existence within itself.
7. A being that has its reason for existence within itself is a necessary being.
8. Therefore, there must be a necessary being beyond us that is the sufficient reason for our existence.
9. It is logically impossible for a necessary being not to exist.
10. Therefore, this necessary being is identical with the self-existent God of Scripture.
Leibniz's argument (and Wolff's) rests on the principle of sufficient reason which posits itself as a self-evidently true analytic principle.
The argument is a posteriori, but not existential. The necessity of its conclusion is based on a conceptually certainty, not an existential (actual) certainty.
Hume's Skeptical Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument
David Hume (1711-1776) laid down the most fundamental arguments against the cosmological argument:
1) Only a finite cause need be inferred from finite effects
2) No propositions about existence can be logically necessary
3) The words "necessary being" have no consistent meaning. It is possible to think of anything of not existing, even God; and, what might not exist does not need to exist.
4) If "necessary being" means only imperishable, then the universe may be the necessary being.
5) An infinite series is possible. An eternal series cannot have a cause because causes imply priority in time, but nothing can be prior in time to an eternal series. Thus, an eternal series is possible.
6) There is no way to establish the principle of causality
7) The universe as a whole does not need a cause, only the parts do.
8) Theistic argument convince only those who like abstract reasoning.
Kant's Agnosticism on Theistic Argumentation
1) The cosmological argument depends on the invalid ontological argument
2) Existential statements are not necessary
3) A noumenal (real) cause cannot be derived from a phenomenal effect
4) What is logically necessary is not ontologically necessary
5) The cosmological argument leads to metaphysical contradictions
6) The concept of a "necessary being" is not self-clarifying
7) An infinite regress is logically possible
Taylor's restatement of the cosmological argument:
1) The Universe as a whole does not explain its own existence
2) Whatever does not explain its own existence calls for an explanation beyond itself.
3) An infinite regress of reasons is impossible
4) Therefore, there must be a first self-sufficient (independent)_ cause of the whole universe
Taylor's conclusion is rationally inescapable, but it is Leibnizian in that it relies on the principle of sufficient reason. Thus, it is open to similar criticisms.
Hackett's Arguments Based on Explanation
Samuel C. Hackett offered two arguments in the Leibnizian tradition.
The first conceptual argument:
1) The world order is possible only on the basis of several necessary conditions:
- There need to be objective a priori principles of knowledge
- There need to objective essences that define the properties of things in the world
- There needs to be a reason why of all the possible worlds this is the one that exists
2) These realities show all of the properties that are associated with the structuring activity of a mind
3) Therefore, these realities can be understood as the workings of an absolute mind.
4) Therefore, there exists an absolute mind as necessary condition to the logical possibility of this world.
His second, causal argument:
1) If anything exists, an absolutely necessary and transcendent Being exists
2) Something exists
3) Therefore, an absolutely necessary and transcendent Being exists
Hackett's arguments suffer from an unwarranted assumption that a sufficient cause must be an ultimate cause. A finite cause may suffice.
Ross' argument based on Explanation
James F. Ross provided two versions of the argument based on explanation
First:
1) If something is not the case, there must be an explanation for it not being so.
2) Considering the state of affairs, "God does not exist" cannot be the case.
3) Therefore, since "God dos not exist" cannot be the case, "God exists" must be the case. Thus, God exists.
Craig's Kalam Argument
William Lane Craig has produced an argument based on the need to posit an original cause for the universe. He has three premises:
1) Whatever beings to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Premise 1 seems intuit, but is questionable and uneasy to prove via demonstration
Premise 2 is completely questionable.
The argument, if it stands, does not prove theism because it does not eliminate pantheism.
Teleological and moral arguments depend on the principle of sufficient reason and/or causality. Both of which are questionable.
The ontological argument depends on the cosmological argument because it is theoretically possible that nothing ever existed at all.
The cosmological argument (in Leibnizian form) is rationally inescapable only if the principle of sufficient reason is rationally inescapable. But the principle of sufficient reason is neither analytically or self-evidently true.
The cosmological arguments leaves the actual for the conceptual at call thing world contingent and stating a necessary Being is one whose non-existence is logically impossible. This opens it to Kant's criticism that it confuses the principle of existential causality with the principle of sufficient reason.
The Kalam argument does not prove a theistic God, but a God that could be pantheistic.
9: The Cosmological Argument Reevaluated
Most attempts to defend the cosmological argument in a non-Leibnizian way emanate from Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas did not base his argument on the principle of sufficient reason, but on existential causality.
The Leibnizian type argument is built on logical necessity, whereas the Thomistic argument is based on existential undeniability.
The Cosmological Argument Restated
1. Some limited, changing being(s) exist
2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being
4. Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings
5. The first cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, simple, unchanging and one
6. The first uncaused cause is identical with the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
It is logically possible that nothing ever existed. That is, it is possible to conceive of the nonexistence of everything.
Linehan: But logic is an affirmation of existence, so to conceive of the nonexistence of everything is a logical inference and thus, self-defeating?
Any being that undergoes a change is a contingent being. Necessary Beings are immutable.
Whatever changes in existence must be composed of actuality and potentiality.
The fact that there is change is proof that there is potential and actualization of potential.
No potential actualizes itself.
There must be some actuality outside of composed beings (beings possessing potential and actuality) to explain why they exist.
Actuality is a thing's existence and its potentiality is its essence.
An efficient cause is a necessary and sufficient condition to account for the actualization of a potential.
An infinite regress is a series without a first or beginning cause.
A self-caused thing is impossible because it would have had to exist before it existed in order to cause itself.
A way out of this dilemma is to argue that the infinite regress is circular or mutually dependent.
But this argument is obviously circular and thus, fallacious.
To deny causality within an infinite regress is simply an attempt to explain away the need for an explanation (a real need) on ground for the ungrounded finite being.
A being that needs ground for his own existence cannot be the ground of another being that needs to be grounded. One contingent being cannot ground another contingent being.
There must be a first Cause of the existence of every finite thing that exists.
The first Cause is the efficient Cause.
The Frist Cause is an uncaused cause. It can neither be self-caused (impossible) or caused by another (thus negating its status as the first cause).
The uncaused cause must be an unlimited being. If caused things are limited, uncaused things must be unlimited.
An unlimited Being must be a Necessary Being because it can not be limited by contingency.
God is not a logically necessary Being, He is an ontologically necessary being.
The uncaused Being must be an eternal Being. If nothing ever existed (a logical possibility) then nothing would ever exist because nothing can cause itself.
The uncaused Cause must be a simple, undivided Being. The uncaused Cause is pure actuality with no potentiality.
The uncaused Cause of existence must be immutable. What is changeable possess potentiality, thus pure actuality is unchangeable.
An uncaused Cause must be one Being. There cannot be two pure actualities. Pure actuality is indivisible.
The pure actuality possess all of the perfections of being infinite. Thus, the uncaused cause is the source of all perfections.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Ontological Arguments and Objections
(Originally written March 7, 2007 in Book 13)
Anselm's Debate with Gaunilo
Gaunilo objected to Anselm's argument on a few grounds:
1. It is built on the false premise that whatever exists in the mind must exist outside the mind.
2. If God's non-existence were really inconceivable then no one could doubt his existence.
3. We cannot even form the concept of the most perfect being possible.
4. The existence of God cannot be inferred from the idea of a perfect Being anymore than the existence of a perfect island can be inferred from the idea of a perfect island.
5. God's nonexistence is no more inconceivable than my own nonexistence. I can conceive of my own nonexistence so I can conceive of God's nonexistence too.
6. God's existence must be proved before we can discuss his essence. Otherwise there is no basis for saying he is the most perfect Being possible.
Anselm's replies:
1. The argument only applies to an absolute perfect Being.
2. God's nonexistence is affirmable, but not conceivable.
3. We do understand the word because of 6 facts:
- It is a common word
- It is a familiar word
- Our faith and conscience provide content for it
- Conceptions do not have to be in terms of sensible images
- God can be understood indirectly
- Those who deny that they can have a conception of God must have a conception of what they cannot conceive
4. The idea of an absolutely perfect Being cannot lack anything, especially being; whereas, the idea of anything else can lack being.
5. If it is possible for a necessary being a necessary being must exist. It's nonexistence is inconceivable.
6. We can compare ideal characteristics prior to ascertaining their reality.
Anselm charged Gaunilo with misunderstanding the argument as:
1. God is the greatest of all Beings
2. It is greater to exist in reality then merely in the understanding.
3. Therefore, God must exist in reality.
Anselm states this argument confuses the greatest actual Being with the greatest possible being.
Aquinas' objection to the ontological argument
Aquinas understood Anselm to mean:
1. God is by definition that then which nothing greater can be conceived
2. What exists actually and mentally is greater than that with exists only mentally.
3. Therefore, God must exist actually.
Aquinas had 3 objections to the argument:
1. Not everyone understands the term "God" to mean that then which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. Even if everyone did understand that the term God meant this, it does not follow that God exists actually.
3. The proposition "God exists" is self-evident, but not self-evident to us.
Descartes' formulation of the Ontological Argument
Descartes' argument (2nd form)
1. It is logically necessary to affirm of a concept whatever is essential to the nature of that concept.
2. Existence is a logically necessary part of the concept of a necessary Existent.
3. Therefore, it is logically necessary to affirm that a necessary Existent does exist.
"If God by definition cannot exist, then he must exist" (128).
Descartes' argument (1st form)
1. Whatever we clearly and distinctly perceive of something is true.
2. We clearly and distinctly perceive that the conception of an absolutely perfect Being necessitates the existence of that Being.
3. Therefore, it is true that an absolutely perfect Being cannot lack existence.
Descartes qualified his argument in three ways:
1. This argument applies only to an absolutely perfect or necessary being.
2. It is not necessary for anyone to think of God, but if and when he does he must conceive of God as necessarily existing.
3. To conceive of God as a necessary Being is not imaginary, but necessary. The concept of a necessary being must be what it is and cannot be any other way. Thus, the concept of a necessary Being cannot be the product of one's imagination.
The debate between Caters and Descartes
Caters the priest agreed with Thomas Aquinas in that he felt the Ontological Argument proved only a conceptual and not a real existence of God.
Caters contended that the words "existent lion" is conceptually necessary, but it does not prove that a lion exists.
Descartes stated that Aquinas refuted an argument that stated existence is concluded from the meaning of God, not his own argument.
Other reactions to Descartes' proofs
Other 17th century philosophers reacted negatively to Descartes' arguments. They restated his argument this way.
1. If it is not contradictory that God exists, then it is certain that He exists.
2. It is not contradictory that God exists.
3. Therefore, it is certain that God exists.
They objected to Descartes' argument in two ways:
1. The minor premise can be doubted or denied.
2. Descartes admitted that his idea of God was inadequate and thus unclear. By Descartes definition of truth as "clear and distinct" then it is untrue.
Descartes' replies:
1. God's nonexistence is noncontradictory in either of two senses of the word:
- Whatever does not disagree with human thought (God is noncontradictory)
- What cannot be known by the human mind (no one could know anything, thus God's existence is noncontradictory)
2. Even if our concept of God is inadequate it does not follow that it is contradictory. God's necessary existence is a clear concept, thus the argument is unaffected by lack of clarity in other aspects of God's nature.
The debate between Gassendi and Descartes.
Pierre Gassendi, a skeptic, contended that Descartes confused existence with a property. He argued with 7 points:
1. The essence of a thing can be thought of apart from its existence.
2. Existence is not a property.
3. Essence and existence can be distinguished only in thought, not in reality.
4. We are just as free to think of God as not existing as we are to think of Pegasus as not existing.
5. We need demonstration that God exists, not merely the assumption that it does.
6. Descartes did not really prove that nonexistence is incompatible with God.
Descartes replied to Gassendi with four points:
1. Existence is a property in that it is attributable to something. Necessary existence is a necessary property of a necessary being.
2. We cannot compare the existence of that which is contingent to the existence of what is necessary.
3. It is not begging the question to include existence among the attributes of a necessary Existent.
4. God's existence and essence are inseparable.
Leibniz's Consideration of the Ontological Argument
Leibniz held that the ontological argument was valid but sensed that it was necessary to demonstrate the concept of God was not contradictory.
He stated
1. If it is possible for an absolutely perfect Being to exist, then it is necessary that it exists.
2. It is possible (noncontradictory) for an absolutely perfect being to exist.
3. Therefore, it is necessary that an absolutely perfect Being exist.
To support his minor premise Leibniz argued that:
1. A perfection is a simple and irreducible quality without any essential limitations.
2. Whatever is simple cannot conflict with other irresolvably simple qualities (they differ in kind).
3. Whatever differs in kind with another cannot conflict with it.
4. Therefore, it is possible for on Being (God) to possess all possible perfections.
Three objections to Leibniz's arg.
1. It assumes that some qualities are essentially positive and others negative, but this may not be the case.
2. Leibniz assumes that some qualities are intrinsically simple, but Wittgenstein showed that what is simple in one conceptual system may be complex in another.
3. It depends on the principle of the actual identity which is conceptually indiscernible.
Spinoza's Ontological Proof
Like Descartes, Spinoza held that God was mathematically demonstrable.
Spinoza's argument:
1. There must be a cause for everything, either for its existence or for its nonexistence.
2. A necessary Being (God) necessarily exists, unless there is an adequate cause to explain why he does not exist.
3. There is no adequate cause to explain why he does not exist.
4. Therefore, a necessary Being, necessarily exists.
One may object to Spinoza's insistence that there must be a cause for nothing because it appears contradictory.
Spinoza's second form:
1. Something necessarily exists.
2. This necessary existence is either finite or infinite.
3. It is possible for this necessary existence to be infinite.
4. There must be a cause as to why this is not an infinite existence.
5. No finite existence can hinder this being (an infinite existence).
6. Therefore, this must be an infinite existence
Spinoza's arguments borrow from the premise that something exists from the cosmological argument.
Spinoza's God is not the theistic God of Leibniz or Anselm, it is a pantheistic God.
The Objections of Hume and Kant
Hume's Objection:
1. Nothing is rationally demonstrable unless the contrary implies a contradictory
2. Nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction
3. Whatever we conceive to exist we can conceive as nonexistent
4. There is no being whose existence implies a contradiction
5. Therefore, there is no being whose existence is rationally demonstrable.
Hume argues that no argument for God is rationally inescapable because it always contains premises that are logically deniable.
Kant's critique of the Ontological proof
Kant objected to the fact that we have no positive concept of a necessary Being (that which cannot be).
He also contended that necessity applied only to propositions, not existence.
Also, what is logically possible is not always ontologically possible.
Existence (Kant held) is not a predicate of a thing. It is not a perfection.
Supposed Causes of the Ontological Mistake
Opponents of the Ontological argument have blamed many sources of the ontological 'mistake'
1) Platonic Philosophy - Platonic epistemology holds that one can directly and intuitively know essences.
2) Metaphysical thinking - some argue that "is" or "exists" is only logical, not ontological.
3) Confusion of cause and reason - Causes need something outside of itself where a reason can be itself (Schopenhauer)
4) Use of a proper name - the use of a proper name implies existence (Russell)
5) The use of the English conditional. Alvin Plantinga claimed that "If Jones is a bachelor, then he is necessarily not married" does not imply "Jones is a bachelor". There may be no Jones. Likewise, "If God exists, then he Necessarily exists" does not imply "God exists" There may be no God at all.
Linehan - Unfair analogy!
"IF Jones is a bachelor, then he is necessarily not married" may not imply "Jones is a bachelor". There may be no Jones. But there is a bachelor. Likewise, "If God exists, then he necessarily exists" may not imply "God exists" But, there is a necessary existence which must be filled by a necessary Existent, which is God.
Findlay's Ontological Disproof of God.
The ontological argument has been widely rejected in modern times.
J. N. Findlay used the ontological proof against itself:
1. God must be thought of as a necessary Being, for anything else short of this would be unworthy of worship.
2. But existential necessary propositions cannot be true for necessity is merely a logical characteristic of propositions, not of reality.
3. Therefore, God cannot exist.
A simpler, proper form of this argument:
1. The only way a necessary Being could exist is to exist necessarily.
2. The proposition "God exists necessarily" is an existentially necessary proposition.
3. No existentially necessary propositions can be true.
4. Therefore, the proposition "God exists necessarily" cannot be true.
A theist can object to this in 4 ways:
1. Change the proposition "God exists necessarily" to "God exists". Then holding the proposition "God exists" as a logically necessary proposition to hold.
2. Deny that necessity applied to existential propositions makes them untrue. (Existentially necessary propositions can be true). Examples of existentially necessary propositions: "I am I". "There is an infinite number of prime numbers". "Square circles do not exist".
3. "God necessarily exists" is a special case (Anselm and Descartes).
4. Findlay's statement "there are no existentially necessary propositions" is an existentially necessary proposition.
Hartshorne's Restatement of the Ontological Proof.
Charles Hartshorne is one of the most ardent defenders of the ontological argument and states it like this:
1. The existence of a necessary being is either:
a) Impossible, and there is no example of it
b) Possible, but there is no example of it
c) Possible, and there is an example of it
2. Possible, but there is no example of it is meaningless because a necessary Being cannot be a possible being.
3. Impossible, and there is no example of it is not eliminated by the ontological argument, but the meaningfulness of the term 'necessary Being' is a justifiable assumption that may be defeated on other grounds.
Hartshorne's Argument:
1. All thought must refer to something beyond itself which is at least possible
2. The necessary existence of a necessary Being is at least possible.
3. With a necessary Being an "at-least-possible" existence is indistinguishable from a "possible and actual" existence. A necessary Being cannot have a "merely possible" existence.
4. Therefore, a necessary Being necessarily has both a possible and an actual existence.
Hartshorne's view of God is neither theistic and pantheistic. It is panentheistic.
Hartshorne states, "Either God is a meaningless term or there exists a divine Being" (141).
All versions of the ontological argument contain the implicit premise that what is rationally inescapable is the real.
Malcolm's restatement of the ontological proof
Malcolm believes that Kant invalidated Anselm's first form, but the second form is immune to all criticism.
Malcolm's restatement of Anselm's 2nd form:
1. The existence of a necessary being must be either:
a) a necessary existence
b) an impossible existence
c) a possible existence
2. The existence of a necessary Being is not an impossible existence
a) No one has ever shown the concept of a necessary being to be contradictory
b) there is a basis in human experience for "a greater than which cannot be thought"
c) Leibniz's attempt to prove that there is no contradiction fails. We cannot show that there cannot be one.
3. The existence of a necessary Being cannot be a possible being because:
a) it is contradictory to the very nature of a necessary being
b) a possible being is dependent, a necessary Being is independent
4. Therefore, A necessary Being Necessarily exists
Plantinga's Critique of the Ontological Argument
Plantinga argues that God could exist without his existence being a necessary one. His existence could be logically contingent but not ontologically so.
Planting states that it is logically possible that God never existed at all. It is logically possible that nothing ever existent including God.
All that proponents of the ontological argument have to do invalidate Plantinga's objections too.
Planting offers an ontological argument that is very cosmological. It has left the a priori realm and moved into the a posteriori realm.
Planting uses modal logic in his argument:
1. The property "has maximal greatness" entails the property "has maximal excellence in every possible world"
2. Maximal excellence entails omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection.
3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified.
4. There is a world "W" and an essence "E" such that "E" is exemplified in "W" and "E" entails the property "has maximal greatness in W"
5. For any object X, if X, exemplifies E then X exemplifies the property "has maximal excellence in every possible world".
6. E entails the property "has maximal excellence in every possible world".
7. If W had been actual, it would be impossible that E fail to be exemplified.
8. What is impossible does not vary from world to world.
9. There exists a being that has maximal excellence in every world.
10 Therefore, the being that has maximal excellence exists in the actual world.
Plantinga's argument is tight and compelling. It avoids many of the traditional criticism of the ontological argument. However there are a few criticisms:
1. The use of modal logic assumes existence of an actual world. Thus, it is a posteriori, not a priori.
2. Defining a perfect being in theistic terms is gratuitous.
3. The essence E is supposed by Plantinga to havre a real existence.
The ontological argument to be valid must assume that something exists and thus it rests on a cosmological principle.
The ontological argument has not proven God exists by itself. It has in fact yielded four types of God and a possible atheistic conception:
1. Leibniz & Descartes - theistic God
2. Spinoza - pantheistic God
3. Hartshorne - panentheistic God
4. Henle - polytheistic gods
5. Atheism - the universe is necessary, but does not include God
Anselm's Debate with Gaunilo
Gaunilo objected to Anselm's argument on a few grounds:
1. It is built on the false premise that whatever exists in the mind must exist outside the mind.
2. If God's non-existence were really inconceivable then no one could doubt his existence.
3. We cannot even form the concept of the most perfect being possible.
4. The existence of God cannot be inferred from the idea of a perfect Being anymore than the existence of a perfect island can be inferred from the idea of a perfect island.
5. God's nonexistence is no more inconceivable than my own nonexistence. I can conceive of my own nonexistence so I can conceive of God's nonexistence too.
6. God's existence must be proved before we can discuss his essence. Otherwise there is no basis for saying he is the most perfect Being possible.
Anselm's replies:
1. The argument only applies to an absolute perfect Being.
2. God's nonexistence is affirmable, but not conceivable.
3. We do understand the word because of 6 facts:
- It is a common word
- It is a familiar word
- Our faith and conscience provide content for it
- Conceptions do not have to be in terms of sensible images
- God can be understood indirectly
- Those who deny that they can have a conception of God must have a conception of what they cannot conceive
4. The idea of an absolutely perfect Being cannot lack anything, especially being; whereas, the idea of anything else can lack being.
5. If it is possible for a necessary being a necessary being must exist. It's nonexistence is inconceivable.
6. We can compare ideal characteristics prior to ascertaining their reality.
Anselm charged Gaunilo with misunderstanding the argument as:
1. God is the greatest of all Beings
2. It is greater to exist in reality then merely in the understanding.
3. Therefore, God must exist in reality.
Anselm states this argument confuses the greatest actual Being with the greatest possible being.
Aquinas' objection to the ontological argument
Aquinas understood Anselm to mean:
1. God is by definition that then which nothing greater can be conceived
2. What exists actually and mentally is greater than that with exists only mentally.
3. Therefore, God must exist actually.
Aquinas had 3 objections to the argument:
1. Not everyone understands the term "God" to mean that then which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. Even if everyone did understand that the term God meant this, it does not follow that God exists actually.
3. The proposition "God exists" is self-evident, but not self-evident to us.
Descartes' formulation of the Ontological Argument
Descartes' argument (2nd form)
1. It is logically necessary to affirm of a concept whatever is essential to the nature of that concept.
2. Existence is a logically necessary part of the concept of a necessary Existent.
3. Therefore, it is logically necessary to affirm that a necessary Existent does exist.
"If God by definition cannot exist, then he must exist" (128).
Descartes' argument (1st form)
1. Whatever we clearly and distinctly perceive of something is true.
2. We clearly and distinctly perceive that the conception of an absolutely perfect Being necessitates the existence of that Being.
3. Therefore, it is true that an absolutely perfect Being cannot lack existence.
Descartes qualified his argument in three ways:
1. This argument applies only to an absolutely perfect or necessary being.
2. It is not necessary for anyone to think of God, but if and when he does he must conceive of God as necessarily existing.
3. To conceive of God as a necessary Being is not imaginary, but necessary. The concept of a necessary being must be what it is and cannot be any other way. Thus, the concept of a necessary Being cannot be the product of one's imagination.
The debate between Caters and Descartes
Caters the priest agreed with Thomas Aquinas in that he felt the Ontological Argument proved only a conceptual and not a real existence of God.
Caters contended that the words "existent lion" is conceptually necessary, but it does not prove that a lion exists.
Descartes stated that Aquinas refuted an argument that stated existence is concluded from the meaning of God, not his own argument.
Other reactions to Descartes' proofs
Other 17th century philosophers reacted negatively to Descartes' arguments. They restated his argument this way.
1. If it is not contradictory that God exists, then it is certain that He exists.
2. It is not contradictory that God exists.
3. Therefore, it is certain that God exists.
They objected to Descartes' argument in two ways:
1. The minor premise can be doubted or denied.
2. Descartes admitted that his idea of God was inadequate and thus unclear. By Descartes definition of truth as "clear and distinct" then it is untrue.
Descartes' replies:
1. God's nonexistence is noncontradictory in either of two senses of the word:
- Whatever does not disagree with human thought (God is noncontradictory)
- What cannot be known by the human mind (no one could know anything, thus God's existence is noncontradictory)
2. Even if our concept of God is inadequate it does not follow that it is contradictory. God's necessary existence is a clear concept, thus the argument is unaffected by lack of clarity in other aspects of God's nature.
The debate between Gassendi and Descartes.
Pierre Gassendi, a skeptic, contended that Descartes confused existence with a property. He argued with 7 points:
1. The essence of a thing can be thought of apart from its existence.
2. Existence is not a property.
3. Essence and existence can be distinguished only in thought, not in reality.
4. We are just as free to think of God as not existing as we are to think of Pegasus as not existing.
5. We need demonstration that God exists, not merely the assumption that it does.
6. Descartes did not really prove that nonexistence is incompatible with God.
Descartes replied to Gassendi with four points:
1. Existence is a property in that it is attributable to something. Necessary existence is a necessary property of a necessary being.
2. We cannot compare the existence of that which is contingent to the existence of what is necessary.
3. It is not begging the question to include existence among the attributes of a necessary Existent.
4. God's existence and essence are inseparable.
Leibniz's Consideration of the Ontological Argument
Leibniz held that the ontological argument was valid but sensed that it was necessary to demonstrate the concept of God was not contradictory.
He stated
1. If it is possible for an absolutely perfect Being to exist, then it is necessary that it exists.
2. It is possible (noncontradictory) for an absolutely perfect being to exist.
3. Therefore, it is necessary that an absolutely perfect Being exist.
To support his minor premise Leibniz argued that:
1. A perfection is a simple and irreducible quality without any essential limitations.
2. Whatever is simple cannot conflict with other irresolvably simple qualities (they differ in kind).
3. Whatever differs in kind with another cannot conflict with it.
4. Therefore, it is possible for on Being (God) to possess all possible perfections.
Three objections to Leibniz's arg.
1. It assumes that some qualities are essentially positive and others negative, but this may not be the case.
2. Leibniz assumes that some qualities are intrinsically simple, but Wittgenstein showed that what is simple in one conceptual system may be complex in another.
3. It depends on the principle of the actual identity which is conceptually indiscernible.
Spinoza's Ontological Proof
Like Descartes, Spinoza held that God was mathematically demonstrable.
Spinoza's argument:
1. There must be a cause for everything, either for its existence or for its nonexistence.
2. A necessary Being (God) necessarily exists, unless there is an adequate cause to explain why he does not exist.
3. There is no adequate cause to explain why he does not exist.
4. Therefore, a necessary Being, necessarily exists.
One may object to Spinoza's insistence that there must be a cause for nothing because it appears contradictory.
Spinoza's second form:
1. Something necessarily exists.
2. This necessary existence is either finite or infinite.
3. It is possible for this necessary existence to be infinite.
4. There must be a cause as to why this is not an infinite existence.
5. No finite existence can hinder this being (an infinite existence).
6. Therefore, this must be an infinite existence
Spinoza's arguments borrow from the premise that something exists from the cosmological argument.
Spinoza's God is not the theistic God of Leibniz or Anselm, it is a pantheistic God.
The Objections of Hume and Kant
Hume's Objection:
1. Nothing is rationally demonstrable unless the contrary implies a contradictory
2. Nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction
3. Whatever we conceive to exist we can conceive as nonexistent
4. There is no being whose existence implies a contradiction
5. Therefore, there is no being whose existence is rationally demonstrable.
Hume argues that no argument for God is rationally inescapable because it always contains premises that are logically deniable.
Kant's critique of the Ontological proof
Kant objected to the fact that we have no positive concept of a necessary Being (that which cannot be).
He also contended that necessity applied only to propositions, not existence.
Also, what is logically possible is not always ontologically possible.
Existence (Kant held) is not a predicate of a thing. It is not a perfection.
Supposed Causes of the Ontological Mistake
Opponents of the Ontological argument have blamed many sources of the ontological 'mistake'
1) Platonic Philosophy - Platonic epistemology holds that one can directly and intuitively know essences.
2) Metaphysical thinking - some argue that "is" or "exists" is only logical, not ontological.
3) Confusion of cause and reason - Causes need something outside of itself where a reason can be itself (Schopenhauer)
4) Use of a proper name - the use of a proper name implies existence (Russell)
5) The use of the English conditional. Alvin Plantinga claimed that "If Jones is a bachelor, then he is necessarily not married" does not imply "Jones is a bachelor". There may be no Jones. Likewise, "If God exists, then he Necessarily exists" does not imply "God exists" There may be no God at all.
Linehan - Unfair analogy!
"IF Jones is a bachelor, then he is necessarily not married" may not imply "Jones is a bachelor". There may be no Jones. But there is a bachelor. Likewise, "If God exists, then he necessarily exists" may not imply "God exists" But, there is a necessary existence which must be filled by a necessary Existent, which is God.
Findlay's Ontological Disproof of God.
The ontological argument has been widely rejected in modern times.
J. N. Findlay used the ontological proof against itself:
1. God must be thought of as a necessary Being, for anything else short of this would be unworthy of worship.
2. But existential necessary propositions cannot be true for necessity is merely a logical characteristic of propositions, not of reality.
3. Therefore, God cannot exist.
A simpler, proper form of this argument:
1. The only way a necessary Being could exist is to exist necessarily.
2. The proposition "God exists necessarily" is an existentially necessary proposition.
3. No existentially necessary propositions can be true.
4. Therefore, the proposition "God exists necessarily" cannot be true.
A theist can object to this in 4 ways:
1. Change the proposition "God exists necessarily" to "God exists". Then holding the proposition "God exists" as a logically necessary proposition to hold.
2. Deny that necessity applied to existential propositions makes them untrue. (Existentially necessary propositions can be true). Examples of existentially necessary propositions: "I am I". "There is an infinite number of prime numbers". "Square circles do not exist".
3. "God necessarily exists" is a special case (Anselm and Descartes).
4. Findlay's statement "there are no existentially necessary propositions" is an existentially necessary proposition.
Hartshorne's Restatement of the Ontological Proof.
Charles Hartshorne is one of the most ardent defenders of the ontological argument and states it like this:
1. The existence of a necessary being is either:
a) Impossible, and there is no example of it
b) Possible, but there is no example of it
c) Possible, and there is an example of it
2. Possible, but there is no example of it is meaningless because a necessary Being cannot be a possible being.
3. Impossible, and there is no example of it is not eliminated by the ontological argument, but the meaningfulness of the term 'necessary Being' is a justifiable assumption that may be defeated on other grounds.
Hartshorne's Argument:
1. All thought must refer to something beyond itself which is at least possible
2. The necessary existence of a necessary Being is at least possible.
3. With a necessary Being an "at-least-possible" existence is indistinguishable from a "possible and actual" existence. A necessary Being cannot have a "merely possible" existence.
4. Therefore, a necessary Being necessarily has both a possible and an actual existence.
Hartshorne's view of God is neither theistic and pantheistic. It is panentheistic.
Hartshorne states, "Either God is a meaningless term or there exists a divine Being" (141).
All versions of the ontological argument contain the implicit premise that what is rationally inescapable is the real.
Malcolm's restatement of the ontological proof
Malcolm believes that Kant invalidated Anselm's first form, but the second form is immune to all criticism.
Malcolm's restatement of Anselm's 2nd form:
1. The existence of a necessary being must be either:
a) a necessary existence
b) an impossible existence
c) a possible existence
2. The existence of a necessary Being is not an impossible existence
a) No one has ever shown the concept of a necessary being to be contradictory
b) there is a basis in human experience for "a greater than which cannot be thought"
c) Leibniz's attempt to prove that there is no contradiction fails. We cannot show that there cannot be one.
3. The existence of a necessary Being cannot be a possible being because:
a) it is contradictory to the very nature of a necessary being
b) a possible being is dependent, a necessary Being is independent
4. Therefore, A necessary Being Necessarily exists
Plantinga's Critique of the Ontological Argument
Plantinga argues that God could exist without his existence being a necessary one. His existence could be logically contingent but not ontologically so.
Planting states that it is logically possible that God never existed at all. It is logically possible that nothing ever existent including God.
All that proponents of the ontological argument have to do invalidate Plantinga's objections too.
Planting offers an ontological argument that is very cosmological. It has left the a priori realm and moved into the a posteriori realm.
Planting uses modal logic in his argument:
1. The property "has maximal greatness" entails the property "has maximal excellence in every possible world"
2. Maximal excellence entails omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection.
3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified.
4. There is a world "W" and an essence "E" such that "E" is exemplified in "W" and "E" entails the property "has maximal greatness in W"
5. For any object X, if X, exemplifies E then X exemplifies the property "has maximal excellence in every possible world".
6. E entails the property "has maximal excellence in every possible world".
7. If W had been actual, it would be impossible that E fail to be exemplified.
8. What is impossible does not vary from world to world.
9. There exists a being that has maximal excellence in every world.
10 Therefore, the being that has maximal excellence exists in the actual world.
Plantinga's argument is tight and compelling. It avoids many of the traditional criticism of the ontological argument. However there are a few criticisms:
1. The use of modal logic assumes existence of an actual world. Thus, it is a posteriori, not a priori.
2. Defining a perfect being in theistic terms is gratuitous.
3. The essence E is supposed by Plantinga to havre a real existence.
The ontological argument to be valid must assume that something exists and thus it rests on a cosmological principle.
The ontological argument has not proven God exists by itself. It has in fact yielded four types of God and a possible atheistic conception:
1. Leibniz & Descartes - theistic God
2. Spinoza - pantheistic God
3. Hartshorne - panentheistic God
4. Henle - polytheistic gods
5. Atheism - the universe is necessary, but does not include God
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Anselm's Ontological Arguments
(Originally written March 6, 2007 in Book 13)
Ontological Arguments
The ontological argument is supposed to leave the realm of experience and enter the realm of pure reason.
Some proponents of the ontological argument have stated that the existence of God is more necessary than the conclusions of mathematics.
Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) authored the argument as a "proof from prayer". Kant labeled it the ontological argument.
Anselm's First Ontological Proof
1. God is by definition that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. It is one thing to exist in the understanding only and another thing to exist both in the understanding and outside the understanding.
3. It is greater to exist both in the understanding and outside the understanding than in the understanding only.
4. Therefore, God must exist both in the understanding and outside the understanding. If he did not, then we could conceive of One who did, which would be greater. But God by definition is the greatest Being conceivable. Hence, God must exist.
Another way of stating it:
1. Whatever can be predicated of the most perfect Being possible must be affirmed of it.
2. It is possible to affirm a real existence of the most perfect Being possible.
3. Hence, a real existence of the most perfect Being must be affirmed.
Negative Form:
1. Nothing possible can be denied of the most perfect Being possible.
2. Real (extramental) existence is possible for the most perfect Being possible.
3. Therefore, real existence cannot be denied of the most perfect Being possible.
Anselm's second form of the Ontological Proof
1. It is logically necessary to affirm of a necessary existent what is logically necessary to the concept of such a Being.
2. Real existence is logically necessary to the concept of a necessary Existent.
3. Hence, it is logically necessary to affirm that a necessary Existent really exists.
Negative form:
1. It is logically impossible to deny what is necessary to the concept of a necessary Existent.
2. Real existence is logically necessary to the concept of a necessary Existent.
3. Therefore, it is logically impossible to deny real existence of a necessary Existent.
The first form is based on predictability of existence to an absolute perfect Being. The second form is based on the inconceivability of the non-existence of a Necessary Being.
Ontological Arguments
The ontological argument is supposed to leave the realm of experience and enter the realm of pure reason.
Some proponents of the ontological argument have stated that the existence of God is more necessary than the conclusions of mathematics.
Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) authored the argument as a "proof from prayer". Kant labeled it the ontological argument.
Anselm's First Ontological Proof
1. God is by definition that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. It is one thing to exist in the understanding only and another thing to exist both in the understanding and outside the understanding.
3. It is greater to exist both in the understanding and outside the understanding than in the understanding only.
4. Therefore, God must exist both in the understanding and outside the understanding. If he did not, then we could conceive of One who did, which would be greater. But God by definition is the greatest Being conceivable. Hence, God must exist.
Another way of stating it:
1. Whatever can be predicated of the most perfect Being possible must be affirmed of it.
2. It is possible to affirm a real existence of the most perfect Being possible.
3. Hence, a real existence of the most perfect Being must be affirmed.
Negative Form:
1. Nothing possible can be denied of the most perfect Being possible.
2. Real (extramental) existence is possible for the most perfect Being possible.
3. Therefore, real existence cannot be denied of the most perfect Being possible.
Anselm's second form of the Ontological Proof
1. It is logically necessary to affirm of a necessary existent what is logically necessary to the concept of such a Being.
2. Real existence is logically necessary to the concept of a necessary Existent.
3. Hence, it is logically necessary to affirm that a necessary Existent really exists.
Negative form:
1. It is logically impossible to deny what is necessary to the concept of a necessary Existent.
2. Real existence is logically necessary to the concept of a necessary Existent.
3. Therefore, it is logically impossible to deny real existence of a necessary Existent.
The first form is based on predictability of existence to an absolute perfect Being. The second form is based on the inconceivability of the non-existence of a Necessary Being.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)