(Originally written September 23, 2005 in Book 2)
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912
Chapter 15 - The Value of Philosophy
It is important to realize that even if all hunger and disease were disposed of, much work would still be needed to be done to produce a valuable society
The interesting fact of philosophy is, when a definite knowledge of that which something is being studied in philosophy has been found it ceases to be philosophy. Astronomy and psychology are prime examples of this process.
Philosophy cannot prove dogmatic beliefs.
The value of philosophy is to free us from the prejudices of common sense, from habitual beliefs of one's time or nation, and from convictions to which we have been subjected to from birth and have accepted without any scrutiny.
"It [Philosophy] removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never traveled into the region of liberating doubt" (Russell, 157).
Without philosophy we are constantly haunted by an insistence of desire and a powerless sense of will. Without philosophy we are trapped.
Friday, September 23, 2005
The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter 14
(Originally written September 23, 2005 in Book 2)
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912
Chapter 14: The limits of Philosophical knowledge
Attempting to obtain knowledge of the universe through metaphysics, proving the fundamental dogmas of religion through a priori knowledge and using the laws of logic to state such and such a thing must exist and such and such a thing cannot exist is all in vain. These proofs cannot stand up to a critical scrutiny.
Philosophical and scientific knowledge are basically the same. All knowledge depends upon some a priori knowledge, usually some pure empirical knowledge.
Criticism sets philosophy apart from science.
Criticism examines science and daily life for inconsistencies. It allows us to accept knowledge or beliefs only when "no reason for rejecting them has appeared" (Russell, 149-150).
Pure skepticism is irrational and cannot be refuted by any logical argument. It is destructive and assumes no knowledge can be obtained. Philosophy should use Descartes' methodical doubt principle in being skeptical.
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912
Chapter 14: The limits of Philosophical knowledge
Attempting to obtain knowledge of the universe through metaphysics, proving the fundamental dogmas of religion through a priori knowledge and using the laws of logic to state such and such a thing must exist and such and such a thing cannot exist is all in vain. These proofs cannot stand up to a critical scrutiny.
Philosophical and scientific knowledge are basically the same. All knowledge depends upon some a priori knowledge, usually some pure empirical knowledge.
Criticism sets philosophy apart from science.
Criticism examines science and daily life for inconsistencies. It allows us to accept knowledge or beliefs only when "no reason for rejecting them has appeared" (Russell, 149-150).
Pure skepticism is irrational and cannot be refuted by any logical argument. It is destructive and assumes no knowledge can be obtained. Philosophy should use Descartes' methodical doubt principle in being skeptical.
The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter 13
(Originally written September 23, 2005 in Book 2)
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912
Chapter 13: Knowledge, error, and probable opinion
Knowledge is what is validly deduced from known premises. This is a circular definition because it makes the assumption that 'known premises' is already known what to mean. This definition of knowledge can be used for derivative knowledge.
Derivative knowledge is what is validly deduced from premises known intuitively. This is not circular bit it still leaves us wondering what 'intuitive knowledge' is.
Psychological inference is a way that which which we pass beliefs from one another without the use of logical inference.
The definition of knowledge is not a precise conception, it merges into probable opinion.
There are two ways that a fact may be known:
1. Through the use of a judgment, in which its parts are judged to be related as they are in fact related (my hand writing in this sentence was particularly poor, it may have read 'are judged to be related as they are intact and related' or 'inferred related', but the gist of this sentence is lost on me since I wrote it over a decade ago).
2. Through acquaintance with the fact (which can be broadly called perception)
Two types of self-evidence
1. One that gives an absolute guarantee of truth
2. One that gives a partial guarantee of truth (in my margins I wrote "if it only is partially true, it is partially false and therefore is not self-evident, we only believe it is")
A self-evident truth that guarantees truth is guaranteed by the fact that it corresponds with acquaintance we have.
Mental facts and all facts concerning sense-data have a privacy which makes them unique to only the individual that knows them. All knowledge of particulars falls under this.
The second type of self-evidence will have varying degrees.
What we firmly believe, that is true, is knowledge. What we firmly believe that is false, is error.
What we firmly believe that is neither knowledge nor error and what we hesitantly believe is probable opinion.
A body of individual probable opinions that are mutually coherent become more probable than any individual probable opinion in the body.
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912
Chapter 13: Knowledge, error, and probable opinion
Knowledge is what is validly deduced from known premises. This is a circular definition because it makes the assumption that 'known premises' is already known what to mean. This definition of knowledge can be used for derivative knowledge.
Derivative knowledge is what is validly deduced from premises known intuitively. This is not circular bit it still leaves us wondering what 'intuitive knowledge' is.
Psychological inference is a way that which which we pass beliefs from one another without the use of logical inference.
The definition of knowledge is not a precise conception, it merges into probable opinion.
There are two ways that a fact may be known:
1. Through the use of a judgment, in which its parts are judged to be related as they are in fact related (my hand writing in this sentence was particularly poor, it may have read 'are judged to be related as they are intact and related' or 'inferred related', but the gist of this sentence is lost on me since I wrote it over a decade ago).
2. Through acquaintance with the fact (which can be broadly called perception)
Two types of self-evidence
1. One that gives an absolute guarantee of truth
2. One that gives a partial guarantee of truth (in my margins I wrote "if it only is partially true, it is partially false and therefore is not self-evident, we only believe it is")
A self-evident truth that guarantees truth is guaranteed by the fact that it corresponds with acquaintance we have.
Mental facts and all facts concerning sense-data have a privacy which makes them unique to only the individual that knows them. All knowledge of particulars falls under this.
The second type of self-evidence will have varying degrees.
What we firmly believe, that is true, is knowledge. What we firmly believe that is false, is error.
What we firmly believe that is neither knowledge nor error and what we hesitantly believe is probable opinion.
A body of individual probable opinions that are mutually coherent become more probable than any individual probable opinion in the body.
The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter 12
(Originally written September 23, 2005 in Book 2)
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912
Chapter 12 - Truth and falsehood
The knowledge of things is undisputed; there is no opposite. You either have that knowledge or you don't. There is nothing to disprove it.
The knowledge of truths has an opposite. It has something that can dispute our knowledge. This thing is called error.
The fact is that people hold differing and incompatible opinions; therefore, there is a necessity for the existence of error. Both parties cannot have differing opinions on one particular thing and be both right. One must be erroneous.
Erroneous beliefs are usually held as strong as true beliefs. This makes it difficult to know which beliefs are erroneous and which are true. The questions "How do we know our belief is not erroneous?" is a difficult one to answer.
A preliminary question can be asked to make this question easier to answer: "What do we mean by truth and falsehood?"
There are three points to observe when attempting to discover what the nature of truth is:
1) Any theory about truth must be able to admit into it what is the meaning of false. A theory of truth must not be the same as a theory of acquaintance because acquaintance has no opposite.
2) Any theory of truth must incorporate beliefs into it because without beliefs there is no truth or falsehood. If the world were solely matter there would be no beliefs and thus, no truth or falsehood.
3) The truth or falsehood of a belief must always depend on something which lies outside that belief.
Truth consists in a form of correspondence of belief and fact.
Some philosophers have rejected this view of truth as correspondence of belief and something factual outside of that belief. They define something as true thought the theory of coherence. The theory of coherence states that falsehood exists when a belief fails to cohere in the body of all the collective beliefs.
There are two difficulties with this theory of truth:
1. "There is no reason to suppose that only one coherent body of beliefs is possible... Coherence fails because there is no proof that there can be only one coherent system" (Russell, 122).
2. In this view it assumes the meaning of coherence known when in all actuality 'coherence' presupposes the truth of the laws of logic. The truthfulness of the laws of logic cannot be subjected to the tests of truth in this system, yet they serve as the framework for it. If we were to state the opposite of one of these logical laws and reject the true law, the system could still be coherent, but completely false.
While coherence cannot establish the meaning of truth, it can be a strong test of truth after a certain number of truths have been known.
The relation involved in believing must be a relation between more than two things.
A belief is a relation of a mind to several things other than itself.
The mind is the subject of a belief while the sever things it is in relation with are the objects of that belief.
The subject and objects of a belief are the constituents of that belief.
A belief is true when it corresponds to the fact of the objects of that belief. It is false when it does not.
Truth and falsehood are properties of a belief, yet they are extrinsic properties.
Beliefs depend on minds for their existence, but depend on facts for their truthfulness.
Minds do not create truth or falsehood.
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912
Chapter 12 - Truth and falsehood
The knowledge of things is undisputed; there is no opposite. You either have that knowledge or you don't. There is nothing to disprove it.
The knowledge of truths has an opposite. It has something that can dispute our knowledge. This thing is called error.
The fact is that people hold differing and incompatible opinions; therefore, there is a necessity for the existence of error. Both parties cannot have differing opinions on one particular thing and be both right. One must be erroneous.
Erroneous beliefs are usually held as strong as true beliefs. This makes it difficult to know which beliefs are erroneous and which are true. The questions "How do we know our belief is not erroneous?" is a difficult one to answer.
A preliminary question can be asked to make this question easier to answer: "What do we mean by truth and falsehood?"
There are three points to observe when attempting to discover what the nature of truth is:
1) Any theory about truth must be able to admit into it what is the meaning of false. A theory of truth must not be the same as a theory of acquaintance because acquaintance has no opposite.
2) Any theory of truth must incorporate beliefs into it because without beliefs there is no truth or falsehood. If the world were solely matter there would be no beliefs and thus, no truth or falsehood.
3) The truth or falsehood of a belief must always depend on something which lies outside that belief.
Truth consists in a form of correspondence of belief and fact.
Some philosophers have rejected this view of truth as correspondence of belief and something factual outside of that belief. They define something as true thought the theory of coherence. The theory of coherence states that falsehood exists when a belief fails to cohere in the body of all the collective beliefs.
There are two difficulties with this theory of truth:
1. "There is no reason to suppose that only one coherent body of beliefs is possible... Coherence fails because there is no proof that there can be only one coherent system" (Russell, 122).
2. In this view it assumes the meaning of coherence known when in all actuality 'coherence' presupposes the truth of the laws of logic. The truthfulness of the laws of logic cannot be subjected to the tests of truth in this system, yet they serve as the framework for it. If we were to state the opposite of one of these logical laws and reject the true law, the system could still be coherent, but completely false.
While coherence cannot establish the meaning of truth, it can be a strong test of truth after a certain number of truths have been known.
The relation involved in believing must be a relation between more than two things.
A belief is a relation of a mind to several things other than itself.
The mind is the subject of a belief while the sever things it is in relation with are the objects of that belief.
The subject and objects of a belief are the constituents of that belief.
A belief is true when it corresponds to the fact of the objects of that belief. It is false when it does not.
Truth and falsehood are properties of a belief, yet they are extrinsic properties.
Beliefs depend on minds for their existence, but depend on facts for their truthfulness.
Minds do not create truth or falsehood.
The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter 11
(Originally Written September 23, 2005 in Book 2)
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell 1912
Chapter 11 - On intuitive knowledge
Everything we believe ought to be capable of being proved or at least being able to be shown to be highly probably. If a belief is had but there can be no reason given that belief is considered unreasonable. (In my margin's I wrote "Pascal's argument for refutation" as I had not come across the term 'eschatalogically verifiable' yet).
There are two types of self-evident truths:
1. general principles
2. truths immediately derived from sensation: these are called 'truths of perception'
There are two types of self-evident truths of perception: (judgments of perception)
1. one type simply asserts the existence of sense-datum
2. the other type occurs when we acknowledge the existence of the sense data and subject it to analysis (an example is a red circle; we see red, we see round , we put it together and we see a red circle)
Another judgment we make is the judgments of memory
"A memory of an object is apt to be accompanied by an image of the object and yet the image cannot be what constitutes the memory" (Russell, 114).
The essence of memory is having immediately before the mind an object we recognize as past.
Memory's accuracy is proportional to the vividness and closeness in time to the object or event.
There is a continual gradation in the degree of self-evidence in memory which corresponds with a gradation in the trustworthiness of that memory.
All self-evidence has degrees of accuracy, based on various factors.
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell 1912
Chapter 11 - On intuitive knowledge
Everything we believe ought to be capable of being proved or at least being able to be shown to be highly probably. If a belief is had but there can be no reason given that belief is considered unreasonable. (In my margin's I wrote "Pascal's argument for refutation" as I had not come across the term 'eschatalogically verifiable' yet).
There are two types of self-evident truths:
1. general principles
2. truths immediately derived from sensation: these are called 'truths of perception'
There are two types of self-evident truths of perception: (judgments of perception)
1. one type simply asserts the existence of sense-datum
2. the other type occurs when we acknowledge the existence of the sense data and subject it to analysis (an example is a red circle; we see red, we see round , we put it together and we see a red circle)
Another judgment we make is the judgments of memory
"A memory of an object is apt to be accompanied by an image of the object and yet the image cannot be what constitutes the memory" (Russell, 114).
The essence of memory is having immediately before the mind an object we recognize as past.
Memory's accuracy is proportional to the vividness and closeness in time to the object or event.
There is a continual gradation in the degree of self-evidence in memory which corresponds with a gradation in the trustworthiness of that memory.
All self-evidence has degrees of accuracy, based on various factors.
The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter 10
(Originally written September 23, 2005 in Book 2)
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell 1912
The difference betwee an a priori general proposition and an empirical general proposition is not in the meaning, but in the evidence for it.
Chapter 10 - On our knowledge of universals
It is possible to know universals in three ways:
1) by acquaintance
2) by description
3) by neither acquaintance nor description
By seeing a particular with an attribute (i.e. color) we have acquaintance with the particular's color. By seeing many particulars with a specific color we abstract that color from the particulars to become acquainted with the universal of that color.
The easiest form of relations (universals) to comprehend are those which relate to parts of sense-datum.
Another relation known is before and after in time.
Another relation known is resemblance or similarity.
"All a priori knowledge deals exclusively with relations of universals" (Russell, 103).
In my margins I wrote "Our knowledge of God is a priori knowledge"
When we apply our a priori knowledge to a particular case we must have an empirical knowledge as well.
Empirical evidence consists of particular cases.
Two forms of knowledge:
1) Knowledge of things
2) Knowledge of Truths
Knowledge of things:
1. acquaintance: immediate knowledge
A. particulars
i. with sense data
ii. with ourselves (probably)
B. Universals
i. sensible qualities
ii. relations of space and time
iii. similarity
iv. certain abstractions (logical universals)
2. Description
- involves both acquaintance with something and a knowledge of truths
Knowledge of Truths:
1. intuitive knowledge
A. Self-evident truths
i. abstract logical and mathematical principles
ii. some ethical propositions
2. The secondary (derivative) form
- everything that can be deduced from self-evident truths by the use of self-evident principles of deduction
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell 1912
The difference betwee an a priori general proposition and an empirical general proposition is not in the meaning, but in the evidence for it.
Chapter 10 - On our knowledge of universals
It is possible to know universals in three ways:
1) by acquaintance
2) by description
3) by neither acquaintance nor description
By seeing a particular with an attribute (i.e. color) we have acquaintance with the particular's color. By seeing many particulars with a specific color we abstract that color from the particulars to become acquainted with the universal of that color.
The easiest form of relations (universals) to comprehend are those which relate to parts of sense-datum.
Another relation known is before and after in time.
Another relation known is resemblance or similarity.
"All a priori knowledge deals exclusively with relations of universals" (Russell, 103).
In my margins I wrote "Our knowledge of God is a priori knowledge"
When we apply our a priori knowledge to a particular case we must have an empirical knowledge as well.
Empirical evidence consists of particular cases.
Two forms of knowledge:
1) Knowledge of things
2) Knowledge of Truths
Knowledge of things:
1. acquaintance: immediate knowledge
A. particulars
i. with sense data
ii. with ourselves (probably)
B. Universals
i. sensible qualities
ii. relations of space and time
iii. similarity
iv. certain abstractions (logical universals)
2. Description
- involves both acquaintance with something and a knowledge of truths
Knowledge of Truths:
1. intuitive knowledge
A. Self-evident truths
i. abstract logical and mathematical principles
ii. some ethical propositions
2. The secondary (derivative) form
- everything that can be deduced from self-evident truths by the use of self-evident principles of deduction
Thursday, September 22, 2005
The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter 8
(Originally written September 22, 2005 in Book 2)
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912
Chapter 8 - How a priori knowledge is possible
Kant is regarded as the greatest modern philosopher. His biggest contribution is 'critical' philosophy. 'Critical philosophy is "assuming as datum that there is knowledge of various kinds, inquired how such knowledge comes to be possible, and deduced" (Russell, 82). This question provided many metaphysical results of the nature of the world.
These metaphysical analyses can be debated; but, Kant does deserve credit for introducing a non-purely analytical a priori and for proving the importance of the theory of knowledge.
Analytic a priori are analytic because the predicate is obtained merely by analyzing the subject. i.e. A bald man (subject) is a man (predicate).
All a pirori before Kant were of this type.
Kant believed that all our experience was wrapped up in two elements:
1) the physical object
2) our own nature
Russell admits that he is in agreement here because knowledge of sense-data is based on a physical object and filtered through our own perception (the senses).
Kant believed that the physical object contains the sensation and through a priori knowledge we provide the space and time.
Kant states the physical object is essentially unknowable, what we can know is the phenomenon.
Phenomenon is the joining of the physical object and ourselves through experience which then conforms to our a priori knowledge.
The major problem with this view of a priori is that it expects the facts to always conform to logic and arithmetic and does not allow for variation or change.
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912
Chapter 8 - How a priori knowledge is possible
Kant is regarded as the greatest modern philosopher. His biggest contribution is 'critical' philosophy. 'Critical philosophy is "assuming as datum that there is knowledge of various kinds, inquired how such knowledge comes to be possible, and deduced" (Russell, 82). This question provided many metaphysical results of the nature of the world.
These metaphysical analyses can be debated; but, Kant does deserve credit for introducing a non-purely analytical a priori and for proving the importance of the theory of knowledge.
Analytic a priori are analytic because the predicate is obtained merely by analyzing the subject. i.e. A bald man (subject) is a man (predicate).
All a pirori before Kant were of this type.
Kant believed that all our experience was wrapped up in two elements:
1) the physical object
2) our own nature
Russell admits that he is in agreement here because knowledge of sense-data is based on a physical object and filtered through our own perception (the senses).
Kant believed that the physical object contains the sensation and through a priori knowledge we provide the space and time.
Kant states the physical object is essentially unknowable, what we can know is the phenomenon.
Phenomenon is the joining of the physical object and ourselves through experience which then conforms to our a priori knowledge.
The major problem with this view of a priori is that it expects the facts to always conform to logic and arithmetic and does not allow for variation or change.
The Problems of Philosophy Ch. 9
(Originally Written September 22, 2005)
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912
Chapter 9 - The World of Universals
Relations have a being which is not in either physical object or sense data and important to a priori knowledge.
Plato's 'ideas' are what Russell calls universals. Universals are anything which may be shared by many particulars and is the pure essence of the world. They do not exist in the world of sense or minds but are concepts that can be grasped by sense or minds. They are not physical objects that exist either, but merely abstract concepts like justice.
All sentences must contain at least one universal. Even simplistic sentences contain universals. "I like this" for example contain the particulars "I" and "this". They are particulars because they apply to a specific thing. The word "like" is a universal because "I" can "like" many different things.
"All truths involve universals, and all knowledge of truths involves acquaintance with universals" (Russell, 93).
Universals that are used as adjectives and common nouns express qualities or properties that single things (particulars) have. These have been widely used. However, universals expressed as verbs and prepositions have been widely ignored by philosophy.
The usage of universals as common nouns and adjectives place emphasis on particulars or individual items, whereas the usage of universals as prepositions or verbs place emphasis on relations of individual items. Since the relations of universals has been widely ignored, metaphysical systems have focused on individual items in isolation of the world and ignored the relationship between them. These metaphysical systems include the likes of Spinoza's monism and Leibniz's monadism.
Universals are not of the mind, that is they exist outside of the scope of our mind. This book has a quality of being white with blue lines and a red cross line. It has a quality of whiteness. This whiteness is universal. The page would be white regardless of if or if not I were stating that it is white. I can say that the thought of the whiteness of the book is in my mind, but cannot say that this book is white because I say it is.
Thoughts, feelings, minds and physical objects exist in time and space; universals exist but they exist in relation to these other things. They have being independent of space and time.
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912
Chapter 9 - The World of Universals
Relations have a being which is not in either physical object or sense data and important to a priori knowledge.
Plato's 'ideas' are what Russell calls universals. Universals are anything which may be shared by many particulars and is the pure essence of the world. They do not exist in the world of sense or minds but are concepts that can be grasped by sense or minds. They are not physical objects that exist either, but merely abstract concepts like justice.
All sentences must contain at least one universal. Even simplistic sentences contain universals. "I like this" for example contain the particulars "I" and "this". They are particulars because they apply to a specific thing. The word "like" is a universal because "I" can "like" many different things.
"All truths involve universals, and all knowledge of truths involves acquaintance with universals" (Russell, 93).
Universals that are used as adjectives and common nouns express qualities or properties that single things (particulars) have. These have been widely used. However, universals expressed as verbs and prepositions have been widely ignored by philosophy.
The usage of universals as common nouns and adjectives place emphasis on particulars or individual items, whereas the usage of universals as prepositions or verbs place emphasis on relations of individual items. Since the relations of universals has been widely ignored, metaphysical systems have focused on individual items in isolation of the world and ignored the relationship between them. These metaphysical systems include the likes of Spinoza's monism and Leibniz's monadism.
Universals are not of the mind, that is they exist outside of the scope of our mind. This book has a quality of being white with blue lines and a red cross line. It has a quality of whiteness. This whiteness is universal. The page would be white regardless of if or if not I were stating that it is white. I can say that the thought of the whiteness of the book is in my mind, but cannot say that this book is white because I say it is.
Thoughts, feelings, minds and physical objects exist in time and space; universals exist but they exist in relation to these other things. They have being independent of space and time.
Can Man Live Without God? Appendix
(Originally Written September 22, 2005 in Book 1)
Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994
Appendix A
The theory that there is insufficient evidence for theism contains three logical blunders:
1. The move to atheism by default is not an academically credible switch to make when there are many other choices
2. To state that 'I am an atheist because there isn't enough evidence for theism' implies a logically satisfactory defense of atheism they do not possess. They hold it even though it is logically indefensible while at the same time rejecting theism on the basis that it is logically indefensible.
3. Atheism cannot be defended and that is why it has become a softer version of agnosticism.
Nietzsche may have created an environment for Hitler, but what about the crusades under Christianity?
The difference is that under the philosophy of Nietzsche, Hitler's ideology was permissible. The crusades were a political endeavor that was disguised as an outlet of Christianity. It takes a path starkly different than that of Christ's philosophies.
Appendix B
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Believed that "I think, therefore, I am"
Defends the existence of God by stating that the human mind cannot come up with the concept of a perfect mind because a man's mind is imperfect. It therefore must have been placed into the imperfect mind by the perfect mind, which is God.
Defends the existence of God by stating just as a triangle by definition must have three sides, so a necessary being must exist. God is necessary and therefore, He exists.
Descartes reduced God to an innate idea.
David Hume (1711-1776)
Believed knowledge could only be derived by experience.
Anything that transcends a man's finite existence on earth is meaningless. God and creation are therefore not worthy to question about.
Believed that man has no soul
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
Attempted a synthesis between empiricism (British philosophy) and rationalism (Continental European philosophy)
Kant's theory of knowledge (summary): Raw material consists of the outside world which is perceived by the senses, but that is inevitably processed by the human brain. It is the mind's perception of the object that we see, not the object in reality.
Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
The individual's ability to choose is of the supreme importance. Choosing God is a 'leap of faith' that affirms God's existence, but recognizes it as an intellectual absurdity.
Three stages of life:
-Aesthetic
-Ethical
-Religious
From Kierkegaard's journal: "The thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die". Thus, truth is relative to the individual.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)
Believed everything in life could be reduced to sheer will.
Belief in the superman. Superman was one who realizes the human predicament but who nevertheless creates his own values in the face of anguish or deprivation and can build his life in triumph over it.
Elizabeth (Friedrich's sister) called Hitler the superman
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
Concerned himself with dilemmas and argued against God by making the debater against him choose one of his either/or postulates.
His presuppositions were however, wrong.
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)
A leading exponent of atheistic existentialism
Shifted from existentialism to a version of Marxist sociology later in life.
Sartre's philosophy led to the bloodshed in Cambodia
Man must choose for himself and author his own values.
Argued against the existence of God by stating that man cannot find God by himself.
Possibly disavowed his life's philosophy on his death bed.
Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994
Appendix A
The theory that there is insufficient evidence for theism contains three logical blunders:
1. The move to atheism by default is not an academically credible switch to make when there are many other choices
2. To state that 'I am an atheist because there isn't enough evidence for theism' implies a logically satisfactory defense of atheism they do not possess. They hold it even though it is logically indefensible while at the same time rejecting theism on the basis that it is logically indefensible.
3. Atheism cannot be defended and that is why it has become a softer version of agnosticism.
Nietzsche may have created an environment for Hitler, but what about the crusades under Christianity?
The difference is that under the philosophy of Nietzsche, Hitler's ideology was permissible. The crusades were a political endeavor that was disguised as an outlet of Christianity. It takes a path starkly different than that of Christ's philosophies.
Appendix B
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Believed that "I think, therefore, I am"
Defends the existence of God by stating that the human mind cannot come up with the concept of a perfect mind because a man's mind is imperfect. It therefore must have been placed into the imperfect mind by the perfect mind, which is God.
Defends the existence of God by stating just as a triangle by definition must have three sides, so a necessary being must exist. God is necessary and therefore, He exists.
Descartes reduced God to an innate idea.
David Hume (1711-1776)
Believed knowledge could only be derived by experience.
Anything that transcends a man's finite existence on earth is meaningless. God and creation are therefore not worthy to question about.
Believed that man has no soul
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
Attempted a synthesis between empiricism (British philosophy) and rationalism (Continental European philosophy)
Kant's theory of knowledge (summary): Raw material consists of the outside world which is perceived by the senses, but that is inevitably processed by the human brain. It is the mind's perception of the object that we see, not the object in reality.
Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
The individual's ability to choose is of the supreme importance. Choosing God is a 'leap of faith' that affirms God's existence, but recognizes it as an intellectual absurdity.
Three stages of life:
-Aesthetic
-Ethical
-Religious
From Kierkegaard's journal: "The thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die". Thus, truth is relative to the individual.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)
Believed everything in life could be reduced to sheer will.
Belief in the superman. Superman was one who realizes the human predicament but who nevertheless creates his own values in the face of anguish or deprivation and can build his life in triumph over it.
Elizabeth (Friedrich's sister) called Hitler the superman
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
Concerned himself with dilemmas and argued against God by making the debater against him choose one of his either/or postulates.
His presuppositions were however, wrong.
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)
A leading exponent of atheistic existentialism
Shifted from existentialism to a version of Marxist sociology later in life.
Sartre's philosophy led to the bloodshed in Cambodia
Man must choose for himself and author his own values.
Argued against the existence of God by stating that man cannot find God by himself.
Possibly disavowed his life's philosophy on his death bed.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter 7
(Originally Written September 21, 2005 in Book 2)
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912
Chapter 7 - On our Knowledge of General Principles
The inductive principle is necessary to all arguments based on experience; however, experience cannot prove or disprove it. The principle of induction is not alone in this characteristic.
The principle of inference is the means of drawing inferences based on a sensation. If this inference is then true, it is as true as the data itself.
An inference takes the pattern of stating:
If A is true then B is true
A is true
B is true
The principle is obvious and may seem trivial, but it is important because it is knowledge which is in "no way derived from objects of sense" (Russell, 72).
There are three laws of thought:
1) The law of identity - Whatever is, is
2) The law of contradiction - Nothing can bot be and not-be
3) The law of the excluded middle - Everything must be or not be
(3: This is only man's logic. God is not subject to this law) This was written in my margins, but to be honest I don't know what I meant by it
In addition to these principles (laws of thought and the principle of inference) which enables us to prove that from a given premise that something is certainly true, there are other logical principles that enable us to prove that there is greater or lesser probability that something is true. (These principles include the inductive principle)
All knowledge is elicited and caused by experience, however some knowledge is a priori. A priori is knowledge derived without reference to particular facts or experience.
"Nothing can be known to exist except by the help of experience" (Russell, 76). This means that if we want to prove something exists of which we have no experience of we must use premises (one or more) of things we have direct experience with.
The scope of a priori is strictly limited.
When anything is known by direct experience (immediately) it is known by experience alone. But, when anything is proved to exist without immediate experience both experience and a priori principles are required in the proof of that thing's existence.
Empirical knowledge rests wholly or partly on experience.
A priori knowledge is hypothetical and contends that things exist or may exist, but does not give actual existence.
"The most important example of non-logical a priori knowledge is knowledge as to ethical value" (Russell, 75-76).
Russell is not stating ethical value as what is useful or virtues because they do not need empirical premises; he is referring to "the intrinsic desirability of things" (Russell, 76).
"It is fairly obvious that they [judgments on the intrinsic value of something] cannot be proved by experience; for the fact that a thing exists or does not exist cannot prove either that it is good that it should exist or that it is bad" (Russell, 76).
Whether something's existence is good or bad falls into the scope of ethics.
The knowledge as to what is intrinsically of value is a priori in the same sense that logic is a priori; meaning that the truth of such knowledge cannot be proved or disproved by experience.
Pure mathematics is a priori.
Pg. 78-79 mortal men passage. If men are not mortal it would upset the entire fabric of our knowledge. What of Elijah who was taken into heaven? He was immortalized by God and yet the fabric of man's knowledge was not interrupted. Man's logic was superseded by God's presence.
Deduction takes us from general to general or from general to particular whereas induction takes us from particular to particular or particular to general.
All empirical generalizations are more uncertain than the instances of them.
A priori propositions include logic, pure mathematics and fundamental propositions of ethics.
The questions that arise from a priori are:
1. How is it possible that there should be such knowledge?
2. How can there be knowledge of general propositions in cases where we have not examined all the instances and never can (because they are infinite)?
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912
Chapter 7 - On our Knowledge of General Principles
The inductive principle is necessary to all arguments based on experience; however, experience cannot prove or disprove it. The principle of induction is not alone in this characteristic.
The principle of inference is the means of drawing inferences based on a sensation. If this inference is then true, it is as true as the data itself.
An inference takes the pattern of stating:
If A is true then B is true
A is true
B is true
The principle is obvious and may seem trivial, but it is important because it is knowledge which is in "no way derived from objects of sense" (Russell, 72).
There are three laws of thought:
1) The law of identity - Whatever is, is
2) The law of contradiction - Nothing can bot be and not-be
3) The law of the excluded middle - Everything must be or not be
(3: This is only man's logic. God is not subject to this law) This was written in my margins, but to be honest I don't know what I meant by it
In addition to these principles (laws of thought and the principle of inference) which enables us to prove that from a given premise that something is certainly true, there are other logical principles that enable us to prove that there is greater or lesser probability that something is true. (These principles include the inductive principle)
All knowledge is elicited and caused by experience, however some knowledge is a priori. A priori is knowledge derived without reference to particular facts or experience.
"Nothing can be known to exist except by the help of experience" (Russell, 76). This means that if we want to prove something exists of which we have no experience of we must use premises (one or more) of things we have direct experience with.
The scope of a priori is strictly limited.
When anything is known by direct experience (immediately) it is known by experience alone. But, when anything is proved to exist without immediate experience both experience and a priori principles are required in the proof of that thing's existence.
Empirical knowledge rests wholly or partly on experience.
A priori knowledge is hypothetical and contends that things exist or may exist, but does not give actual existence.
"The most important example of non-logical a priori knowledge is knowledge as to ethical value" (Russell, 75-76).
Russell is not stating ethical value as what is useful or virtues because they do not need empirical premises; he is referring to "the intrinsic desirability of things" (Russell, 76).
"It is fairly obvious that they [judgments on the intrinsic value of something] cannot be proved by experience; for the fact that a thing exists or does not exist cannot prove either that it is good that it should exist or that it is bad" (Russell, 76).
Whether something's existence is good or bad falls into the scope of ethics.
The knowledge as to what is intrinsically of value is a priori in the same sense that logic is a priori; meaning that the truth of such knowledge cannot be proved or disproved by experience.
Pure mathematics is a priori.
Pg. 78-79 mortal men passage. If men are not mortal it would upset the entire fabric of our knowledge. What of Elijah who was taken into heaven? He was immortalized by God and yet the fabric of man's knowledge was not interrupted. Man's logic was superseded by God's presence.
Deduction takes us from general to general or from general to particular whereas induction takes us from particular to particular or particular to general.
All empirical generalizations are more uncertain than the instances of them.
A priori propositions include logic, pure mathematics and fundamental propositions of ethics.
The questions that arise from a priori are:
1. How is it possible that there should be such knowledge?
2. How can there be knowledge of general propositions in cases where we have not examined all the instances and never can (because they are infinite)?
Can Man Live Without God? Chapters 10-16
(Originally written September 21, 2005 in Book 1).
Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994
Chapter 10 - Love's Labor Won
Components of meaning:
-Pursuit of wonder
-Knowledge of truth
-Love
-Security
The consummation of love comes in young adulthood.
Chapter 11 - Crossing the Bar
The search for security comes in maturity.
Chapter 12 - Getting to the truth
Modern times has seen the death of truth because truth is absolute and all absolutes are nowadays discredited. That's an absolute spoken to discredit all other absolutes. Ironic isn't it?
Three tests to see if a system is true:
1) Logical consistency
2) Empirical adequacy
3) Experiential relevance
Chapter 13 - Humanity's dilemma
Man is not intrinsically good and any optimistic philosophy that bases their views on this presupposition is sadly proved wrong by history time and time again.
The heart of man is desperately wicked.
Christianity insists God created man to be equal in dignity and essence, but not all ideas are equal. Some ideas are better than others.
"Greatness in the eyes of God is always preceded by humility before him".
Conviction of sin comes when we compare ourselves to God. Earthly greatness comes when we compare ourselves to other's low standards.
Chapter 14 - The Philosopher's Quest
Out of diversity comes unity.
The Trinity is diverse and unified. It is diverse in their personalities and unified as an all-powerful, all-loving God.
One of the great longings of humanity is to worship. Worship should involve both the spirit and truth.
Worship needs the constraints of truth so it doesn't become superstition or be reduced to mere ceremony. The truth which defines and creates something to worship is God.
Worship is coextensive with life.
Worship provides unity within all of life's diversity. It gives life the necessary tools for the ultimate fulfillment.
The pattern for unity in diversity is the Trinity.
The philosophical quest for truth and the answer of unity is found in Christ.
Chapter 15 - The Historian's Centerpiece
Christ fused the past, the present and the future together to form a Holy lifestyle. It remembers the past and looks to the future, but it acts during the present.
Christ's death provides the key to life.
Chapter 16 - The believer's treasure
"Why are we so unhappy" (as a society)? "We are a troubled civilization because the loss of a moral and spiritual center" (Zacharias, 169).
The difference between manmade utopias and heaven is the cross of Christ. Christ took on all the pain and suffering so that we could go to heaven. In manmade utopian settings suffering and pain is eliminated without being accounted for.
Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994
Chapter 10 - Love's Labor Won
Components of meaning:
-Pursuit of wonder
-Knowledge of truth
-Love
-Security
The consummation of love comes in young adulthood.
Chapter 11 - Crossing the Bar
The search for security comes in maturity.
Chapter 12 - Getting to the truth
Modern times has seen the death of truth because truth is absolute and all absolutes are nowadays discredited. That's an absolute spoken to discredit all other absolutes. Ironic isn't it?
Three tests to see if a system is true:
1) Logical consistency
2) Empirical adequacy
3) Experiential relevance
Chapter 13 - Humanity's dilemma
Man is not intrinsically good and any optimistic philosophy that bases their views on this presupposition is sadly proved wrong by history time and time again.
The heart of man is desperately wicked.
Christianity insists God created man to be equal in dignity and essence, but not all ideas are equal. Some ideas are better than others.
"Greatness in the eyes of God is always preceded by humility before him".
Conviction of sin comes when we compare ourselves to God. Earthly greatness comes when we compare ourselves to other's low standards.
Chapter 14 - The Philosopher's Quest
Out of diversity comes unity.
The Trinity is diverse and unified. It is diverse in their personalities and unified as an all-powerful, all-loving God.
One of the great longings of humanity is to worship. Worship should involve both the spirit and truth.
Worship needs the constraints of truth so it doesn't become superstition or be reduced to mere ceremony. The truth which defines and creates something to worship is God.
Worship is coextensive with life.
Worship provides unity within all of life's diversity. It gives life the necessary tools for the ultimate fulfillment.
The pattern for unity in diversity is the Trinity.
The philosophical quest for truth and the answer of unity is found in Christ.
Chapter 15 - The Historian's Centerpiece
Christ fused the past, the present and the future together to form a Holy lifestyle. It remembers the past and looks to the future, but it acts during the present.
Christ's death provides the key to life.
Chapter 16 - The believer's treasure
"Why are we so unhappy" (as a society)? "We are a troubled civilization because the loss of a moral and spiritual center" (Zacharias, 169).
The difference between manmade utopias and heaven is the cross of Christ. Christ took on all the pain and suffering so that we could go to heaven. In manmade utopian settings suffering and pain is eliminated without being accounted for.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Can Man Live Without God? Chapter 9
(Originally written September 20, 2005 in Book 1)
Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994
Chapter 9 - Truth: An Endangered Species
When the fantasy of childhood ends and the search for wonder with it, adolescence brings the search for truth.
The search for truth must first have the intention of seeking truth and then dealing with the content of truth.
Truth and knowledge are not the same thing.
The absence of truth is not usually the reason for misunderstanding it. The suppression of truth is the root of misunderstanding.
Truth is gained through a relationship with Jesus Christ, not an understanding of his teachings.
Truth is absolute and truth is knowable.
By claiming to be the truth, Jesus implies all he says is true and cannot be false.
Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994
Chapter 9 - Truth: An Endangered Species
When the fantasy of childhood ends and the search for wonder with it, adolescence brings the search for truth.
The search for truth must first have the intention of seeking truth and then dealing with the content of truth.
Truth and knowledge are not the same thing.
The absence of truth is not usually the reason for misunderstanding it. The suppression of truth is the root of misunderstanding.
Truth is gained through a relationship with Jesus Christ, not an understanding of his teachings.
Truth is absolute and truth is knowable.
By claiming to be the truth, Jesus implies all he says is true and cannot be false.
The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter 6
(Originally written September 20, 2005 in Book 2)
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912
Chapter 6 - On induction
Without using induction we have knowledge of the existence of:
1. Ourselves (probably)
2. What we are acquainted with through sense-data
3. Memory: which is the act of remembering past sense-data
To expand our knowledge of existence we must make inferences of our already known (acquired) knowledge.
"Things which we see become associated by habit, with certain... sensations" (Russell, 62).
Uniformity can be misleading, but they nevertheless exist.
Since uniformity is sometimes misleading we must distinguish the fact that past uniformities cause expectations as to the future, from whether or not there is reasonable ground for giving these expectations merit when questions arise of their validity.
The uniformity of nature is the belief that everything that has happened or will happen is an instance of some general law to which there are no exceptions.
"We have reason to know that the future will resemble the past, because what was the future has constantly become the past, and has always been found to resemble the past, so that we really have experience of the future, namely of times which were formerly future, which we may call past futures" (Russell, 64-65).
The fact that two things have been found together often and never apart does not prove demonstratively that they will always be found together. The most it does is lend weight to the belief that it does. It can never reach absolute certainty.
Because of this Russell states: "Thus probability is all we ought to seek" (Russell, 66).
The tool we use to test probability is the principle of induction.
There are two parts to the principle of induction (regarding individual cases).
1. When something of type A is found with something of type B and has never been found alone, the more times A & B are found the higher probability when either A or B is newly discovered the other will be associated with the new discover as well.
2. When #1 is done enough times and never disproved, the probability is almost considered a certainty.
There are two parts to the principle of induction (regarding general laws).
1. The greater number of cases in which A & B are together the greater the probability the general law is true.
2. If a sufficient number of cases is done and found A & B together and never separate, then this general law is almost considered a certainty.
The inductive principle is unable to be proved or disproved by an appeal to experience.
The inductive principle only uses data from an observed class. Any unobserved class experienced later does not alter the probability of the first observed data but can be incorporated to strengthen, weaken or somhow alter the conclusion.
The inductive principle must be accepted on the grounds of its intrinsic evidence or we must give up all our rights to making expectations of the future.
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912
Chapter 6 - On induction
Without using induction we have knowledge of the existence of:
1. Ourselves (probably)
2. What we are acquainted with through sense-data
3. Memory: which is the act of remembering past sense-data
To expand our knowledge of existence we must make inferences of our already known (acquired) knowledge.
"Things which we see become associated by habit, with certain... sensations" (Russell, 62).
Uniformity can be misleading, but they nevertheless exist.
Since uniformity is sometimes misleading we must distinguish the fact that past uniformities cause expectations as to the future, from whether or not there is reasonable ground for giving these expectations merit when questions arise of their validity.
The uniformity of nature is the belief that everything that has happened or will happen is an instance of some general law to which there are no exceptions.
"We have reason to know that the future will resemble the past, because what was the future has constantly become the past, and has always been found to resemble the past, so that we really have experience of the future, namely of times which were formerly future, which we may call past futures" (Russell, 64-65).
The fact that two things have been found together often and never apart does not prove demonstratively that they will always be found together. The most it does is lend weight to the belief that it does. It can never reach absolute certainty.
Because of this Russell states: "Thus probability is all we ought to seek" (Russell, 66).
The tool we use to test probability is the principle of induction.
There are two parts to the principle of induction (regarding individual cases).
1. When something of type A is found with something of type B and has never been found alone, the more times A & B are found the higher probability when either A or B is newly discovered the other will be associated with the new discover as well.
2. When #1 is done enough times and never disproved, the probability is almost considered a certainty.
There are two parts to the principle of induction (regarding general laws).
1. The greater number of cases in which A & B are together the greater the probability the general law is true.
2. If a sufficient number of cases is done and found A & B together and never separate, then this general law is almost considered a certainty.
The inductive principle is unable to be proved or disproved by an appeal to experience.
The inductive principle only uses data from an observed class. Any unobserved class experienced later does not alter the probability of the first observed data but can be incorporated to strengthen, weaken or somhow alter the conclusion.
The inductive principle must be accepted on the grounds of its intrinsic evidence or we must give up all our rights to making expectations of the future.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Can Man Live Without God? Chapter 8
(Originally written September 19, 2005 in Book 1)
Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994
Chapter 8 - The Romance of Enchantment
Childhood search for meaning: the sense of wonder in a child is what fascinates us about children and it is what fascinates a child. It is wonder that draws a child to search for meaning.
A child accepts fairy tales for three reasons:
1) It contains a moral and the enchantment and wonder of the story makes us eager to see the moral behind it.
2) It contains a non-negotiable condition, i.e. 'you must be back by the stroke of 12'.
3) This is an interesting point, because it is never questioned (which is the third part of the fairy tale)
Meaning for a child is produced by his/her recognition of the awe inspiring reality that surrounds his/her life. A child then loses his sense of wonder and enters adolescence.
But gratitude comes from wonder and wonder is cognizant of God himself.
When we lose wonder we lose a lot of things. We lose gratitude; we lose part of meaning and we diminish aspects of life that make it worth living.
The older you get the more it takes to fill your heart with wonder. Only God is big enough to supply an endless stream of wonder.
God meets you where you are and restores the wonder in your heart. Then you can walk with Him in a new sense of awe and passion.
Nietzsche said he went looking for God and didn't find him. Thus, nihilism was born.
The search for wonder does not lead us to the pursuit of knowledge, happiness or of life's vices. It leads us to a relationship with Jesus Christ.
Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994
Chapter 8 - The Romance of Enchantment
Childhood search for meaning: the sense of wonder in a child is what fascinates us about children and it is what fascinates a child. It is wonder that draws a child to search for meaning.
A child accepts fairy tales for three reasons:
1) It contains a moral and the enchantment and wonder of the story makes us eager to see the moral behind it.
2) It contains a non-negotiable condition, i.e. 'you must be back by the stroke of 12'.
3) This is an interesting point, because it is never questioned (which is the third part of the fairy tale)
Meaning for a child is produced by his/her recognition of the awe inspiring reality that surrounds his/her life. A child then loses his sense of wonder and enters adolescence.
But gratitude comes from wonder and wonder is cognizant of God himself.
When we lose wonder we lose a lot of things. We lose gratitude; we lose part of meaning and we diminish aspects of life that make it worth living.
The older you get the more it takes to fill your heart with wonder. Only God is big enough to supply an endless stream of wonder.
God meets you where you are and restores the wonder in your heart. Then you can walk with Him in a new sense of awe and passion.
Nietzsche said he went looking for God and didn't find him. Thus, nihilism was born.
The search for wonder does not lead us to the pursuit of knowledge, happiness or of life's vices. It leads us to a relationship with Jesus Christ.
The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter 5
(Originally written September 19, 2005 in Book 2)
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912
Chapter Five - Knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description
There are two kinds of knowledge:
1. Knowledge of things
2. Knowledge of truths
Knowledge of things is essentially simpler than any knowledge of truths and logically independent of knowledge of truths.
Knowledge of things by description always involves some knowledge of truths as its source and grounding.
Acquaintance comes from anything we are directly aware of. It comes from our sense-data.
Description comes from connecting truths of physical objects to our sense data.
There is no state of mind in which we are directly aware of physical objects; all our knowledge of physical objects is really a knowledge of truths. The physical object is not known to us at all.
While we may not know the physical object, we do know a description that corresponds to just one physical object.
All our knowledge (both knowledge of things and knowledge of truths) base their foundation on acquaintance.
Sense-data is the simplest form of acquaintance, but if it were the only source of acquaintance we would know nothing of the past, or even that the past existed.
We have to consider acquaintance with other things besides sense-data if we are to obtain any tolerably adequate analysis of our knowledge.
Memory is an acquaintance.
Memory occurs when we remember what we have seen or heard or had otherwise present to our senses.
The next extension of acquaintance is introspection, or self-consciousness.
Introspection is where we are aware of what we are doing, even if we are only doing it in our mind.
"Although acquaintance with ourselves seems probably to occur, it is not wise to assert that it undoubtedly does occur".
We have acquaintance with the outer world through the senses, acquaintance with the inner world through introspection, acquaintance with the past through memory, and probably acquaintance with our self, as that which is aware of things or has desires towards things.
Knowledge by description is important because it enables us to pass beyond the limits of our own personal experiences.
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912
Chapter Five - Knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description
There are two kinds of knowledge:
1. Knowledge of things
2. Knowledge of truths
Knowledge of things is essentially simpler than any knowledge of truths and logically independent of knowledge of truths.
Knowledge of things by description always involves some knowledge of truths as its source and grounding.
Acquaintance comes from anything we are directly aware of. It comes from our sense-data.
Description comes from connecting truths of physical objects to our sense data.
There is no state of mind in which we are directly aware of physical objects; all our knowledge of physical objects is really a knowledge of truths. The physical object is not known to us at all.
While we may not know the physical object, we do know a description that corresponds to just one physical object.
All our knowledge (both knowledge of things and knowledge of truths) base their foundation on acquaintance.
Sense-data is the simplest form of acquaintance, but if it were the only source of acquaintance we would know nothing of the past, or even that the past existed.
We have to consider acquaintance with other things besides sense-data if we are to obtain any tolerably adequate analysis of our knowledge.
Memory is an acquaintance.
Memory occurs when we remember what we have seen or heard or had otherwise present to our senses.
The next extension of acquaintance is introspection, or self-consciousness.
Introspection is where we are aware of what we are doing, even if we are only doing it in our mind.
"Although acquaintance with ourselves seems probably to occur, it is not wise to assert that it undoubtedly does occur".
We have acquaintance with the outer world through the senses, acquaintance with the inner world through introspection, acquaintance with the past through memory, and probably acquaintance with our self, as that which is aware of things or has desires towards things.
Knowledge by description is important because it enables us to pass beyond the limits of our own personal experiences.
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Can Man Live Without God - Chapter 7
(Originally written September 18, 2005 in Book 1)
Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994
Chapter Seven - The science of knowing and the art of living
The what and why of life are bound together. Is the meaning of life the same for all or, "are we condemned to wallow in culturally relative quotients, ever changing the point of reference and relegating meaning to the sense of happiness or to how one feels at a given moment?" (Zacharias, 67). The world has reduced the meaning of life to this quotation.
Michael Polanyi states that science gives us normative knowledge, while poetry, art and religion give us meaning. Polanyi continues to say that society gives meaning to science and if it is reversed, science is in danger of destroying life. (Read Michael Polanyi's book Meaning)
By reducing the world to its atomic level, science has made the search for meaning a meaningless pursuit. The search for meaning however, is not a meaningless pursuit. It is the essence of our very beings. Science may answer the 'hows' of life, but it leaves us empty because it cannot answer the 'whys'.
People look for meaning in their four stages of life, regardless towards their faith in any religion, god or science. They search in childhood, adolescence, young adulthood and maturity alike.
Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994
Chapter Seven - The science of knowing and the art of living
The what and why of life are bound together. Is the meaning of life the same for all or, "are we condemned to wallow in culturally relative quotients, ever changing the point of reference and relegating meaning to the sense of happiness or to how one feels at a given moment?" (Zacharias, 67). The world has reduced the meaning of life to this quotation.
Michael Polanyi states that science gives us normative knowledge, while poetry, art and religion give us meaning. Polanyi continues to say that society gives meaning to science and if it is reversed, science is in danger of destroying life. (Read Michael Polanyi's book Meaning)
By reducing the world to its atomic level, science has made the search for meaning a meaningless pursuit. The search for meaning however, is not a meaningless pursuit. It is the essence of our very beings. Science may answer the 'hows' of life, but it leaves us empty because it cannot answer the 'whys'.
People look for meaning in their four stages of life, regardless towards their faith in any religion, god or science. They search in childhood, adolescence, young adulthood and maturity alike.
The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter Four
(Originally written September 18, 2005 in Book 2)
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912
Chapter Four - Idealism
Whatever can be known to exist must in some sense be mental.
Bishop Berkeley contends that nothing exists that is not of mind. All things perceived are originated in the mind or else they would not exist. Things exist continually because they exist in God's mind. That is why a tree will still exist after we stop perceiving it through one of our senses.
Knowledge is based on the mind being to be in relationship with something outside the mind.
The knowledge of truths is the sort of knowledge that prevents error. It is tied into our beliefs, convictions and judgments.
The second meaning of the word 'know' is a knowledge of things, which is called acquaintance.
It is truth to say: "If I am acquainted with a thing that exists, may acquaintance gives me the knowledge that a thing exists". It is not however true to say that, "If I am not acquainted with a thing that exists, my lack of acquaintance gives me the knowledge that the thing does not exist".
When there is no acquaintance with a thing it is known by description. Description is the knowledge of a thing by an inference.
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912
Chapter Four - Idealism
Whatever can be known to exist must in some sense be mental.
Bishop Berkeley contends that nothing exists that is not of mind. All things perceived are originated in the mind or else they would not exist. Things exist continually because they exist in God's mind. That is why a tree will still exist after we stop perceiving it through one of our senses.
Knowledge is based on the mind being to be in relationship with something outside the mind.
The knowledge of truths is the sort of knowledge that prevents error. It is tied into our beliefs, convictions and judgments.
The second meaning of the word 'know' is a knowledge of things, which is called acquaintance.
It is truth to say: "If I am acquainted with a thing that exists, may acquaintance gives me the knowledge that a thing exists". It is not however true to say that, "If I am not acquainted with a thing that exists, my lack of acquaintance gives me the knowledge that the thing does not exist".
When there is no acquaintance with a thing it is known by description. Description is the knowledge of a thing by an inference.
The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter 3
(Originally written September 18, 2005 in Book 2)
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912
Chapter Three - The Nature of Matter
Sense data is dependent of the reality.
The question is what is the nature of the physical object which persists independently of our sense data.
There is a difference between real space and apparent space. Real space is what is public; whereas apparent space is private.
Science is concerned with real space.
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912
Chapter Three - The Nature of Matter
Sense data is dependent of the reality.
The question is what is the nature of the physical object which persists independently of our sense data.
There is a difference between real space and apparent space. Real space is what is public; whereas apparent space is private.
Science is concerned with real space.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Can Man Live Without God - Chapter 6
(Originally Written September 17, 2005 in Book 1)
Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994
Chapter 6 - In search of a lower meaning
God provides great meaning for life. If we kill God we lose our great meaning, leaving us empty and void of purpose. Man must have a purpose to live, so we have to find a lower purpose, if we are to be antitheists.
Isn't the pursuit of happiness a meaning to life? Antitheists choose to find happiness and success as their purpose and meaning.
But, Even when we achieve the pinnacle of success we find ourselves still empty and unfulfilled.
Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994
Chapter 6 - In search of a lower meaning
God provides great meaning for life. If we kill God we lose our great meaning, leaving us empty and void of purpose. Man must have a purpose to live, so we have to find a lower purpose, if we are to be antitheists.
Isn't the pursuit of happiness a meaning to life? Antitheists choose to find happiness and success as their purpose and meaning.
But, Even when we achieve the pinnacle of success we find ourselves still empty and unfulfilled.
The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter 2
(Originally written September 17, 2005 in Book 2)
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912
Chapter Two: The Existence of Matter
Is there such a thing as matter? Is there a table which has an intrinsic nature that continues to exist even if I stop looking at it or is it a mere product of my imagination?
"We can never prove the existence of things other than ourselves and our experiences" (Russell, 22).
It is logically plausible for us to be the only reality and everything else is a fabrication of our dreams and fantasy. But, while logically plausible it is not likely.
It is an instinctive belief that we believe that our sense data corresponds with a real physical world and the physical world is not dependent on our senses. It makes life simpler if we believe in the existence of matter.
All knowledge is built on our instinctive beliefs. Our instinctive beliefs should harmonize with one another to form a plausible system. The only reason to reject an intrinsic belief is if it clashes with another instinctive belief.
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912
Chapter Two: The Existence of Matter
Is there such a thing as matter? Is there a table which has an intrinsic nature that continues to exist even if I stop looking at it or is it a mere product of my imagination?
"We can never prove the existence of things other than ourselves and our experiences" (Russell, 22).
It is logically plausible for us to be the only reality and everything else is a fabrication of our dreams and fantasy. But, while logically plausible it is not likely.
It is an instinctive belief that we believe that our sense data corresponds with a real physical world and the physical world is not dependent on our senses. It makes life simpler if we believe in the existence of matter.
All knowledge is built on our instinctive beliefs. Our instinctive beliefs should harmonize with one another to form a plausible system. The only reason to reject an intrinsic belief is if it clashes with another instinctive belief.
Friday, September 16, 2005
Can Man Live Without God - Chapter 5
(Originally written September 16, 2005 in Book 1)
Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994
Chapter 5 - Where is Antitheism when it hurts?
Antitheism cannot provide a remedy for pain because an antitheist believes that life has no meaning. If life has no meaning what is the purpose of alleviating pain? Antitheism abolishes the past and the future leaving man to only fend for himself in the present. WHere is the hope in that if you are facing insurmountable odds?
Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994
Chapter 5 - Where is Antitheism when it hurts?
Antitheism cannot provide a remedy for pain because an antitheist believes that life has no meaning. If life has no meaning what is the purpose of alleviating pain? Antitheism abolishes the past and the future leaving man to only fend for himself in the present. WHere is the hope in that if you are facing insurmountable odds?
The Problems of Philosophy - Chapter 1
(Originally written September 16, 2005 in Book 2)
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912
Chapter 1 - Appearance and Reality
"Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?" (Russell, 7). This is a difficult question that philosophy takes on.
Knowledge from our immediate experiences is often contradictory and wrong.
There is a distinction between appearance and reality.
Appearance is what we see and it is constantly changing in accordance to our point of view. Reality is known through inferences based on appearance. Reality is not known to us, but is an inference of what is immediately known.
Sense data are things that are immediately known to us, i.e. color, sounds, smells and textures.
Sensation is the immediate awareness of sense data.
Physical objects are the objects in reality.
The collection of all physical objects is matter.
There is an opinion that states, "whatever can be thought of is an idea in the mind of the person thinking of it; therefore nothing can be thought of except ideas in minds; therefore, anything else is inconceivable and what is inconceivable cannot exist"
Is there a table in reality? Of course there is because a man created it. You cannot create a mere appearance; it must be real. Reality is something created and God created the world therefore it is a reality. (Personal Opinion)
The Problems of Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1912
Chapter 1 - Appearance and Reality
"Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?" (Russell, 7). This is a difficult question that philosophy takes on.
Knowledge from our immediate experiences is often contradictory and wrong.
There is a distinction between appearance and reality.
Appearance is what we see and it is constantly changing in accordance to our point of view. Reality is known through inferences based on appearance. Reality is not known to us, but is an inference of what is immediately known.
Sense data are things that are immediately known to us, i.e. color, sounds, smells and textures.
Sensation is the immediate awareness of sense data.
Physical objects are the objects in reality.
The collection of all physical objects is matter.
There is an opinion that states, "whatever can be thought of is an idea in the mind of the person thinking of it; therefore nothing can be thought of except ideas in minds; therefore, anything else is inconceivable and what is inconceivable cannot exist"
Is there a table in reality? Of course there is because a man created it. You cannot create a mere appearance; it must be real. Reality is something created and God created the world therefore it is a reality. (Personal Opinion)
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Can Man Live Without God - Chapter 4
(Originally written September 15, 2005 in Book 1)
Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994
Chapter Four - The Homeless Mind
Antitheism hopes to create a literal and figurative utopia where goodness is derived apart from God. Unfortunately, these goals are shattered by failure without reverting to sheer pragmatism.
Immanuel Kant tried to establish a moral impetus within man and to postulate a system of right and wrong from reason alone. Kant set the groundwork for intellectual demagogues of both the Democratic West and the totalitarian Soviet Union.
The USA is to become the USSR without God.
Kant had two theories:
1) That goodness was rational and morals were rational. Thus, all rational beings would be drawn to them.
2) Kant believed that the first theory was contained within mankind and had the capacity to perform these moral and good deeds. By our reason we therefore know what is right and by our will we can do what is right.
Kant believed that God is not essential to reveal morality since man can come to morality by reason; but, he does not deny that God has given some commands. Antitheists praise the first part of this and conveniently omit the second.
Kant's efforts to provide a rational basis for ethics and morals apart from God was unsuccesful but paved the way for existentialists like Søren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard proposed that rational beings don't gravitate towarads morality, but they have the choice to think of terms in ethic or not to think in terms of ethics.
This and other Enlightenment Age philosophies fail to produce coherent postulates because it leaves life meaningless. To establish morals there must first be the basis of human purpose and destiny. This can solely be arrived at through God. Dostoevsky said, "If God is dead, anything is justifiable."
Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994
Chapter Four - The Homeless Mind
Antitheism hopes to create a literal and figurative utopia where goodness is derived apart from God. Unfortunately, these goals are shattered by failure without reverting to sheer pragmatism.
Immanuel Kant tried to establish a moral impetus within man and to postulate a system of right and wrong from reason alone. Kant set the groundwork for intellectual demagogues of both the Democratic West and the totalitarian Soviet Union.
The USA is to become the USSR without God.
Kant had two theories:
1) That goodness was rational and morals were rational. Thus, all rational beings would be drawn to them.
2) Kant believed that the first theory was contained within mankind and had the capacity to perform these moral and good deeds. By our reason we therefore know what is right and by our will we can do what is right.
Kant believed that God is not essential to reveal morality since man can come to morality by reason; but, he does not deny that God has given some commands. Antitheists praise the first part of this and conveniently omit the second.
Kant's efforts to provide a rational basis for ethics and morals apart from God was unsuccesful but paved the way for existentialists like Søren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard proposed that rational beings don't gravitate towarads morality, but they have the choice to think of terms in ethic or not to think in terms of ethics.
This and other Enlightenment Age philosophies fail to produce coherent postulates because it leaves life meaningless. To establish morals there must first be the basis of human purpose and destiny. This can solely be arrived at through God. Dostoevsky said, "If God is dead, anything is justifiable."
An Open Letter to Bertrand Russell Outline
(Originally written September 15, 2005 in Book 2)
An open letter to Bertrand Russell
Chris Linehan
Outline
I. Man is not inherently good; man is inherently evil.
A. Agreement that Christianity is too broadly used.
1. What it means to be a Christian
a. Personal
b. The Church
c. The community
2. Historical Christianity
3. Modern Christianity
B. Christ's true character
1. Christ's teachings aren't figurative
2. Explanation of Christ's teachings (arguing against Russell's assumptions)
C. Hell is not humane, but it is not God's fault that Hell exists
D. Fear is not the foundation of Christianity
1. Love as a foundation
2. Christ as the key to salvation
E. Man is impotent in saving himself
An open letter to Bertrand Russell
Chris Linehan
Outline
I. Man is not inherently good; man is inherently evil.
A. Agreement that Christianity is too broadly used.
1. What it means to be a Christian
a. Personal
b. The Church
c. The community
2. Historical Christianity
3. Modern Christianity
B. Christ's true character
1. Christ's teachings aren't figurative
2. Explanation of Christ's teachings (arguing against Russell's assumptions)
C. Hell is not humane, but it is not God's fault that Hell exists
D. Fear is not the foundation of Christianity
1. Love as a foundation
2. Christ as the key to salvation
E. Man is impotent in saving himself
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Can Man live without God - Chapter 3
(Originally written September 14, 2005 in Book 1)
Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994
Chapter 3 - The Mad Man Arrives
Auschwitz survivor Victor Frank: "If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drive and reactions, as a mere product of heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted, with the the last stage of corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment - or, as the Nazis liked to say, 'of blood and soil'. I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka and Majdanek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers" (Zacharias, 25).
As America removes the 10 Commandments from the constitution, we are setting the tables fore the rise of "sophisticated and elite" ideologies that will pave the way for another Hitler. This is the child of antitheism and materialism.
Aldous Huxley:
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently, I assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. It is our own will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason to another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless".
Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994
Chapter 3 - The Mad Man Arrives
Auschwitz survivor Victor Frank: "If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drive and reactions, as a mere product of heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted, with the the last stage of corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment - or, as the Nazis liked to say, 'of blood and soil'. I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka and Majdanek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers" (Zacharias, 25).
As America removes the 10 Commandments from the constitution, we are setting the tables fore the rise of "sophisticated and elite" ideologies that will pave the way for another Hitler. This is the child of antitheism and materialism.
Aldous Huxley:
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently, I assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. It is our own will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason to another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless".
Russell: Religion and Morals
(Originally written September 14, 2005 in Book 2)
Why I am not a Christian
Bertrand Russell
1957
Religion and Morals
The important virtues of man are his kindliness and his intelligence.
Intelligence is impeded by any dogmatic creed. Kindness is impeded by belief in sin and punishment.
The decay of dogmatic belief is good.
Why I am not a Christian
Bertrand Russell
1957
Religion and Morals
The important virtues of man are his kindliness and his intelligence.
Intelligence is impeded by any dogmatic creed. Kindness is impeded by belief in sin and punishment.
The decay of dogmatic belief is good.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Can Man live without God - Chapter 2
(Originally Written September 13, 2005 in Book 1)
Can Man Live without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994
Chapter Two: Straying through an infinite nothing
Atheism is the deliberate denial of the existence of God. Atheism bows actions on materialism. Materialism states that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces.
"Atheism is not merely a passive unbelief in God, but an assertive denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism. Atheism contradicts belief in God with a positive affirmation of matter as the ultimate reality" (Zacharias, 17).
One of Nietzsche's contentions was that Christianity had paralyzed human potential. Hitler claimed, "I freed Germany from the stupid and degrading fallacies of conscience and morality. We will train young people whom the world will tremble at. I want young people capable of violence, imperious, relenting and cruel".
Atheism destroyed morality and conscience and without those two things, man is free to become as evil as he can be. Hitler was begotten of enlightened and freed Germany.
Can Man Live without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994
Chapter Two: Straying through an infinite nothing
Atheism is the deliberate denial of the existence of God. Atheism bows actions on materialism. Materialism states that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces.
"Atheism is not merely a passive unbelief in God, but an assertive denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism. Atheism contradicts belief in God with a positive affirmation of matter as the ultimate reality" (Zacharias, 17).
One of Nietzsche's contentions was that Christianity had paralyzed human potential. Hitler claimed, "I freed Germany from the stupid and degrading fallacies of conscience and morality. We will train young people whom the world will tremble at. I want young people capable of violence, imperious, relenting and cruel".
Atheism destroyed morality and conscience and without those two things, man is free to become as evil as he can be. Hitler was begotten of enlightened and freed Germany.
Russell: Can religion cure our troubles?
(Originally written September 13, 2005 in Book 2)
Why I am not a Christian
Bertrand Russell
1957
Can religion cure our troubles?
Truthfulness and intellectual integrity are virtues that can only be derived if one rejects dogmatic religion.
Intellectual integrity: deciding the answer to questions based solely on evidence. If there is not enough evidence to support a conclusion then we should leave the question unanswered. Intellectual integrity will help the world more than any of the organized religions.
Morals are accepted on solely religious creeds or on an obvious social utility.
There is no need for theological morality because as civilization progresses, earthly morals, regulated through law, can punish and stop immoral behavior by itself. There is no need for a god to judge from heaven.
Religions do not like inquiry because inquiry might lead people to question God's existence.
Religion may be argued to be true, but if it is simply argued to be useful then it is dangerous.
"Christianity... does less harm than it used to do, but that it is because it is less fervently believed" (Russell, 198).
Christianity is not the key to changing the world. Christianity has produced many evils over the course of history.
Only man's intelligence can save us from the current state of the world.
Why I am not a Christian
Bertrand Russell
1957
Can religion cure our troubles?
Truthfulness and intellectual integrity are virtues that can only be derived if one rejects dogmatic religion.
Intellectual integrity: deciding the answer to questions based solely on evidence. If there is not enough evidence to support a conclusion then we should leave the question unanswered. Intellectual integrity will help the world more than any of the organized religions.
Morals are accepted on solely religious creeds or on an obvious social utility.
There is no need for theological morality because as civilization progresses, earthly morals, regulated through law, can punish and stop immoral behavior by itself. There is no need for a god to judge from heaven.
Religions do not like inquiry because inquiry might lead people to question God's existence.
Religion may be argued to be true, but if it is simply argued to be useful then it is dangerous.
"Christianity... does less harm than it used to do, but that it is because it is less fervently believed" (Russell, 198).
Christianity is not the key to changing the world. Christianity has produced many evils over the course of history.
Only man's intelligence can save us from the current state of the world.
Monday, September 12, 2005
Can Man Live Without God - Chapter 1
(Originally Written September 12, 2005 in Book 1)
Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994
In this book Zacharias deals with antitheism, what gives life meaning, and who Jesus is.
Chapter 1 - Anguish in affluence
Philosophy takes place on three tiers
Level One: Foundational level of theory. Great philosophical debate and dealing with clear epistemological bias. This level involves rigorous application of the laws of logic. THere is no room for feeling, culture or emotion at this level.
Level Two: This level deals with that which is done through the arts.
Level Three: This level deals with that which is had at a kitchen table.
Level three is where most of humanity lives and operates. In order for a philosophical theory to be understood it must be debated and conversed at level three so that all humanity can understand.
Can Man Live Without God?
Ravi Zacharias
1994
In this book Zacharias deals with antitheism, what gives life meaning, and who Jesus is.
Chapter 1 - Anguish in affluence
Philosophy takes place on three tiers
Level One: Foundational level of theory. Great philosophical debate and dealing with clear epistemological bias. This level involves rigorous application of the laws of logic. THere is no room for feeling, culture or emotion at this level.
Level Two: This level deals with that which is done through the arts.
Level Three: This level deals with that which is had at a kitchen table.
Level three is where most of humanity lives and operates. In order for a philosophical theory to be understood it must be debated and conversed at level three so that all humanity can understand.
Russell: Freedom and the Colleges
(Originally written September 12, 2005 in Book 2)
Why I am not a Christian
Bertrand Russell
1957
Freedom and the Colleges
Professors should be hired on expertise alone and not on personal beliefs, and they should be judged by other experts in their field.
Academic freedom is threatened by the plutocracy and the churches.
It is important to have both sides of an argument openly presented, even if one side is a minority, controversial or an unpopular argument.
Intellectualism and progress are dependent upon an individual's freedom to disagree with the public.
Collective wisdom is not an adequate substitute for the intelligence of individuals.
Heretics are the only people who have changed moral and intellectual thought.
New thoughts and new beliefs are necessary at all times.
Why I am not a Christian
Bertrand Russell
1957
Freedom and the Colleges
Professors should be hired on expertise alone and not on personal beliefs, and they should be judged by other experts in their field.
Academic freedom is threatened by the plutocracy and the churches.
It is important to have both sides of an argument openly presented, even if one side is a minority, controversial or an unpopular argument.
Intellectualism and progress are dependent upon an individual's freedom to disagree with the public.
Collective wisdom is not an adequate substitute for the intelligence of individuals.
Heretics are the only people who have changed moral and intellectual thought.
New thoughts and new beliefs are necessary at all times.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
Russell: Our Sexual Ethics
(Originally written September 11, 2005 in Book 2)
Why I am not a Christian
Bertrand Russell
1957
Our sexual ethics
Sex is still viewed by many in an irrational way.
Monogamy is nearly impossible in modern times. Monogamy can be assisted by living in a secluded area and by the fear of sin. Public opinion can also keep people monogamous.
The difficulty of arriving at a workable sexual ethic arises from the conflict between the impulse to jealous and the impulse to polygamy.
Jealousy can be lessened by removing the stigma in society that goes along with unfaithfulness.
Fatherhood and marriage must pass away for women to be completely sexually liberated.
If marriage and paternity are to survive than a compromise between complete promiscuity and lifelong monogamy must be made.
It is unhealthy for women to have children before 20 and unhealthy for men to marry before 30. It's better that the young have considerable sexual freedom if kids can be avoided.
Divorce should be easy and blameless.
Women sho8uld work when they are wives because otherwise they are gigolos.
Jealousy is the driving force in sexual morality. Modesty is the second force behind our current sexual ethics.
Morality exists in the entire World, at least a certain type of culturally accepted morality.
Asceticism is an impulse which seems to come into play only when a society reaches a certain point of civilization.
The old sexual ethic was effective for a man-dominated world because it kept wives subdued. With the liberation of women, one of two things must change in our sexual ethics. Either men must be held monogamous like women or women must be set free of monogamy, like men are.
Our new sexual ethics will form more effectively and quickly if we continue to weaken the taboo on sexual knowledge.
"In seeking the new ethic of sexual behavior, therefore, we must not ourselves be dominated by the ancient irrational passion which gave rise to the old ethic" (Russell, 175).
The old ethic had come to good maxims, but accidentally
Since the old ethic has some good maxims we mustn't abandon the old ethic completely but include the maxims that are capable of producing the promotion of human happiness.
There is no good reason to shelter children from sexual knowledge.
The child who is told what he wants to know and allowed to see his parents naked will have no pruriencey and no obsession of a sexual kind" (Russell, 176).
Ignorance of sex is dangerous for the growth of a child into adulthood.
There is no reason to only explain the physiological effects of sex or to tie it and box it in the constraints of marriage.
Why I am not a Christian
Bertrand Russell
1957
Our sexual ethics
Sex is still viewed by many in an irrational way.
Monogamy is nearly impossible in modern times. Monogamy can be assisted by living in a secluded area and by the fear of sin. Public opinion can also keep people monogamous.
The difficulty of arriving at a workable sexual ethic arises from the conflict between the impulse to jealous and the impulse to polygamy.
Jealousy can be lessened by removing the stigma in society that goes along with unfaithfulness.
Fatherhood and marriage must pass away for women to be completely sexually liberated.
If marriage and paternity are to survive than a compromise between complete promiscuity and lifelong monogamy must be made.
It is unhealthy for women to have children before 20 and unhealthy for men to marry before 30. It's better that the young have considerable sexual freedom if kids can be avoided.
Divorce should be easy and blameless.
Women sho8uld work when they are wives because otherwise they are gigolos.
Jealousy is the driving force in sexual morality. Modesty is the second force behind our current sexual ethics.
Morality exists in the entire World, at least a certain type of culturally accepted morality.
Asceticism is an impulse which seems to come into play only when a society reaches a certain point of civilization.
The old sexual ethic was effective for a man-dominated world because it kept wives subdued. With the liberation of women, one of two things must change in our sexual ethics. Either men must be held monogamous like women or women must be set free of monogamy, like men are.
Our new sexual ethics will form more effectively and quickly if we continue to weaken the taboo on sexual knowledge.
"In seeking the new ethic of sexual behavior, therefore, we must not ourselves be dominated by the ancient irrational passion which gave rise to the old ethic" (Russell, 175).
The old ethic had come to good maxims, but accidentally
Since the old ethic has some good maxims we mustn't abandon the old ethic completely but include the maxims that are capable of producing the promotion of human happiness.
There is no good reason to shelter children from sexual knowledge.
The child who is told what he wants to know and allowed to see his parents naked will have no pruriencey and no obsession of a sexual kind" (Russell, 176).
Ignorance of sex is dangerous for the growth of a child into adulthood.
There is no reason to only explain the physiological effects of sex or to tie it and box it in the constraints of marriage.
Saturday, September 10, 2005
Logic - Chapter 4 - Salmon
(Originally written September 10, 2005 in Book 1)
Logic
Wesley C. Salmon
Chapter 4 - Logic & Language
Words are symbols. A word is given meaning by people assigning it to symbolize something tangible or intangible.
An extension of a word is a class of objects that the word correctly applies to. The intension of a word consists of the properties a thing must have to be in the extension of that word.
To define a word through extensions is called the extensional definition, which uses the class of things the word applies to. To define a word through intension is to use the properties of what a thing must have to be an extension.
There are two fundamentally different ways of indicating the extensions of the word:
1) (Non-verbal) ostensive definition: point to the objects in the extension of the word
2) (Verbal) naming the different types of extensions another way
The problem with extensional definitions is that it is impossible to name the different types or name all of the objects within a class. For example, take dogs. One can't in good, solid conversation list every single dog breed and individually named dog that ever existed. Besides, some dogs haven't been born yet and it is impractical to do this even with supernatural foreknowledge of doggy births.
Extensional definitions hope to indicate a few objects of the extension, assuming that other objects of the extension can be recognized by similar characteristics in the pointed out ones.
Intensional definitions are verbal in nature. One important type of intensional definition is the explicit definition. An explicit definition consists of giving a word or a phrase which means the same thing as the word being defined. For example, pentagon means a five-sided plane figure. In this sentence, the 'pentagon' is the definiendum; 'five-sided plane figure' is the definiens.
A definition is circular if the definiendum occurs in the definiens. For example if the pentagon were described as a plane figure having five sides is a pentagon. A definition can also be circular in a more discreet manner as well. For example:
Mendacity means a lack of veracity
Veracity means an absence of prevarication
Prevarication means mendacity
Many words refer to objects, events or properties. These have extensions and intensions. Other words have meaning only as they function in linguistic context. These words have neither extension nor intension. For example, There is no such thing as 'unless'; there is no event as 'unlessing'; there is no property of being 'unless'. The word 'unless' has no meaning in isolation. 'Unless' and other words like it have purely grammatical functionality. The words like 'unless' gain their meaning through showing how they function in a given context. This type of meaning is called 'contextual definition'.
Since logic is concerned with form or structure, many of the most important logical words are defined contextually.
Definitions are not true or false, but their adequacy can be judged in terms of their ability to fulfill certain functions.
Some definitions are designed to characterize the customary usage of the word so that those people who speak the language correctly (not using slang) can converse in understandable terms. Dictionaries use definitions this way.
Sometimes we define a new word because there is no established way of briefly expressing an important meaning.
A word is vague if there are objects which are neither definitely included nor definitely excluded from its extension.
Sometimes we try to find an intensional definition for a word whose extension is quite well known.
It is important when finding an intensional definition that it be neither too broad nor to narrow in its properties so as not to include objects outside of the extension or too narrow that it excludes objects within the extension.
Some words are given definitions to introduce a word which will have theoretical importance and utility. Such definitions are often found in scientific work.
Words can also have emotive force. This force can be either positive or negative. Definitions whose main function is the transfer of emotive forces are called persuasive definitions. We need words with emotive forces to express our feelings, emotions and attitudes to one another.
Definitions are conventions. While it is true that conventions are arbitrary in nature and generally equitable, some conventions function better than others in real terms.
Analytic, Synthetic and Contradictory statements:
For the purpose of logical analysis it is important to distinguish those statements which are logically true or false from those which are factually true or false.
An analytic statement is one whose truth follow from the definitions of the words which occur in it. (A logical truth).
A contradictory statement is one whose falsity follows from the definitions of the words which occur in it. (A logical falsehood).
Synthetic statements are statements whose truth or falsity is not determined solely by the meanings of the words they contain. Synthetic statements are not logical truths or falsehoods; they are factual statements.
Categories and Contradictions:
Contradictories occur when two statements are made in a way that if one is true the other is false. For example, It's raining here. It's not raining here. One is true; one is false. Logically we cannot determine which, but we know that one must be true and the other is therefore false.
The form of contradictories: P or not-P. It is called the law of the excluded middle. It expresses that every statement is either true or false.
Another form of contradictories: Not both P and not-P. This is called the law of contradiction. It expresses that no statement is both true and false.
Two statements can be made in a way that it is impossible for both of them to be true, but both can be false. These are called contraries.
Contraries and Contradictories:
The relation between the two statements is called contrariety. For example, It is cold here; It is hot here. It is impossible for both to be true, but it could be a moderate temperature and thus, make both statements false.
Ambiguity and equivocation:
Sometimes words have multiple meanings and their definitions are derivative of the word's context. If a word is used in a context that we cannot tell which of the word's meanings is intended then the word has been used ambiguously.
The fallacy of equivocation is when a word uses two distinct meanings in an argument. For example:
Only man is rational
No woman is a man.
Therefore, all women are irrational.
Logic
Wesley C. Salmon
Chapter 4 - Logic & Language
Words are symbols. A word is given meaning by people assigning it to symbolize something tangible or intangible.
An extension of a word is a class of objects that the word correctly applies to. The intension of a word consists of the properties a thing must have to be in the extension of that word.
To define a word through extensions is called the extensional definition, which uses the class of things the word applies to. To define a word through intension is to use the properties of what a thing must have to be an extension.
There are two fundamentally different ways of indicating the extensions of the word:
1) (Non-verbal) ostensive definition: point to the objects in the extension of the word
2) (Verbal) naming the different types of extensions another way
The problem with extensional definitions is that it is impossible to name the different types or name all of the objects within a class. For example, take dogs. One can't in good, solid conversation list every single dog breed and individually named dog that ever existed. Besides, some dogs haven't been born yet and it is impractical to do this even with supernatural foreknowledge of doggy births.
Extensional definitions hope to indicate a few objects of the extension, assuming that other objects of the extension can be recognized by similar characteristics in the pointed out ones.
Intensional definitions are verbal in nature. One important type of intensional definition is the explicit definition. An explicit definition consists of giving a word or a phrase which means the same thing as the word being defined. For example, pentagon means a five-sided plane figure. In this sentence, the 'pentagon' is the definiendum; 'five-sided plane figure' is the definiens.
A definition is circular if the definiendum occurs in the definiens. For example if the pentagon were described as a plane figure having five sides is a pentagon. A definition can also be circular in a more discreet manner as well. For example:
Mendacity means a lack of veracity
Veracity means an absence of prevarication
Prevarication means mendacity
Many words refer to objects, events or properties. These have extensions and intensions. Other words have meaning only as they function in linguistic context. These words have neither extension nor intension. For example, There is no such thing as 'unless'; there is no event as 'unlessing'; there is no property of being 'unless'. The word 'unless' has no meaning in isolation. 'Unless' and other words like it have purely grammatical functionality. The words like 'unless' gain their meaning through showing how they function in a given context. This type of meaning is called 'contextual definition'.
Since logic is concerned with form or structure, many of the most important logical words are defined contextually.
Definitions are not true or false, but their adequacy can be judged in terms of their ability to fulfill certain functions.
Some definitions are designed to characterize the customary usage of the word so that those people who speak the language correctly (not using slang) can converse in understandable terms. Dictionaries use definitions this way.
Sometimes we define a new word because there is no established way of briefly expressing an important meaning.
A word is vague if there are objects which are neither definitely included nor definitely excluded from its extension.
Sometimes we try to find an intensional definition for a word whose extension is quite well known.
It is important when finding an intensional definition that it be neither too broad nor to narrow in its properties so as not to include objects outside of the extension or too narrow that it excludes objects within the extension.
Some words are given definitions to introduce a word which will have theoretical importance and utility. Such definitions are often found in scientific work.
Words can also have emotive force. This force can be either positive or negative. Definitions whose main function is the transfer of emotive forces are called persuasive definitions. We need words with emotive forces to express our feelings, emotions and attitudes to one another.
Definitions are conventions. While it is true that conventions are arbitrary in nature and generally equitable, some conventions function better than others in real terms.
Analytic, Synthetic and Contradictory statements:
For the purpose of logical analysis it is important to distinguish those statements which are logically true or false from those which are factually true or false.
An analytic statement is one whose truth follow from the definitions of the words which occur in it. (A logical truth).
A contradictory statement is one whose falsity follows from the definitions of the words which occur in it. (A logical falsehood).
Synthetic statements are statements whose truth or falsity is not determined solely by the meanings of the words they contain. Synthetic statements are not logical truths or falsehoods; they are factual statements.
Categories and Contradictions:
Contradictories occur when two statements are made in a way that if one is true the other is false. For example, It's raining here. It's not raining here. One is true; one is false. Logically we cannot determine which, but we know that one must be true and the other is therefore false.
The form of contradictories: P or not-P. It is called the law of the excluded middle. It expresses that every statement is either true or false.
Another form of contradictories: Not both P and not-P. This is called the law of contradiction. It expresses that no statement is both true and false.
Two statements can be made in a way that it is impossible for both of them to be true, but both can be false. These are called contraries.
Contraries and Contradictories:
The relation between the two statements is called contrariety. For example, It is cold here; It is hot here. It is impossible for both to be true, but it could be a moderate temperature and thus, make both statements false.
Ambiguity and equivocation:
Sometimes words have multiple meanings and their definitions are derivative of the word's context. If a word is used in a context that we cannot tell which of the word's meanings is intended then the word has been used ambiguously.
The fallacy of equivocation is when a word uses two distinct meanings in an argument. For example:
Only man is rational
No woman is a man.
Therefore, all women are irrational.
Russell: The New Generation
(originally written September 10, 2005 in Book 2)
Why I am not a Christian
Bertrand Russell
1957
The New Generation
The world is changing. Gone are the days when religion pounced upon fear, making it a duty and turning resignation into a virtue. The old ways of man being prone to live off of his environment are gone. Now modern man, in which there are only a few samples alive today, does not accept nature with thankfulness of prayer but considers nature raw material for his scientific manipulations.
Science has replaced God because we know evil is not of Satan, but of a lack of understanding.
Satan no longer creates sin; "bad glands and unwise conditions" of children birth sin.
"Sin is what is disliked by those who control education" (Russell, 159).
The change of the new generation must come through a change in child rearing.
"More and more departments of child nurture have to be taken away from the home" (Russell, 160).
The family must be slowly phased out and childcare must be regulated more by the state.
Family dies, childbearing becomes a profession, the state assumes the position of parents, evening the playing filed and removing traumatic and prejudices which are bad for raising children.
The state will increase in power and superstition will decrease when knowledge is spread.
Why I am not a Christian
Bertrand Russell
1957
The New Generation
The world is changing. Gone are the days when religion pounced upon fear, making it a duty and turning resignation into a virtue. The old ways of man being prone to live off of his environment are gone. Now modern man, in which there are only a few samples alive today, does not accept nature with thankfulness of prayer but considers nature raw material for his scientific manipulations.
Science has replaced God because we know evil is not of Satan, but of a lack of understanding.
Satan no longer creates sin; "bad glands and unwise conditions" of children birth sin.
"Sin is what is disliked by those who control education" (Russell, 159).
The change of the new generation must come through a change in child rearing.
"More and more departments of child nurture have to be taken away from the home" (Russell, 160).
The family must be slowly phased out and childcare must be regulated more by the state.
Family dies, childbearing becomes a profession, the state assumes the position of parents, evening the playing filed and removing traumatic and prejudices which are bad for raising children.
The state will increase in power and superstition will decrease when knowledge is spread.
Friday, September 9, 2005
Logic - Chapter 3b - Salmon
(Originally written September 9, 2005 in Book 1)
Logic
Wesley C. Salmon
Chapter 3
Analogy:
Analogy is a widely used form of inductive argument based upon a comparison between objects of two different types. The form is:
Objects of type X have properties G & H
Objects of type Y have properties of G & H
Objects of type X have property F
Therefore, objects of type Y have property F.
An analogies strength (or weakness) is based upon the similarities of the objects being compared. The similarities or dissimilarities of two objects can be both numerous, but for an analogy to be strengthened or weakened the similarities/dissimilarities are focused on the relevancy of the argument.
The Design argument (most widely used for the existence of God)
Causal Arguments and Causal Fallacies:
Argument occurs when a statement is made after an observation with the help of personal knowledge. For example: A ranger observing lightning striking a dry forest and he infers that a fire will ensue. It is a cause to effect on the basis of a knowledge of causal relations.
Superstition causes many fallacies and incorrect premises in correct inductive arguments.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a causal fallacy. It is the fallacy of assuming that since B followed A, B was caused by A.
The fallacy of confusing cause and effect is when the cause and the effect are switched.
The fallacy of the common cause is when the two events are causally related but not in the cause-effect relationship. Both events could be effects of another cause.
A hypothesis is a statement that is taken as a premise, in that its logical consequences can be examined and compared with facts that can ascertained by observation. A hypothesis is confirmed if it is adequately supported by inductive evidence. Then the conclusion strengthens the hypothesis in most cases.
The Hypothetic-Deductive Method is:
1) Setting up a hypothesis
2) Deducing consequences from the hypothesis
3) Checking by observation to see whether these consequences are true.
The form is:
Hypothesis.
Therefore, Deduced consequences.
Auxiliary hypotheses are hypotheses that have been confirmed previously and are used to conclude the observational predication (deduce consequences)
Logic
Wesley C. Salmon
Chapter 3
Analogy:
Analogy is a widely used form of inductive argument based upon a comparison between objects of two different types. The form is:
Objects of type X have properties G & H
Objects of type Y have properties of G & H
Objects of type X have property F
Therefore, objects of type Y have property F.
An analogies strength (or weakness) is based upon the similarities of the objects being compared. The similarities or dissimilarities of two objects can be both numerous, but for an analogy to be strengthened or weakened the similarities/dissimilarities are focused on the relevancy of the argument.
The Design argument (most widely used for the existence of God)
Causal Arguments and Causal Fallacies:
Argument occurs when a statement is made after an observation with the help of personal knowledge. For example: A ranger observing lightning striking a dry forest and he infers that a fire will ensue. It is a cause to effect on the basis of a knowledge of causal relations.
Superstition causes many fallacies and incorrect premises in correct inductive arguments.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a causal fallacy. It is the fallacy of assuming that since B followed A, B was caused by A.
The fallacy of confusing cause and effect is when the cause and the effect are switched.
The fallacy of the common cause is when the two events are causally related but not in the cause-effect relationship. Both events could be effects of another cause.
A hypothesis is a statement that is taken as a premise, in that its logical consequences can be examined and compared with facts that can ascertained by observation. A hypothesis is confirmed if it is adequately supported by inductive evidence. Then the conclusion strengthens the hypothesis in most cases.
The Hypothetic-Deductive Method is:
1) Setting up a hypothesis
2) Deducing consequences from the hypothesis
3) Checking by observation to see whether these consequences are true.
The form is:
Hypothesis.
Therefore, Deduced consequences.
Auxiliary hypotheses are hypotheses that have been confirmed previously and are used to conclude the observational predication (deduce consequences)
Russell: Nice People
(Originally written September 9, 2005 in Book 2)
Why I am not a Christian
Bertrand Russell
1957
Nice People
"The chief characteristic of nice people is the laudable practice of improvement upon reality" (Russell, 152).
Nice people do not come in contact with the crudeness of reality, for if they did they would have to act as ferocious as reality and therefore, no longer be nice.
Nice people send out people who would be nice, but have to work in reality, to hunt out the not nice people in order to imprison, kill or by some other means punish them for being not nice.
A nice person must have a high social standing for otherwise they would not have the means necessary to be nice.
Missionaries travel with the cotton trade to 'savages' to help them cover the shamefulness of the human body. The spread of virtue is done through profits.
Nice people do not like truth because truth is shocking. Nice people like things that are not shocking.
Wisdom increases sorrow and nice people increase sorrow to spread wisdom.
Nice people hate pleasure because pleasure is wicked.
Nice people are dying out because being happy is no longer looked down upon by society.
Nice people hate pleasure and sex.
Why I am not a Christian
Bertrand Russell
1957
Nice People
"The chief characteristic of nice people is the laudable practice of improvement upon reality" (Russell, 152).
Nice people do not come in contact with the crudeness of reality, for if they did they would have to act as ferocious as reality and therefore, no longer be nice.
Nice people send out people who would be nice, but have to work in reality, to hunt out the not nice people in order to imprison, kill or by some other means punish them for being not nice.
A nice person must have a high social standing for otherwise they would not have the means necessary to be nice.
Missionaries travel with the cotton trade to 'savages' to help them cover the shamefulness of the human body. The spread of virtue is done through profits.
Nice people do not like truth because truth is shocking. Nice people like things that are not shocking.
Wisdom increases sorrow and nice people increase sorrow to spread wisdom.
Nice people hate pleasure because pleasure is wicked.
Nice people are dying out because being happy is no longer looked down upon by society.
Nice people hate pleasure and sex.
Thursday, September 8, 2005
Logic Chapter 3a - Salmon
(Originally written September 8, 2005 in Book 1)
Logic
Wesley Salmon
Chapter 3 - Inductive
Inductive arguments provide conclusions whose contents exceed that of their premises. (Deductive arguments stay within the confines of their premises).
Inductive arguments state if the premises are true then the conclusion may not always be true, but that it is probably true.
Induction by enumeration is the simplest inductive argument. This form of inductive argument draws a conclusion about all of a class based on the premise of observing a sample of that class. For example:
All X's we examined had 1Y
Therefore, all X's have 1 Y
It doesn't have to be all it can be a percentage as well:
75% of the X's observed had 1 Y
Therefore, 75% of all X's have 1 Y
Form:
Z% of the observed members of F are G
Therefore, Z% of F are G
-If Z is equal to exactly 0 or 100, then it is a universal generalization
-If Z is equal to 1-99, then it is a statistical generalization
The fallacy of insufficient statistics is the fallacy of making a conclusion prior to collecting enough evidence to warrant such a conclusion.
The fallacy of biased statistics consists of being an inductive generalization upon a sample which is known to be unrepresentative or one which there is good reason to believe may be unrepresentative of the population.
In a statistical syllogism the form is:
Z% of F are G
X is F
Therefore, X is G
The value of Z determines the strength of the syllogism. If Z is close to 100 then it is a strong argument. But, if Z is equal to 50 then the premises offer no support for the conclusion. If Z is less than 50 then the premise offers evidence for the opposite of the conclusion.
The argument from authority form is:
X asserts P
Therefore, P
A frequent method of attempting to support a conclusion is to create some person, institution or writing to assert a conclusion. Even though the form is fallacious, sometimes it can be correct to use an authority. In these cases, the authority must be reliable. He/she/it must be known to be honest and well informed and known to have based their judgment upon objective evidence which could be examined and verified. Here is the correct from for an argument from authority:
X is a reliable authority concerning P
X asserts P
Therefore, P
It can be misused however if the authority is misquoted or misinterpreted. It can be misused if the authority is the authority only an authority based on glamour, prestige or popularity, but has no real special competence in any field of learning. It can be misused if an authority makes a conclusion outside of his realm of expertise. It can be misused because the authority may express opinions about matters that they could not possibly have evidence for. It can be misused because authorities don't always agree and because people use the authorities that match their biases. For example, some one could cite a well respected theologian that has all the authority in the world concerning the theological and philosophical arguments pertaining to the existence of God for an argument concerning the validity of a trickle-down economy. While the well respected theologian is a learned and celebrated scholar, his economic viewpoint is not one from authority. His expertise is elsewhere and thus, he is no longer an expert. Likewise, an argument based on authority about the existence of God can be shaded by misrepresenting or piecemeal quoting said expert to support previously held biases.
The argument against the man is a similar inductive argument. It concludes that an argument is false because it was made by a certain person. It has the form:
X is a reliable anti-authority on P
X asserts P
Therefore, Not-P
The misusers of this argument tend to be emotional appeals rather than argument at all. This type of argument could be fallacious, but at the same time, it is also utterly biased.
Logic
Wesley Salmon
Chapter 3 - Inductive
Inductive arguments provide conclusions whose contents exceed that of their premises. (Deductive arguments stay within the confines of their premises).
Inductive arguments state if the premises are true then the conclusion may not always be true, but that it is probably true.
Induction by enumeration is the simplest inductive argument. This form of inductive argument draws a conclusion about all of a class based on the premise of observing a sample of that class. For example:
All X's we examined had 1Y
Therefore, all X's have 1 Y
It doesn't have to be all it can be a percentage as well:
75% of the X's observed had 1 Y
Therefore, 75% of all X's have 1 Y
Form:
Z% of the observed members of F are G
Therefore, Z% of F are G
-If Z is equal to exactly 0 or 100, then it is a universal generalization
-If Z is equal to 1-99, then it is a statistical generalization
The fallacy of insufficient statistics is the fallacy of making a conclusion prior to collecting enough evidence to warrant such a conclusion.
The fallacy of biased statistics consists of being an inductive generalization upon a sample which is known to be unrepresentative or one which there is good reason to believe may be unrepresentative of the population.
In a statistical syllogism the form is:
Z% of F are G
X is F
Therefore, X is G
The value of Z determines the strength of the syllogism. If Z is close to 100 then it is a strong argument. But, if Z is equal to 50 then the premises offer no support for the conclusion. If Z is less than 50 then the premise offers evidence for the opposite of the conclusion.
The argument from authority form is:
X asserts P
Therefore, P
A frequent method of attempting to support a conclusion is to create some person, institution or writing to assert a conclusion. Even though the form is fallacious, sometimes it can be correct to use an authority. In these cases, the authority must be reliable. He/she/it must be known to be honest and well informed and known to have based their judgment upon objective evidence which could be examined and verified. Here is the correct from for an argument from authority:
X is a reliable authority concerning P
X asserts P
Therefore, P
It can be misused however if the authority is misquoted or misinterpreted. It can be misused if the authority is the authority only an authority based on glamour, prestige or popularity, but has no real special competence in any field of learning. It can be misused if an authority makes a conclusion outside of his realm of expertise. It can be misused because the authority may express opinions about matters that they could not possibly have evidence for. It can be misused because authorities don't always agree and because people use the authorities that match their biases. For example, some one could cite a well respected theologian that has all the authority in the world concerning the theological and philosophical arguments pertaining to the existence of God for an argument concerning the validity of a trickle-down economy. While the well respected theologian is a learned and celebrated scholar, his economic viewpoint is not one from authority. His expertise is elsewhere and thus, he is no longer an expert. Likewise, an argument based on authority about the existence of God can be shaded by misrepresenting or piecemeal quoting said expert to support previously held biases.
The argument against the man is a similar inductive argument. It concludes that an argument is false because it was made by a certain person. It has the form:
X is a reliable anti-authority on P
X asserts P
Therefore, Not-P
The misusers of this argument tend to be emotional appeals rather than argument at all. This type of argument could be fallacious, but at the same time, it is also utterly biased.
Russell: The Fate of Thomas Paine
(Originally written September 8, 2005 in Book 2)
Why I am not a Christian
Bertrand Russell
1957
The Fate of Thomas Paine
Thomas Paine preached democracy democratically.
Born of poor Quaker parents.
He was a revolutionist.
Wrote against slavery in America in 1775.
Paine was, one of the, if not the first advocate for a totally free America.
Paine took up the torch for the freedom from every tyranny in America: monarch, aristocracy and slavery.
Thomas Paine inspired courage and resolve in America during the revolution and helped it to victory. He acquired fame for his revolution ideals in France and he helped start the more democratic dealings in England.
Paine's reward was being stripped of money, fame, friends and dignity. He was wanted to be hanged in England, tolerated but unneeded in Napoleonic France and politely disregarded in America.
Paine's single mindedness and intolerance for cruelty of any kind is what makes him admirable. He has had a profound effect and his views are generally accepted nowadays.
Why I am not a Christian
Bertrand Russell
1957
The Fate of Thomas Paine
Thomas Paine preached democracy democratically.
Born of poor Quaker parents.
He was a revolutionist.
Wrote against slavery in America in 1775.
Paine was, one of the, if not the first advocate for a totally free America.
Paine took up the torch for the freedom from every tyranny in America: monarch, aristocracy and slavery.
Thomas Paine inspired courage and resolve in America during the revolution and helped it to victory. He acquired fame for his revolution ideals in France and he helped start the more democratic dealings in England.
Paine's reward was being stripped of money, fame, friends and dignity. He was wanted to be hanged in England, tolerated but unneeded in Napoleonic France and politely disregarded in America.
Paine's single mindedness and intolerance for cruelty of any kind is what makes him admirable. He has had a profound effect and his views are generally accepted nowadays.
Wednesday, September 7, 2005
Conclusion of Deductive Logic - Salmon
(Originally written September 7, 2005 in Book 1)
Logic
Wesley Salmon
Chapter 2
The Dilemma
Form of Dilemma
Either P or Q
If P, then R
If Q, then S
Therefore, either R or S
There are four forms of categorical statements, each form is represented by a vowel:
A) All F are G (F is the subject term, G is the predicate term) [Universal Affirmative]
E) No F are G [Universal Negative]
I) Some F are G [Particular Affirmative]
O) Some F are not-G [Particular Negative]
There are variations to all forms
The Universal affirmative is better stated as "If anything is F, then it is G" so as not to assume the existence of F
In the Particular Affirmative and the Particular Negative it is better stated as either, "at least one F is G" or "at least one F is not G".
Categorical Syllogisms are arguments composed entirely of categorical statements. For example:
All dogs are mammals
All mammals are animals
Therefore, all dogs are animals
In this case, dogs are the end term, mammals are the middle term and animals are the end term. The form of the argument is thus:
X=Y
Y=Z
Therefore, X=Z
A term is distributed in a categorical statement if that statement says something about each and every member of the class that the term designates. Example: All horses are mammals. In this statement the subject term (horses) is distributed because the statement says something about horses, but the predicate term (mammals) is undistributed because the statements makes no claim about mammals.
The fallacy of conclusion is an illogical syllogism that concludes (collectively) that a class has a property because (distributively) every member of that class has that property. For example, Each man on the team is an excellent player, therefore the team is an excellent one.
The fallacy of division is an illogical syllogism that concludes (distributively) that every member of a class has a certain property from the premise that the class (collectively) has that property. For example, Congress is a distinguished organization, therefore each congress man is a distinguished one.
Categorical Syllogisms:
A) Universal Affirmative
-Subject distributed
-Predicate undistributed
E) Universal Negative
-Subject distributed
-Predicate distributed
I) Particular Affirmative
-Subject undistributed
-Predicate undistributed
O) Particular Negative
-Subject undistributed
-Predicate Distributed
Three rules for testing the validity of the syllogism:
1. The middle term must be distributed exactly once.
2. No end term can only be distributed once.
3. The number of negative premises must equal the number of negative conclusions.
All three rules must be met for a syllogism to be valid.
The fallacy of every and all is the confusion of the two terms. It occurs when the premise states that for every 'F' there is some 'G' to which it has the relation 'R' but the conclusion finds that every 'F' has a relation 'R' to a specific 'G'. For example:
Premise: Every family here has a minivan
Conclusion: All the families here own a Dodge Caravan
The premise states that all the families in the neighborhood own a minivan, but the conclusion finds that all the families own the same type of minivan. You could check the garages and see if this was true or not, but that is immaterial. The truthfulness of the conclusion is not at question here. It is simply the fact that argument is illogical as constituted.
This was an over simplification of Deductive Logic. Deductive logic has much more complex arguments and proofs of arguments. But complex arguments can be separated into small arguments to test validity. They can be assigned symbols to make the testing quicker and more effective.
Logic
Wesley Salmon
Chapter 2
The Dilemma
Form of Dilemma
Either P or Q
If P, then R
If Q, then S
Therefore, either R or S
There are four forms of categorical statements, each form is represented by a vowel:
A) All F are G (F is the subject term, G is the predicate term) [Universal Affirmative]
E) No F are G [Universal Negative]
I) Some F are G [Particular Affirmative]
O) Some F are not-G [Particular Negative]
There are variations to all forms
The Universal affirmative is better stated as "If anything is F, then it is G" so as not to assume the existence of F
In the Particular Affirmative and the Particular Negative it is better stated as either, "at least one F is G" or "at least one F is not G".
Categorical Syllogisms are arguments composed entirely of categorical statements. For example:
All dogs are mammals
All mammals are animals
Therefore, all dogs are animals
In this case, dogs are the end term, mammals are the middle term and animals are the end term. The form of the argument is thus:
X=Y
Y=Z
Therefore, X=Z
A term is distributed in a categorical statement if that statement says something about each and every member of the class that the term designates. Example: All horses are mammals. In this statement the subject term (horses) is distributed because the statement says something about horses, but the predicate term (mammals) is undistributed because the statements makes no claim about mammals.
The fallacy of conclusion is an illogical syllogism that concludes (collectively) that a class has a property because (distributively) every member of that class has that property. For example, Each man on the team is an excellent player, therefore the team is an excellent one.
The fallacy of division is an illogical syllogism that concludes (distributively) that every member of a class has a certain property from the premise that the class (collectively) has that property. For example, Congress is a distinguished organization, therefore each congress man is a distinguished one.
Categorical Syllogisms:
A) Universal Affirmative
-Subject distributed
-Predicate undistributed
E) Universal Negative
-Subject distributed
-Predicate distributed
I) Particular Affirmative
-Subject undistributed
-Predicate undistributed
O) Particular Negative
-Subject undistributed
-Predicate Distributed
Three rules for testing the validity of the syllogism:
1. The middle term must be distributed exactly once.
2. No end term can only be distributed once.
3. The number of negative premises must equal the number of negative conclusions.
All three rules must be met for a syllogism to be valid.
The fallacy of every and all is the confusion of the two terms. It occurs when the premise states that for every 'F' there is some 'G' to which it has the relation 'R' but the conclusion finds that every 'F' has a relation 'R' to a specific 'G'. For example:
Premise: Every family here has a minivan
Conclusion: All the families here own a Dodge Caravan
The premise states that all the families in the neighborhood own a minivan, but the conclusion finds that all the families own the same type of minivan. You could check the garages and see if this was true or not, but that is immaterial. The truthfulness of the conclusion is not at question here. It is simply the fact that argument is illogical as constituted.
This was an over simplification of Deductive Logic. Deductive logic has much more complex arguments and proofs of arguments. But complex arguments can be separated into small arguments to test validity. They can be assigned symbols to make the testing quicker and more effective.
Russell: Life in the Middle Ages
(Originally written September 7, 2005 in Book 2)
Why I am not a Christian
Bertrand Russell
1957
Life in the Middle Ages
The Middle Ages were rude, knightly and pious.
The people of the Middle Ages enjoyed brutal spectacles of torture and death. Death was inevitable so it should become commonplace. At the same time the aristocratic society came up with chivalry to pass the otherwise mundane time away. It was an interesting balance of piety and barbarism.
Why I am not a Christian
Bertrand Russell
1957
Life in the Middle Ages
The Middle Ages were rude, knightly and pious.
The people of the Middle Ages enjoyed brutal spectacles of torture and death. Death was inevitable so it should become commonplace. At the same time the aristocratic society came up with chivalry to pass the otherwise mundane time away. It was an interesting balance of piety and barbarism.
Tuesday, September 6, 2005
Reductio ad absurdum - Salmon
(Originally written September 6, 2005 in Book 1)
Logic
Wesley C. Salmon
1963
Reductio ad absurdum
-Reductio ad absurdum is a valid argument form that is widely used
-Sometimes it is used to establish a positive conclusion, but often it is used to refute the thesis of an opponent
Form:
To prove p, assume not-p
Deduce a false statement either: p (which contradicts the assumption not-p) or q and not-q (a self contradiction) or some other statement r, which is known to be false
-reductio ad absurdum is closely related to denying the consequent
-reductio ad absurdum is frequently used in mathematics
-Plato uses reductio ad absurdum in his dialogues
Examples:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)