(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.
Showing posts with label Ockham. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ockham. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Moral Arguments and Objections for God
(Originally written March 6, 2007 in Book 13)
Moral Arguments and Objections
The moral argument for God was not posited as a rational argument at first. It was merely used as a practical postulate.
Kant: Positing God out of Moral Necessity
Kant denied any possibility for theoretical proofs of an absolutely perfect being or Necessary Being. But, he did posit God because it was necessary for a God to be to make sense of moral experience.
The unity of happiness (the desire of all man) and morality (what all men ought to do) is Kant's greatest good or summum bonum.
Kant stated that people are unable to reach the summum bonum in this life or without God. Thus, it must be assumed that there is a God and an afterlife.
Rashdall: Positing God is Rationally Necessary
Hastings Rashdall argues that there must be an absolutely perfect moral Mind. He argues that an absolutely perfect moral Mind must exist to hold an objective moral law that is independent of individual minds. Since there is an independent and objective moral law an absolutely perfect moral Mind must exist.
Sorely: An Expansion of the Moral Argument
W.R. Sorely argues that there is an objective moral law independent of human consciousness despite a lack of conformity to it because:
1) People are conscious of this law
2) People acknowledge its claim on them without actually yielding to it
3) People admit its validity prior to recognizing it
4) No finite mind grasps its fullness
5) All finite minds together have not reached complete agreement on its meaning nor conformity to its ideal.
Sorely argues that an objective moral law is an idea and that ideas exist only in minds. Thus, there must be a supreme mind in which this objective moral law exists.
He contends that the moral law is not a formal part of the universe and therefore cannot be accounted for in natural terms.
Trueblood: Further Refinement of the Moral Argument
Elton Trueblood added to the moral argument in the tradition of Rashdall and Sorely.
He argued that there must be an objective moral law because otherwise:
1) There would be no agreement on the meaning of it
2) No ethical disagreements would have ever occurred because each person would be subjectively right.
3) Normal judgment would ever have been wrong
4) No ethical question could even be discussed
5) Contradiction would result
Also, he argued that the moral law is beyond individuals and humanity as a whole.
He stated there must be a Lawgiver that is a moral, personal Mind.
Lewis: Further Expansion of the Moral Argument
C.S. Lewis argued that:
1. There must be a universal moral law because otherwise:
- Disagreements would make no sense
- All criticism are meaningless
- Promise and treaty keeping are unnecessary
- We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law
2. This moral law cannot be herd instinct because otherwise:
-The strongest impulse would always win
-We would always act from instinct
-Some instincts would always be right
3. The moral law is not mere convention because:
- Not everything learned is a social convention
- Judgment about moral progress makes sense only if the basis for value judgment is independent of human society
- Variations in value judgments are largely factual, non-moral
4. The moral law cannot be identified with a law of nature because:
- The moral law is not a descriptive 'is' but a prescriptive 'ought'
- Situations factually more convenient are morally worse than these less convenient
- Factually convenient situations can be wrong
5. The moral law cannot be mere fancy
6. The person is the key to understanding this moral law
7. Therefore, there is an absolutely perfect power outside of man which is more like man than anything we know
Russell: Moral Disproof of God
1. If there is a moral law it comes from God's fiat or it does not.
2. If it comes from God's fiat is arbitrary and God is not essentially good
3. If it does not come from God's fiat than God is subject to the moral law and thus, not ultimate
4. Either God is not essentially good or else God is not ultimate
5. Neither an arbitrary God or a less than ultimate God is religiously worthy.
6. Therefore, there is no God who is worthy of religious devotion.
Some theists, following in Ockham's tradition argue that God's fiat is not arbitrary. Other theists, following Aquinas, argue that this is a false disjunction.
Bayle; The Basic Form of the Dilemma
Pierre Bayle (1647-1706) gave the basic logical moral argument against God:
1. Evil exists
2. An omnipotent God could destroy evil
3. A benevolent God would destroy evil.
4. Therefore, since evil is not destroyed then either
-God is omnipotent and malevolent
-God is benevolent but impotent
-God is malevolent and impotent
-God does not exist
Most non theists have not used this a definitive proof because
1. It is possible God is doing something to destroy evil
2. It is possible that there is some greater good achieved by allowing evil.
3. What seems evil may be a part of a greater good.
4. It is possible that it may be contradictory to God's will or man's free will to destroy evil
5. It is possible that God is all-perfect but not all-powerful.
Camus: Theism is contrary to Humanitarianism
Albert Camus claimed that if humanitarianism is right then theism is wrong.
He held that if there is a God, he must be worked against because he is the source of evil.
Other forms of the moral argument against God
Roland Puccetti argued against John H. Hick's defense of theism, stating:
1. There are instances of innocent suffering
2) An all-wise, all-powerful, all-good God would not allow innocent suffering
3. Therefore, such a God does not exist
Puccetti's argument does not logically rule out an all-perfect God.
Innocent suffering is no the same as unrewarded and unredeemed suffering.
It is possible that no suffering is innocent.
There are plausible explanations to why God permits suffering: Even if no theist knows these reasons it may still exist.
If the theistic God exists, there is a good explanation for all suffering.
H.J. McCloskey argued:
1. Either we should work to eliminate suffering or we should not
2. If we should not, then the moral law is wrong
3. If we should, then theism is wrong
4. The moral law is right
5. Therefore, theism is wrong
Moral disproofs of God all appear to be doomed to failure because they must assume some standard of justice from beyond this world.
Even if the anti-theist insists that the moral standard comes from something other than God he must admit a major premise of theism (an objective moral law).
Küng: Exercising Fundamental Thrust
Hans King, a Roman Catholic Theologian offered an argument that is both moral and cosmological:
1. Traditional defenses of God's existence are inadequate
2. Modern atheism is not rationally defensible, but it is not rationally refutable
3. Atheism has given way to nihilism
4. One must choose to affirm reality or deny it and fall into nihilism
5. When we affirm meaningfulness we exercise fundamental trust
6. Reality has not shown itself to be self-grounded
7. We must choose to see reality as grounded in something or not
8. We can say yes to God as the ground of reality.
Küng presents a disjunctive argument. God cannot both exist and not exist; reality cannot both be and not-be meaningful.
King does not demand that we choose God, only that choosing God is a rational decision. But he leaves atheism as a rational, albeit implausible choice as well.
No rationally inescapable moral proofs for God have been offered.
No definitive moral disproof of God has been offered.
The theistic case must demonstrate the plausibility of evil being a condition for a greater good.
When any anti-theist is proof is pressed too far it becomes an argument for God or at least grants a major premise in the theist's argument (objective moral law).
The theistic moral argument depends on the cosmological argument because laws need causes.
Moral Arguments and Objections
The moral argument for God was not posited as a rational argument at first. It was merely used as a practical postulate.
Kant: Positing God out of Moral Necessity
Kant denied any possibility for theoretical proofs of an absolutely perfect being or Necessary Being. But, he did posit God because it was necessary for a God to be to make sense of moral experience.
The unity of happiness (the desire of all man) and morality (what all men ought to do) is Kant's greatest good or summum bonum.
Kant stated that people are unable to reach the summum bonum in this life or without God. Thus, it must be assumed that there is a God and an afterlife.
Rashdall: Positing God is Rationally Necessary
Hastings Rashdall argues that there must be an absolutely perfect moral Mind. He argues that an absolutely perfect moral Mind must exist to hold an objective moral law that is independent of individual minds. Since there is an independent and objective moral law an absolutely perfect moral Mind must exist.
Sorely: An Expansion of the Moral Argument
W.R. Sorely argues that there is an objective moral law independent of human consciousness despite a lack of conformity to it because:
1) People are conscious of this law
2) People acknowledge its claim on them without actually yielding to it
3) People admit its validity prior to recognizing it
4) No finite mind grasps its fullness
5) All finite minds together have not reached complete agreement on its meaning nor conformity to its ideal.
Sorely argues that an objective moral law is an idea and that ideas exist only in minds. Thus, there must be a supreme mind in which this objective moral law exists.
He contends that the moral law is not a formal part of the universe and therefore cannot be accounted for in natural terms.
Trueblood: Further Refinement of the Moral Argument
Elton Trueblood added to the moral argument in the tradition of Rashdall and Sorely.
He argued that there must be an objective moral law because otherwise:
1) There would be no agreement on the meaning of it
2) No ethical disagreements would have ever occurred because each person would be subjectively right.
3) Normal judgment would ever have been wrong
4) No ethical question could even be discussed
5) Contradiction would result
Also, he argued that the moral law is beyond individuals and humanity as a whole.
He stated there must be a Lawgiver that is a moral, personal Mind.
Lewis: Further Expansion of the Moral Argument
C.S. Lewis argued that:
1. There must be a universal moral law because otherwise:
- Disagreements would make no sense
- All criticism are meaningless
- Promise and treaty keeping are unnecessary
- We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law
2. This moral law cannot be herd instinct because otherwise:
-The strongest impulse would always win
-We would always act from instinct
-Some instincts would always be right
3. The moral law is not mere convention because:
- Not everything learned is a social convention
- Judgment about moral progress makes sense only if the basis for value judgment is independent of human society
- Variations in value judgments are largely factual, non-moral
4. The moral law cannot be identified with a law of nature because:
- The moral law is not a descriptive 'is' but a prescriptive 'ought'
- Situations factually more convenient are morally worse than these less convenient
- Factually convenient situations can be wrong
5. The moral law cannot be mere fancy
6. The person is the key to understanding this moral law
7. Therefore, there is an absolutely perfect power outside of man which is more like man than anything we know
Russell: Moral Disproof of God
1. If there is a moral law it comes from God's fiat or it does not.
2. If it comes from God's fiat is arbitrary and God is not essentially good
3. If it does not come from God's fiat than God is subject to the moral law and thus, not ultimate
4. Either God is not essentially good or else God is not ultimate
5. Neither an arbitrary God or a less than ultimate God is religiously worthy.
6. Therefore, there is no God who is worthy of religious devotion.
Some theists, following in Ockham's tradition argue that God's fiat is not arbitrary. Other theists, following Aquinas, argue that this is a false disjunction.
Bayle; The Basic Form of the Dilemma
Pierre Bayle (1647-1706) gave the basic logical moral argument against God:
1. Evil exists
2. An omnipotent God could destroy evil
3. A benevolent God would destroy evil.
4. Therefore, since evil is not destroyed then either
-God is omnipotent and malevolent
-God is benevolent but impotent
-God is malevolent and impotent
-God does not exist
Most non theists have not used this a definitive proof because
1. It is possible God is doing something to destroy evil
2. It is possible that there is some greater good achieved by allowing evil.
3. What seems evil may be a part of a greater good.
4. It is possible that it may be contradictory to God's will or man's free will to destroy evil
5. It is possible that God is all-perfect but not all-powerful.
Camus: Theism is contrary to Humanitarianism
Albert Camus claimed that if humanitarianism is right then theism is wrong.
He held that if there is a God, he must be worked against because he is the source of evil.
Other forms of the moral argument against God
Roland Puccetti argued against John H. Hick's defense of theism, stating:
1. There are instances of innocent suffering
2) An all-wise, all-powerful, all-good God would not allow innocent suffering
3. Therefore, such a God does not exist
Puccetti's argument does not logically rule out an all-perfect God.
Innocent suffering is no the same as unrewarded and unredeemed suffering.
It is possible that no suffering is innocent.
There are plausible explanations to why God permits suffering: Even if no theist knows these reasons it may still exist.
If the theistic God exists, there is a good explanation for all suffering.
H.J. McCloskey argued:
1. Either we should work to eliminate suffering or we should not
2. If we should not, then the moral law is wrong
3. If we should, then theism is wrong
4. The moral law is right
5. Therefore, theism is wrong
Moral disproofs of God all appear to be doomed to failure because they must assume some standard of justice from beyond this world.
Even if the anti-theist insists that the moral standard comes from something other than God he must admit a major premise of theism (an objective moral law).
Küng: Exercising Fundamental Thrust
Hans King, a Roman Catholic Theologian offered an argument that is both moral and cosmological:
1. Traditional defenses of God's existence are inadequate
2. Modern atheism is not rationally defensible, but it is not rationally refutable
3. Atheism has given way to nihilism
4. One must choose to affirm reality or deny it and fall into nihilism
5. When we affirm meaningfulness we exercise fundamental trust
6. Reality has not shown itself to be self-grounded
7. We must choose to see reality as grounded in something or not
8. We can say yes to God as the ground of reality.
Küng presents a disjunctive argument. God cannot both exist and not exist; reality cannot both be and not-be meaningful.
King does not demand that we choose God, only that choosing God is a rational decision. But he leaves atheism as a rational, albeit implausible choice as well.
No rationally inescapable moral proofs for God have been offered.
No definitive moral disproof of God has been offered.
The theistic case must demonstrate the plausibility of evil being a condition for a greater good.
When any anti-theist is proof is pressed too far it becomes an argument for God or at least grants a major premise in the theist's argument (objective moral law).
The theistic moral argument depends on the cosmological argument because laws need causes.
Thursday, December 7, 2006
Duns Scotus, William of Ockham and Universals
(Originally written December 7, 2006 in Book 7)
History of Philosophy I notes
Duns Scotus (1265-1308)
-Prefers univocal regarding language applied to God
Scouts maintained that not only does God's essence play a role in his existence, but individual men's essences play a role in their existence.
Principle of individuation
-Aquinas claimed that matter was what gave individual things their individuality
-Scotus believed it was an individual essence or a "haecceity" that distinguished us from all other things, not mere matter
Natural Theology
- Far less confident in the power of reason to teach us about God then Aquinas was
- Scotus' standards of proof are much more rigorous than Aquinas' standards
Problem of Induction
-First to identify the problem
- His solution was to focus on the cause and effect and state that there is a certain necessity in causal relations
-His solution was satisfactory until David Hume
Freedom of the Will
-Aquinas held that the intellect was primary, not the will
-Scotus held that the will is primary
The will is:
1. Contingent - has the power of contrary choice
2. Self-caused - the will has no other cause than itself (like God
The self-caused will is an early version of the libertarian doctrine of the will
William of Ockham (ca. 1285 - 1349)
-Born in London
-Franciscan, just like Scotus
-Even more negative regarding natural theology than Scotus
-Faith contradicts reason, but we must follow faith
-Regarded omnipotence as God's power to do literally anything
-God could produce the world in such a way that he made it without any matter
-The object of our knowledge is particulars, but we use universals
-Generally he is regarded as a nominalist, but he could be called a conceptualist
-What is explained on X number of principles is needless explained by more (Ockham's razor)
-Other things being equal, the simpler explanation is better or preferred (Ockham's razor)
-Ockham's Razor was useful in the history of Philosophy and the history of Science
Summary of the thoughts on Universals
Schools of thought on Universals
1. Realism (Plato, Anselm, Augustine) - there are eternal ideas, otherwise we couldn't know general things.
Problem: Where are the ideas
2. Nominalism (Stoics, Sophists) - there are no universals, only particulars
Problem: Can't account for use of general terms or general ideas
3. Conceptualism (Peter Abelard, Locke, Berkeley) - Universals exist as mental concepts
History of Philosophy I notes
Duns Scotus (1265-1308)
-Prefers univocal regarding language applied to God
Scouts maintained that not only does God's essence play a role in his existence, but individual men's essences play a role in their existence.
Principle of individuation
-Aquinas claimed that matter was what gave individual things their individuality
-Scotus believed it was an individual essence or a "haecceity" that distinguished us from all other things, not mere matter
Natural Theology
- Far less confident in the power of reason to teach us about God then Aquinas was
- Scotus' standards of proof are much more rigorous than Aquinas' standards
Problem of Induction
-First to identify the problem
- His solution was to focus on the cause and effect and state that there is a certain necessity in causal relations
-His solution was satisfactory until David Hume
Freedom of the Will
-Aquinas held that the intellect was primary, not the will
-Scotus held that the will is primary
The will is:
1. Contingent - has the power of contrary choice
2. Self-caused - the will has no other cause than itself (like God
The self-caused will is an early version of the libertarian doctrine of the will
William of Ockham (ca. 1285 - 1349)
-Born in London
-Franciscan, just like Scotus
-Even more negative regarding natural theology than Scotus
-Faith contradicts reason, but we must follow faith
-Regarded omnipotence as God's power to do literally anything
-God could produce the world in such a way that he made it without any matter
-The object of our knowledge is particulars, but we use universals
-Generally he is regarded as a nominalist, but he could be called a conceptualist
-What is explained on X number of principles is needless explained by more (Ockham's razor)
-Other things being equal, the simpler explanation is better or preferred (Ockham's razor)
-Ockham's Razor was useful in the history of Philosophy and the history of Science
Summary of the thoughts on Universals
Schools of thought on Universals
1. Realism (Plato, Anselm, Augustine) - there are eternal ideas, otherwise we couldn't know general things.
Problem: Where are the ideas
2. Nominalism (Stoics, Sophists) - there are no universals, only particulars
Problem: Can't account for use of general terms or general ideas
3. Conceptualism (Peter Abelard, Locke, Berkeley) - Universals exist as mental concepts
William of Ockham
(Originally written December 7, 2006 in Book 7)
Classics of Philosophy 2nd Ed.
Louis P. Pojman
William of Ockham
-born in Ockham, England circa 1285
-Joined the Franciscan order
-Studied at Oxford
-Accused of heresy in 1324
-Fled to Munich to be protected by the Emperor Ludwig of Bavaria
-Best known for the 'Law of Parsimony' or 'Ockham's Razor' - we should always adopt the simpler explanation if we can
Ockham applied this to the problem of universals and particulars
He held that all there was was particulars or substances and that universal were unnecessary inventions.
He was an advocate of Nominalism. He has been viewed as the founder of that school of thought.
Summa Logicae
William of Ockham
Part 1:
Ch. 14: On the Universal
The term 'particular' has two senses:
1) A particular is that which is one and not many. Universals are actually particulars in this sense. Though they are represented in many things they are actually still one thing and not many.
2) A particular is that which one and not many and which cannot function as a sign of many.
Ockham holds that if we take the term 'universal' to mean that which is not one in number, then there is no such thing as a universal.
A universal is one particular thing and is only universal in signification.
There are two kinds of universals:
1) Universals by nature
2) Universals by convention (i.e. language)
Chapter 15: That the Universal is not a thing outside the mind
No universal is a particular substance.
1) Every substance is numerically one
2) There is no good reason why one substance should be a universal and not another
3) Therefore, no particular substance is a universal
1) If some substance is several things, then it is either several universal things or several particular things.
2) Either there will be an infinite regress to follow or it will be granted that no substance is a universal in a way that is incompatible with it being a particular too.
3) Therefore, no substance is a universal.
If universals were substances then no creation would happen.
After presenting his own argument to appeal to Aristotle who says that, "it is impossible that substance be something that can be predicated universally" (Pojman, 489).
Every universal is an invention of the mind. All propositions are composed of universals.
Ch. 16: Against Scotus' account of the universal
The view that universals and particulars differ only formally, not really is not a view Ockham endorses.
There can be no distinction in the mind if there is no distinction in reality.
There is no such thing as a formal distinction. All distinct things are really distinct.
Classics of Philosophy 2nd Ed.
Louis P. Pojman
William of Ockham
-born in Ockham, England circa 1285
-Joined the Franciscan order
-Studied at Oxford
-Accused of heresy in 1324
-Fled to Munich to be protected by the Emperor Ludwig of Bavaria
-Best known for the 'Law of Parsimony' or 'Ockham's Razor' - we should always adopt the simpler explanation if we can
Ockham applied this to the problem of universals and particulars
He held that all there was was particulars or substances and that universal were unnecessary inventions.
He was an advocate of Nominalism. He has been viewed as the founder of that school of thought.
Summa Logicae
William of Ockham
Part 1:
Ch. 14: On the Universal
The term 'particular' has two senses:
1) A particular is that which is one and not many. Universals are actually particulars in this sense. Though they are represented in many things they are actually still one thing and not many.
2) A particular is that which one and not many and which cannot function as a sign of many.
Ockham holds that if we take the term 'universal' to mean that which is not one in number, then there is no such thing as a universal.
A universal is one particular thing and is only universal in signification.
There are two kinds of universals:
1) Universals by nature
2) Universals by convention (i.e. language)
Chapter 15: That the Universal is not a thing outside the mind
No universal is a particular substance.
1) Every substance is numerically one
2) There is no good reason why one substance should be a universal and not another
3) Therefore, no particular substance is a universal
1) If some substance is several things, then it is either several universal things or several particular things.
2) Either there will be an infinite regress to follow or it will be granted that no substance is a universal in a way that is incompatible with it being a particular too.
3) Therefore, no substance is a universal.
If universals were substances then no creation would happen.
After presenting his own argument to appeal to Aristotle who says that, "it is impossible that substance be something that can be predicated universally" (Pojman, 489).
Every universal is an invention of the mind. All propositions are composed of universals.
Ch. 16: Against Scotus' account of the universal
The view that universals and particulars differ only formally, not really is not a view Ockham endorses.
There can be no distinction in the mind if there is no distinction in reality.
There is no such thing as a formal distinction. All distinct things are really distinct.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
The 13th Century
(Originally written July 29, 2006 in Book 5)
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter XII - The 13th Century
The great men of the 13th century were:
1) Innocent III
2) St. Francis
3) Frederick II
4) Thomas Aquinas
Pope Innocent III reigned from 1198-1216. Innocent III was a shrewd politician and assured Papal supremacy in Sicily, Portugal and Aragon. After resistance, King John conceded England under Papal supremacy.
He destroyed the Albigenses, a heretical group in southern France. He "rooted out heresy, happiness, and culture from southern France" (Russell, 442).
He had Emperor Otto deposed by the German people.
"Innocent III was the first great pope in whom there was no element of sanctity" (Russell, 443).
He codified Canon Law, increasing the power of the Curia.
Frederick II became Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire through Innocent's endorsement. Innocent III would die before Frederick II assumed the position of a formidable antagonist to the Church.
Frederick II was the son of Henry IV and Constance (heir to the Sicilian throne). His childhood was marred with Sicilian wars with Muslims, Germans, Pisans, and Genoese.
The culture of Sicily was a combination of Arabic, Italian, Greek, Byzantine and German cultures.
Frederick II spoke six languages fluently and wittily. He was familiar with Arabic philosophy. He was a Hohenstaufen and could thus be considered German. He was culturally akin to Italians however.
Frederick II's problems with the papacy came when he refused to go on crusade. He was excommunicated later by Pope Gregory IX for not going on crusades and waging war in Lombardy.
He married the daughter of the King of Jerusalem and after the king's death calls himself the king of Jerusalem, infuriating the Pope. He integrated Muslims back into Jerusalem, thus further infuriating the Pope.
Eventually peace was restored between Emperor and Pope in 1230.
He systematized the laws of Sicily (where he was also king).
He founded an important university at Naples.
He freed up trade.
He was once again excommunicated in 1237 for waging war against the Lombards.
His successors after his death in 1250 were not as powerful and the Papacy absorbed power and Italy was left divided.
The heresies of the 13th century are important to study:
The Carthi or Albigenses were the largest sect of heresy at the time. They existed primarily in Northern Italy and Southern France. The Carthi were dualists. They regarded the Old Testament God as wicked. They regarded matter as evil. They believed that virtuous men had no resurrection of the body. They believed that the wicked would suffer transmigration into the bodies of animals. For this they were vegetarians, even abstaining from eggs, cheese, and milk. They ate fish because they did not think that fish reproduced sexually. They despised sex, even inside of marriage. They did not object to suicide. They interpreted the New Testament entirely literally. One who was persecuted offered his defense by claiming that he ate meat, lied and swore like any other good Catholic.
The genealogy of the Carthi is interesting. Carthi (from) Bogomiles (in Bulgaria) - a fusion of Manichaeans and Paulicians. The Manichaeans were founded by Mani and once had Augustine as a proponent.
The Paulicians were followers of Marcion. They were an Armenian sect. They rejected:
1) Infant baptism
2) Purgatory
3) The invocation of the saints
4) The Trinity
5) The Jewish elements of Christianity
The other important heresy of the 13th century were the Waldenses. They were followers of Peter Waldo.
Peter Waldo founded the "Poor Men of Lyons". They were originally papally sanctioned, but were condemned for condemning immorality in the clergy too vocally. They then split from the church.
They existed in Lombardy and Bohemia, eventually paving the way for Jan Hus. They still exist today in the Alpines and in the US.
Heresy was combatted by the Pope in founding the Inquisition in 1233 by Pope Gregory IX.
The Inquisition was mainly performed by the Dominican and Franciscans.
The Church was in danger of a revolt in the 13th century, but was saved by mendicant orders.
St. Francis of Assisi was born around 1181 and died in 1226. He was well-to-do, but later devoted himself to poverty, despite furious family members. Pope Innocent III recognized St. Francis' followers as an order around 1210. St. Francis was one of the most lovable men in History and a saint among saints. But after his death the Franciscans fell into a trap.
"If Satan existed, the future of the order founded by Saint Francis would afford him the most exquisite gratification" (Russell, 450). Linehan - this is an off-hand remark that is completely unnecessary to the conversation. It is another cheap shot by Russell.
The Franciscans became another wealthy order in the Church hierarchy after Francis' death. They took an active role in the Inquisition and suppression of free thought.
Saint Dominic (1170 - 1221) devoted himself to combatting heresy. He founded his order in 1215.
The Dominicans were even more active in the Inquisition. They were devoted to learning. Dominicans provided two great philosophers intent on reconciling Aristotle to Christ:
1) Albertus Magnus
2) Thomas Aquinas
The Franciscans produced three great philosophers:
1) Roger Bacon
2) Duns Scotus
3) William of Occam
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter XII - The 13th Century
The great men of the 13th century were:
1) Innocent III
2) St. Francis
3) Frederick II
4) Thomas Aquinas
Pope Innocent III reigned from 1198-1216. Innocent III was a shrewd politician and assured Papal supremacy in Sicily, Portugal and Aragon. After resistance, King John conceded England under Papal supremacy.
He destroyed the Albigenses, a heretical group in southern France. He "rooted out heresy, happiness, and culture from southern France" (Russell, 442).
He had Emperor Otto deposed by the German people.
"Innocent III was the first great pope in whom there was no element of sanctity" (Russell, 443).
He codified Canon Law, increasing the power of the Curia.
Frederick II became Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire through Innocent's endorsement. Innocent III would die before Frederick II assumed the position of a formidable antagonist to the Church.
Frederick II was the son of Henry IV and Constance (heir to the Sicilian throne). His childhood was marred with Sicilian wars with Muslims, Germans, Pisans, and Genoese.
The culture of Sicily was a combination of Arabic, Italian, Greek, Byzantine and German cultures.
Frederick II spoke six languages fluently and wittily. He was familiar with Arabic philosophy. He was a Hohenstaufen and could thus be considered German. He was culturally akin to Italians however.
Frederick II's problems with the papacy came when he refused to go on crusade. He was excommunicated later by Pope Gregory IX for not going on crusades and waging war in Lombardy.
He married the daughter of the King of Jerusalem and after the king's death calls himself the king of Jerusalem, infuriating the Pope. He integrated Muslims back into Jerusalem, thus further infuriating the Pope.
Eventually peace was restored between Emperor and Pope in 1230.
He systematized the laws of Sicily (where he was also king).
He founded an important university at Naples.
He freed up trade.
He was once again excommunicated in 1237 for waging war against the Lombards.
His successors after his death in 1250 were not as powerful and the Papacy absorbed power and Italy was left divided.
The heresies of the 13th century are important to study:
The Carthi or Albigenses were the largest sect of heresy at the time. They existed primarily in Northern Italy and Southern France. The Carthi were dualists. They regarded the Old Testament God as wicked. They regarded matter as evil. They believed that virtuous men had no resurrection of the body. They believed that the wicked would suffer transmigration into the bodies of animals. For this they were vegetarians, even abstaining from eggs, cheese, and milk. They ate fish because they did not think that fish reproduced sexually. They despised sex, even inside of marriage. They did not object to suicide. They interpreted the New Testament entirely literally. One who was persecuted offered his defense by claiming that he ate meat, lied and swore like any other good Catholic.
The genealogy of the Carthi is interesting. Carthi (from) Bogomiles (in Bulgaria) - a fusion of Manichaeans and Paulicians. The Manichaeans were founded by Mani and once had Augustine as a proponent.
The Paulicians were followers of Marcion. They were an Armenian sect. They rejected:
1) Infant baptism
2) Purgatory
3) The invocation of the saints
4) The Trinity
5) The Jewish elements of Christianity
The other important heresy of the 13th century were the Waldenses. They were followers of Peter Waldo.
Peter Waldo founded the "Poor Men of Lyons". They were originally papally sanctioned, but were condemned for condemning immorality in the clergy too vocally. They then split from the church.
They existed in Lombardy and Bohemia, eventually paving the way for Jan Hus. They still exist today in the Alpines and in the US.
Heresy was combatted by the Pope in founding the Inquisition in 1233 by Pope Gregory IX.
The Inquisition was mainly performed by the Dominican and Franciscans.
The Church was in danger of a revolt in the 13th century, but was saved by mendicant orders.
St. Francis of Assisi was born around 1181 and died in 1226. He was well-to-do, but later devoted himself to poverty, despite furious family members. Pope Innocent III recognized St. Francis' followers as an order around 1210. St. Francis was one of the most lovable men in History and a saint among saints. But after his death the Franciscans fell into a trap.
"If Satan existed, the future of the order founded by Saint Francis would afford him the most exquisite gratification" (Russell, 450). Linehan - this is an off-hand remark that is completely unnecessary to the conversation. It is another cheap shot by Russell.
The Franciscans became another wealthy order in the Church hierarchy after Francis' death. They took an active role in the Inquisition and suppression of free thought.
Saint Dominic (1170 - 1221) devoted himself to combatting heresy. He founded his order in 1215.
The Dominicans were even more active in the Inquisition. They were devoted to learning. Dominicans provided two great philosophers intent on reconciling Aristotle to Christ:
1) Albertus Magnus
2) Thomas Aquinas
The Franciscans produced three great philosophers:
1) Roger Bacon
2) Duns Scotus
3) William of Occam
Chapter 14 - Franciscan Schoolmen
(Originally written July 29, 2006 in Book 5)
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter 14 - Franciscan Schoolmen
The Franciscans and Dominicans were bitter rivals. The Franciscans were less orthodox. They were disinclined to accept the authority of Thomas Aquinas (a Dominican).
The Franciscans produced Roger Bacon, Duns Scotus, William of Occam, Saint Bonaventura and Matthew of Aquasparta.
Roger Bacon lived from 1214-1294. Bacon was a philosopher and a man of science. Science was mixed up with black magic and alchemy at the time so Bacon was in constant danger of being labeled a heretic. He was placed under a no-publish edict by the head of the Franciscans, but commanded by the papal legate to England to write his philosophy for the benefit o the Pope. He wrote three books in a very short time:
1) Opus Majus
2) Opus Minus
3) Opus Tertium
He was imprisoned for condemning clerics for ignorance. He was imprisoned 14 years and died shortly after being released. He was experimental by nature; encyclopedic but not systematic. He was a good geographer and a good mathematician. He thought logic was useless and wrote on alchemy.
He believed there were four causes for ignorance:
1) frail and unsuitable authority
2) influence of custom
3) the opinion of the unlearned crowd
4) the concealment of ignorance by apparent wisdom
All ignorance produces the evils that plague mankind. The fourth is the worst.
He considers Aristotle to be the chief philosopher and Avicenna the price.
He sees no fault in finding truth from the heathen and quotes Avicenna, Averroes, Alfarabi and Albumazar.
He sees mathematics as the only unrivaled source of certitude.
He believed that the intellect is separate from the soul.
Modern times praise Bacon because he places experimentation as a source of knowledge in higher esteem than argumentation as a source.
He believed in magic and astrology.
He is more respected now than he was in medieval times.
St. Bonaventura (1221-1274) was the General of the Franciscan order. He believed in the ontological argument for God. He believed in Platonic Ideas and saw Aristotelianism as in opposition to Christianity. He quoted Augustine extensively but ignored Pagan and Arab philosophies.
Matthew of Aquasparta (1235-1302) was a follower of Bonaventura. He opposed Aquinas from an Augustinian point of view. He quotes Aristotle, Avicenna, Anselm, the pseudo-dionysius and chiefly, Augustine.
He believed that Plato's ideas produce wisdom, but not knowledge and Aristotle produced knowledge but not wisdom. He sought to sync the two.
Duns Scotus (1270-1308) was Scottish and joined the Franciscans at Oxford University. He fought Aquinas on the immaculate conception and won the argument. He was Augustinian but less severe than other Franciscans.
Franciscans often disagreed with Aquinas because he was Aristotelian and the Franciscans were Platonic (through Augustine).
Scouts was a moderate realist, believed in Free Will and leaned somewhat to Pelagianism.
He held that there was no difference between being and essence.
He focused on evidence, things knowable without proof. There were three kinds of evidence:
1) Principles known by themselves
2) Things known by experience
3) our own actions
Without divine illumination no one can know anything.
He held the the principle of individuation (what makes one thing not identical with another) was due to form, not matter.
William of Occam is the second most important scholastic philosopher next to Aquinas. He lived circa 1290-1350. He was a pupil, then a rival of Scotus. He was excommunicated by Pope John XXII and took refuge with Emperor Louis (who was likewise excommunicated).
Dante (1265-1321) was an influential commentator in this age. Marsiglio of Padua (1270-1342) was a friend of William of Occham and a great political force of the time (in theory, not action). Marsiglio and William sought to preserve the Catholic faith, but fought against papal absolutism.
William's political works are done in a philosophical disputation style. William is best known for Occam's razor "it is vain to do with more what can be done with fewer" (Russell, 472).
In logic, William of Occam was a homilist.
He set to free logic and theory of knowledge from the basis of metaphysics and theology.
He holds that there are six metaphysical terms:
1) being
2) thing
3) something
4) one
5) true
6) good
He holds universals are things that can be predicated to many.
William of Occam believed perception to be the definition of knowledge.
His work encouraged scientific research.
After William of Occam there were no great scholastic philosophers.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter 14 - Franciscan Schoolmen
The Franciscans and Dominicans were bitter rivals. The Franciscans were less orthodox. They were disinclined to accept the authority of Thomas Aquinas (a Dominican).
The Franciscans produced Roger Bacon, Duns Scotus, William of Occam, Saint Bonaventura and Matthew of Aquasparta.
Roger Bacon lived from 1214-1294. Bacon was a philosopher and a man of science. Science was mixed up with black magic and alchemy at the time so Bacon was in constant danger of being labeled a heretic. He was placed under a no-publish edict by the head of the Franciscans, but commanded by the papal legate to England to write his philosophy for the benefit o the Pope. He wrote three books in a very short time:
1) Opus Majus
2) Opus Minus
3) Opus Tertium
He was imprisoned for condemning clerics for ignorance. He was imprisoned 14 years and died shortly after being released. He was experimental by nature; encyclopedic but not systematic. He was a good geographer and a good mathematician. He thought logic was useless and wrote on alchemy.
He believed there were four causes for ignorance:
1) frail and unsuitable authority
2) influence of custom
3) the opinion of the unlearned crowd
4) the concealment of ignorance by apparent wisdom
All ignorance produces the evils that plague mankind. The fourth is the worst.
He considers Aristotle to be the chief philosopher and Avicenna the price.
He sees no fault in finding truth from the heathen and quotes Avicenna, Averroes, Alfarabi and Albumazar.
He sees mathematics as the only unrivaled source of certitude.
He believed that the intellect is separate from the soul.
Modern times praise Bacon because he places experimentation as a source of knowledge in higher esteem than argumentation as a source.
He believed in magic and astrology.
He is more respected now than he was in medieval times.
St. Bonaventura (1221-1274) was the General of the Franciscan order. He believed in the ontological argument for God. He believed in Platonic Ideas and saw Aristotelianism as in opposition to Christianity. He quoted Augustine extensively but ignored Pagan and Arab philosophies.
Matthew of Aquasparta (1235-1302) was a follower of Bonaventura. He opposed Aquinas from an Augustinian point of view. He quotes Aristotle, Avicenna, Anselm, the pseudo-dionysius and chiefly, Augustine.
He believed that Plato's ideas produce wisdom, but not knowledge and Aristotle produced knowledge but not wisdom. He sought to sync the two.
Duns Scotus (1270-1308) was Scottish and joined the Franciscans at Oxford University. He fought Aquinas on the immaculate conception and won the argument. He was Augustinian but less severe than other Franciscans.
Franciscans often disagreed with Aquinas because he was Aristotelian and the Franciscans were Platonic (through Augustine).
Scouts was a moderate realist, believed in Free Will and leaned somewhat to Pelagianism.
He held that there was no difference between being and essence.
He focused on evidence, things knowable without proof. There were three kinds of evidence:
1) Principles known by themselves
2) Things known by experience
3) our own actions
Without divine illumination no one can know anything.
He held the the principle of individuation (what makes one thing not identical with another) was due to form, not matter.
William of Occam is the second most important scholastic philosopher next to Aquinas. He lived circa 1290-1350. He was a pupil, then a rival of Scotus. He was excommunicated by Pope John XXII and took refuge with Emperor Louis (who was likewise excommunicated).
Dante (1265-1321) was an influential commentator in this age. Marsiglio of Padua (1270-1342) was a friend of William of Occham and a great political force of the time (in theory, not action). Marsiglio and William sought to preserve the Catholic faith, but fought against papal absolutism.
William's political works are done in a philosophical disputation style. William is best known for Occam's razor "it is vain to do with more what can be done with fewer" (Russell, 472).
In logic, William of Occam was a homilist.
He set to free logic and theory of knowledge from the basis of metaphysics and theology.
He holds that there are six metaphysical terms:
1) being
2) thing
3) something
4) one
5) true
6) good
He holds universals are things that can be predicated to many.
William of Occam believed perception to be the definition of knowledge.
His work encouraged scientific research.
After William of Occam there were no great scholastic philosophers.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Metaphysics - Ch. 3
(Originally written July 23, 2006 in Book 6)
Metaphysics - Peter van Inwagen
Chapter 3 - Externality
Individual things exist outside of a mind.
Why is it not obvious that an external world exists?
One cannot be mistaken of what one is feeling or what one is presently thinking about. Both thoughts and feelings are of the mind. Feelings or thoughts are either individual things or modifications of individual things. Since they are not physical, but mental, if they are in fact modifications, they must be modifications of a mental individual thing. Thus, if individual things exist, at least one of them must be mental.
Berkeley believed in individual things, but that all individual things were mental. He held that all one senses are properties (color, shape, texture, taste) and properties belong to the mind. Thus, all things with properties belong to the mind. Berkeley asked if there is an external world, how can we know anything of it?
Most people will grant that color is mental, but will balk at the notion that shape is mental.
Berkeley argues that there are two kinds of shape: visual and tactile. Visual shapes exist without tactile shapes when one sees a shape but does not touch it. Tactile shapes exist when one touches a shape but does not see it. Visual shapes and tactile shapes are not the same property and neither can exist independently of the mind. The actual shape (combination of the two) is therefore illusionary. Thus, if something could exist independently of the mind it couldn't have properties of shape or color.
Berkeley instead that since we cannot know anything of the external world we cannot believe it exists either. If we do believe in it we would have to become thorough skeptics and admit that we have no valid reason for believing the external world exists.
Solipsists believe that the source of our sensations come from within us, but Berkeley does not believe this. If our sensations do not come from inside us (our sensations being our experiences and how we experience them) where do they come from? Common Western Metaphysics holds that experiences and how we interact with them (producing sensations) come from the external world. Berkeley holds that these experiences do come from a mind, but not our own. All things that are seemingly a part of the physical world are actually the product of the mind of God. God, like all humans, is an independent mind, but He is the Supreme Mind. God created all other minds and thus they are modifications. The senses are modifications of the mind. God coordinates all individual minds' senses to fit together like a big jigsaw puzzle. Thus, when two people look at the same object their perception is very similar (though not identical). Berkeley states this is how God created "all the furniture of the earth", the thing we perceive as the physical world. "He [God] carefully coordinates the sensations that come to all human minds in such a way that a common world is available to these minds" (van Inwagen, 47).
Linehan - I like this, but it makes me wonder about sin, evil and Evil.
Berkeley does not claim that God created an illusionary world though. He believes that in God creating minds and properties for the minds to perceive He created things that really exist.
A critic of Berkeley once wrote a limerick poking fun at Berkeley's theory. (I had heard this before, but not the response. I understood why it did not really do anything other than misrepresent Berkeley's theory, but like the response a lot).
Msgr. Ronald Knox:
"There was once a man who said, 'God
must think it exceedingly odd
if he finds that this tree
continues to be
when there's no one about it in the Quad"
Basically Knox said if all things are mental and no mind is 'physically' there to perceive it then it would cease to exist. Knox (as do most men) thinks that this would be absurd. But Berkeley argued that the Supreme Mind (God) perceived all 'physical' things at all times. Thus, even when a human mind is not present to perceive the individual tree, it remains, as an object of the mind, specifically the mind of God. Here is the response by an anonymous writer to Ronald Knox.
"Dear Sir,
Your astonishment's odd
I am always in the Quad
And that's why the tree
will continue to be
since observed by
Yours faithfully,
God
Linehan - Brilliant! (Bad beer commercial reference)
An idealist has not choice but to believe in a supreme being since a supreme mind is needed to sustain mental existence (which is all that exists).
Theism is the belief in the Supreme Being.
Externalism is the belief in a physical world, independent of minds.
Realism is the belief that the physical world is what causes our sensations.
Realism is a more plausible option because it requires a simpler explanation.
Occam's Razor was created by William of Ockham. It states basically that if theories compete for acceptance and give full account of all evidence then the theory that requires less speculation should be accepted over the theory that requires more speculation. If Occam's razor suggests that we should accept realism over idealism, why then would anyone accept idealism?
Berkeley claims that we all have minds and we all know our own mind. He claims that to hold to externalism, a belief in things other than the mind, is actually more speculative then to believe in only the existence of minds.
Why?
Well, we all have a mind, so to believe that others have minds that work in a similar way is not much of a stretch. Also, even though God, the Supreme Mind, is much more than our own mind it is nonetheless a mind and to believe it operates in a similar fashion is not much of a stretch. But to believe in the existence of an external world (something minds have no experience of) is more speculative then only believing in minds. Thus, by Occam's razor, Berkeley asserts idealism over realism.
Linehan - I don't know enough about Occam's razor to make a judgment, but the little I do understand of it leads me to question it. Should we always accept a simpler judgment? Yes, in some cases it is better to accept the 'plain' answer, but I don't believe that the razor should be an unquestionable universal procedure.
Van Inwagen argues that Berkeley bases his theory on two very doubtful assumptions:
1) A common object is nothing more than (or nothing apart from) its sensible properties
2) The sensible properties of common objects are the same things as the sensations we have when we see or touch (or hear or taste or smell) common objects
The common western metaphysic believes that properties exists so that they can be 'had' by something. To define an object by its properties and then state that once the list of properties have been exhausted there is nothing left and thus only properties exist is playing word games.
A thing must exist in order for properties to be, according to the common western metaphysic.
Also properties that exist in the mind are different than properties that exist as a feature of the object.
A person experiences a property when one comes into contact with a thing that contains a correlating property. (We experience whiteness when we experience paper, which is white)
Before studying metaphysics we believe in an external world and external objects because it appears to be true. Idealism does not seem to be true to us and in fact, seems to be false. Berkeley has not produced any good reason to accept idealism. Thus, it is best for us to accept realism.
"It may be that the idealists have a better cans than the one I have attributed to them. Students of metaphysics are hereby encouraged to investigate this possibility for themselves" (van Inwagen, 55).
Linehan - challenge?
Metaphysics - Peter van Inwagen
Chapter 3 - Externality
Individual things exist outside of a mind.
Why is it not obvious that an external world exists?
One cannot be mistaken of what one is feeling or what one is presently thinking about. Both thoughts and feelings are of the mind. Feelings or thoughts are either individual things or modifications of individual things. Since they are not physical, but mental, if they are in fact modifications, they must be modifications of a mental individual thing. Thus, if individual things exist, at least one of them must be mental.
Berkeley believed in individual things, but that all individual things were mental. He held that all one senses are properties (color, shape, texture, taste) and properties belong to the mind. Thus, all things with properties belong to the mind. Berkeley asked if there is an external world, how can we know anything of it?
Most people will grant that color is mental, but will balk at the notion that shape is mental.
Berkeley argues that there are two kinds of shape: visual and tactile. Visual shapes exist without tactile shapes when one sees a shape but does not touch it. Tactile shapes exist when one touches a shape but does not see it. Visual shapes and tactile shapes are not the same property and neither can exist independently of the mind. The actual shape (combination of the two) is therefore illusionary. Thus, if something could exist independently of the mind it couldn't have properties of shape or color.
Berkeley instead that since we cannot know anything of the external world we cannot believe it exists either. If we do believe in it we would have to become thorough skeptics and admit that we have no valid reason for believing the external world exists.
Solipsists believe that the source of our sensations come from within us, but Berkeley does not believe this. If our sensations do not come from inside us (our sensations being our experiences and how we experience them) where do they come from? Common Western Metaphysics holds that experiences and how we interact with them (producing sensations) come from the external world. Berkeley holds that these experiences do come from a mind, but not our own. All things that are seemingly a part of the physical world are actually the product of the mind of God. God, like all humans, is an independent mind, but He is the Supreme Mind. God created all other minds and thus they are modifications. The senses are modifications of the mind. God coordinates all individual minds' senses to fit together like a big jigsaw puzzle. Thus, when two people look at the same object their perception is very similar (though not identical). Berkeley states this is how God created "all the furniture of the earth", the thing we perceive as the physical world. "He [God] carefully coordinates the sensations that come to all human minds in such a way that a common world is available to these minds" (van Inwagen, 47).
Linehan - I like this, but it makes me wonder about sin, evil and Evil.
Berkeley does not claim that God created an illusionary world though. He believes that in God creating minds and properties for the minds to perceive He created things that really exist.
A critic of Berkeley once wrote a limerick poking fun at Berkeley's theory. (I had heard this before, but not the response. I understood why it did not really do anything other than misrepresent Berkeley's theory, but like the response a lot).
Msgr. Ronald Knox:
"There was once a man who said, 'God
must think it exceedingly odd
if he finds that this tree
continues to be
when there's no one about it in the Quad"
Basically Knox said if all things are mental and no mind is 'physically' there to perceive it then it would cease to exist. Knox (as do most men) thinks that this would be absurd. But Berkeley argued that the Supreme Mind (God) perceived all 'physical' things at all times. Thus, even when a human mind is not present to perceive the individual tree, it remains, as an object of the mind, specifically the mind of God. Here is the response by an anonymous writer to Ronald Knox.
"Dear Sir,
Your astonishment's odd
I am always in the Quad
And that's why the tree
will continue to be
since observed by
Yours faithfully,
God
Linehan - Brilliant! (Bad beer commercial reference)
An idealist has not choice but to believe in a supreme being since a supreme mind is needed to sustain mental existence (which is all that exists).
Theism is the belief in the Supreme Being.
Externalism is the belief in a physical world, independent of minds.
Realism is the belief that the physical world is what causes our sensations.
Realism is a more plausible option because it requires a simpler explanation.
Occam's Razor was created by William of Ockham. It states basically that if theories compete for acceptance and give full account of all evidence then the theory that requires less speculation should be accepted over the theory that requires more speculation. If Occam's razor suggests that we should accept realism over idealism, why then would anyone accept idealism?
Berkeley claims that we all have minds and we all know our own mind. He claims that to hold to externalism, a belief in things other than the mind, is actually more speculative then to believe in only the existence of minds.
Why?
Well, we all have a mind, so to believe that others have minds that work in a similar way is not much of a stretch. Also, even though God, the Supreme Mind, is much more than our own mind it is nonetheless a mind and to believe it operates in a similar fashion is not much of a stretch. But to believe in the existence of an external world (something minds have no experience of) is more speculative then only believing in minds. Thus, by Occam's razor, Berkeley asserts idealism over realism.
Linehan - I don't know enough about Occam's razor to make a judgment, but the little I do understand of it leads me to question it. Should we always accept a simpler judgment? Yes, in some cases it is better to accept the 'plain' answer, but I don't believe that the razor should be an unquestionable universal procedure.
Van Inwagen argues that Berkeley bases his theory on two very doubtful assumptions:
1) A common object is nothing more than (or nothing apart from) its sensible properties
2) The sensible properties of common objects are the same things as the sensations we have when we see or touch (or hear or taste or smell) common objects
The common western metaphysic believes that properties exists so that they can be 'had' by something. To define an object by its properties and then state that once the list of properties have been exhausted there is nothing left and thus only properties exist is playing word games.
A thing must exist in order for properties to be, according to the common western metaphysic.
Also properties that exist in the mind are different than properties that exist as a feature of the object.
A person experiences a property when one comes into contact with a thing that contains a correlating property. (We experience whiteness when we experience paper, which is white)
Before studying metaphysics we believe in an external world and external objects because it appears to be true. Idealism does not seem to be true to us and in fact, seems to be false. Berkeley has not produced any good reason to accept idealism. Thus, it is best for us to accept realism.
"It may be that the idealists have a better cans than the one I have attributed to them. Students of metaphysics are hereby encouraged to investigate this possibility for themselves" (van Inwagen, 55).
Linehan - challenge?
Friday, February 24, 2006
Providence and Trinity
(Originally written February 24, 2006)
Quiz
1) What does Rabbi Harold Kushner deny?
- God is all powerful
2) Who said, 'whatever is, is right'?
- Alexander Pope
3) The story of Oedipus Rex reflects what worldview?
- Fatalism
4) According to William of Ockham since the creation God acts according to his ordained power.
5) True/False: According to Aquinas God's omnipotence makes him free to do anything:
-False
Special Providence
God sustains everything/everyone
1. Nothing happens by chance in "decrees, not bare permission" (Calvin)
2. Providence is not fate (Oedipus Rex)
a. Fate is impersonal; providence is personal
b. Fate deals solely with destiny; providence deals with the journey as well
Alternatives to Providence
Deism - natural law; dualistic
Pantheism - all is God's will, monistic
"Spiritual" Providence (Harold Kushner) "God can't do everything"
Augustine laid the groundwork for the social Trinity: "God is love, since love requires multiple people God must be more than a single person"
Richard of St. Victor (died 1173) defined God as three person bound together by love
This view as viewed by some as a form of tritheism, which is the view of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirt as three different (but equal) gods.
Aquinas corrected and expounded on Richard's doctrine and stated God was one substance (essence) but that each person of the Trinity was "relationally" distinct.
Quiz
1) What does Rabbi Harold Kushner deny?
- God is all powerful
2) Who said, 'whatever is, is right'?
- Alexander Pope
3) The story of Oedipus Rex reflects what worldview?
- Fatalism
4) According to William of Ockham since the creation God acts according to his ordained power.
5) True/False: According to Aquinas God's omnipotence makes him free to do anything:
-False
Special Providence
God sustains everything/everyone
1. Nothing happens by chance in "decrees, not bare permission" (Calvin)
2. Providence is not fate (Oedipus Rex)
a. Fate is impersonal; providence is personal
b. Fate deals solely with destiny; providence deals with the journey as well
Alternatives to Providence
Deism - natural law; dualistic
Pantheism - all is God's will, monistic
"Spiritual" Providence (Harold Kushner) "God can't do everything"
Augustine laid the groundwork for the social Trinity: "God is love, since love requires multiple people God must be more than a single person"
Richard of St. Victor (died 1173) defined God as three person bound together by love
This view as viewed by some as a form of tritheism, which is the view of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirt as three different (but equal) gods.
Aquinas corrected and expounded on Richard's doctrine and stated God was one substance (essence) but that each person of the Trinity was "relationally" distinct.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)