Thoughts on existence (part 1)

Before we go further, I must admit that in Book 3 of my notes I apparently was really, really interested in drawing stuff. There are a whole lot of diagrams... I'll do my best to recreate them in words. Let's hope that a decade of speaking and writing will compensate for the energy of harshly drawn lines and energy...

(Originally written May 31, 2006 in Book 3)

How does on philosophize?

Unknown future.

Birth.

In between these two points is the present.

But along one's own history there are an innumerable number of events. Each of these is an event, idea, person, action, etc, that has made an impact upon a man's life in the past.

When it comes to the present we come to the beginning point. This is the moment that one begins to ponder or contemplate. From this point a person can go in unlimited numbers of directions, except backwards, which is the past.

My apologies to the Linehan scholars of the late 21st, early 22nd century. If you ever get your hands on my early notebooks... Good luck. There are parts that I just guess.... (Suddenly, I remember something about vain pride...)

Each of these arrows (my drawing representation), the ones that have impacted the past, play some role in pondering and thus in philosophy. The future is unknown and undetermined (at least to the subject). Thus, philosophy is a science of pondering the past, with all of its influences and predicting a probable outcome of the future philosophy - as it is probability, it is therefore never an exact science. It cannot thus be a never changing entity. If it is stagnant, then it is only so because the person who holds it is stagnant. Philosophy is the eternal process of becoming. It reflects upon the past to hold a probable outcome of the future. If it reflects on the past with no consideration of the future than it is worthless historical data. If it merely contemplates the unknown future than it is solely fiction. Neither of these is useful in a quest for knowledge, which philosophy must be. The former becomes pride of oneself (or shame) and both lead to disaster. The latter creates imaginative worlds which are inhospitable to reality. 

You and I exist in reality and therefore these imaginative worlds are incapable of sustaining our lives for extended periods of time without relinquishing meaningful existence. If we attempt to exit in such worlds (these worlds most certainly exist) then we become mere characters of stories. Are you not more real than Huck Finn? You, I, and dar Huck are most definitely real in the sense that we exist. But even though you or I will never (probably) enjoy the more fame than Huck, do you feel slighted? Is not your life more meaningful than his? I know I fell more meaningful than he; I hope you do as well.

This leads us to the types of existence. Again the definition of existence is simply that which is. Thus, everything that you or I or Huck or anyone else things of exists. But unlike men, all existences are not equal.

Existence - that which is

1) This pad is, therefore it exists.

2) This pencil is, therefore it exists.

3) I am, therefore I exist.

4) You are, therefore you exist.

5) Huckleberry Finn is, therefore he exists.

6) Mark Twain is, therefore he exists.

What then is the difference between you, I, Huck Finn, Mark Twain, this pad or this pencil? If we all exist then we must share some similarities. This is true! At one level all six of us have a common characteristic, which is existence. Yet, you and I (unless I am dead as you read this) moof your st definitely have a different existence then Mark Twain. And regardless of wether you, I or, anyone else is dead we have distinctly different type of existence than Huck Finn.

Let us look at each of these six things and classify their existence. 

Past Existence:

First, there is past existence. Do I have a past? Yes, I have a past that dates back to at least 1983 A.D. Do you have a past? Yes, and it dates back at least to the moment of your conceptions. (We will focus on pre-conception existence later).

Thus, anything at this very moment (10:15 on 5/31/2006) and any thing that was prior to this moment has a past existence. I exist (in some fashion) at 10:15 on May 31, 2006 and have existed (at least) when I was conceived by my parents. When that was (some moment in time in May of 1983 A.D.) and up to, but not this very moment consists of my past existence. Your past existence is composed of the moment of your conception (at least) right up to the very moment you read this, but not that very moment. Therefor all six of things I previously mentioned have a past existence.

1) I have a past existence from (at least) the moment of conception up until this very moment, (which is when I write this) but not including it.

2) You have a past existence from (at least) the moment of conception up until this very moment (which is when you read this), but not including it.

3) This pad has past existence from the moment (at least) from when it was created up until this very moment, but not including it.

4) This pencil has past existence from the moment (at least) from when it was created up until this very moment, but not including it.

5) Mark Twain has past existence from (at least) the moment of his conception up until this very moment, but not including it.

6) Huck Finn has past existence from (at least) he was written down by Mark Twain up until this very moment, but not including it.

Thus, each of the six have a past existence which is eternal, not immortal. The past is ever growing from the point of the objects' creation (thus eternal in the sense that it is continual, but not immortal as it has a beginning). Thus, a pas existence is subjective to the individual object and can be either small or enormous, based on the object's creation point.

Present Existence

However, you may have noticed that past existence for all six of the objects ends at this very moment. This very moment is continually changing but it is the present moment that is the present. This very moment happens to now be 10:49 est on May 31, 2006. It is the present and the present for all things that exist presently. Present existence, unlike past existence which is subjective to the object, is universal to all objects. Thus, past existence is subjective and particular to an individual object; but present existence is universal to all objects. (Present existence is however subjective in the sense that any rational being can determine what the present is to be measured as (moment = year or month or week or day or hour or minute or second, etc.) All six have a sort of present existence (more to come soon).

Future Existence

Since objects have past and present existence it likely follows that objects have future existence. And since objects' past existence is immortal there necessarily must be a future existence.

Now the definition of existence is 'that which is' and future's very definition is 'what will become'. These two definitions seem to be at odds with each other. SInce then the future is yet undetermined and unknown, the very thought of being able to define something as having future existence is quite absurd. How can something be and at the same time be in that which is not yet? It surely cannot!

Therefore future is defined as 'that which is what will become'

No future existence is in reality present and past existence of intellectual thoughts or ideas. The idea that I will exist in some moment beyond this present one is the idea that I will exist in the future, but that idea exists in the present  and will have a past existence when the present becomes past (as it continually does). Thus there is no such thing as future existence, only present and past existence of ideas of what the future may or may not hold.

Up until now we have separated existence into two categories: past existence and present existence. Each of the six objects we pondered had both. Now we will begin to differentiate the objects' existences. This is the existence of an object in reality; is it tangible or sensible existence? (Although God's existence is actual existence, but we will discuss that later). For now let us focus on what exists in the physical realm (which is the realm of existence that is perceivable by the five physical senses).

Opposite actual existence is intellectual existence. Intellectual existence is the existence of an idea. Thus, we can now separate one of our six from the others.

Past Actual Existence	Present Actual Existence
You	You
I	I
Mark Twain (physical)	Mark Twain (physical)
This Pencil	This Pencil
This Pad	This Pad
Past Intellectual Existence	Present Intellectual Existence
Huck Finn	Huck Finn

Notice that Mark Twain is noted as the physical existence. In the past this may mean his lively body or his lifeless remains (as he is dead); but, his present actual existence is solely his lifeless remains. The idea of Mark Twain that we get from studying history would actually fall under intellectual existence.

Now existence is broken down hence.

Sorry, more drawings.

Under existence is both past and present. Under past existence is actual & intellectual existence. Under present existence, likewise is actual and intellectual existence.

It then follows under the actual existence category that we have another set of opposite subcategories. This is organic and inorganic existence.

Organic existence consists of an object that has life. Inorganic existence consists of an object that has no life. Thus, you and I have both past-actual-organic existence and present-actual-organic existence. Mark Twain (physical) has past-organic existence and his works have past-actual-inorganic existence and present-actual-inorganic existence. This pad and this pencil only have past-actual-inorganic existence and present-inorganic-existence.

More notes on Aristotle's Ethics

(Originally Written May 31, 2006 in Book 3)

The good is that which our end is. Thus, the means (actions by which we hope to accomplish the end) are not the good.

But most ends are merely means to further ends. This means are goods because ends are sometimes means to some new end.

The highest good must be something final. It is the end of all means and not a mean to some new end.

Happiness is the highest good.

Happiness must be defined in the function of man and what is particular to him & not to any other creature. Thus, happiness has nothing to do with life (as all creatures have life) and nothing to do with sensation (as animals sense as well). Therefore, happiness is defined in terms of the soul, which is unique to man.

The good of man is activity of the soul in accordance with virtue (that virtue must be final and the best virtue of all).

Happiness needs external help, for men with unhappy circumstances can hardly find happiness.

A happy man is "one who in accord with perfect virtue and adequately furnished with external good, not for some chance period of time but for his whole lifetime" (Shaw, 50).

Thoughts on Time

(Originally written May 27, 2006 in Book 1)

There is no such thing as time...

Time is the all important factor in most of our lives. However, time is merely an illusion. It is a construct of man. Without time, there would be existence, but without existence time would not be. Time is broken down into units like decades, years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, seconds, etc., etc. These units of time definitely exist, but time as a universal does not. Time only exists as we experience it.

Currently, it is 12:03 am on May 28, 2006. This is a unit of time that is only because I (and presumably you) exist in this moment. It has significance because it is part of our lives.

Brief notes on Aristotle's ethics

(Originally written May 25, 2006 in Book 3)

Social & Personal Ethics
William H. Shaw

Chapter 3: Aristotle

Book 1 - Happiness

-Ethics are not exact
-The study of ethics produces general, but not universal truths
-"The young are not proper students of political science (or moral philosophy) as they have no experience of the actions of life which form the premises and subjects of reasoning" (Shaw, 47-48).
-Happiness is the ultimate good
-Different people define happiness differently

Three types of life:
1. Sensual (happiness = enjoyment)
2. Political (happiness = honor or virtue)
3. Thought

The sin that haunts us

(Originally written May 25, 2006 in Book 3)

The chief sin is idolatry. But it is idolatry in the sense that we become and therefor worship ourselves as gods. This comes from vain pride.

Pride is good.
Vain pride is bad & potentially dangerous.
Self-idolization from vain pride is evil.

Hence, the first commandment - Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Vain pride is the father of all sins.

Sin is the manifestation of evil.

Therefore, vain pride is the evil which haunts us.

Notes on Augustine of Hippo

(Originally Written May 24, 2006)

Sermons to the People
Augustine of Hippo
2002

Firstly, I love the story of Augustine's conversion. I want so dramatic an experience with God to awaken me. But, his entrapment and inauguration as a priest moved me to tears when I read it in this book for the first time.

Sermo LI: Advent

The Word of God comes through man. Man cannot be mistaken for the Word. We are merely vessels that carry the Word.

Pg. 5 Cyclical life of Man

Man is vile for reveling in vile things.

Woman urged man to sin. Both fell. Women were redeemed through Mary's birthing of Christ. Men were redeemed through Christ being a man. Redeemed = potential salvation.

The Church is the net that catches believers.

"The great evil of the human soul, pride" (Augustine, 12).

Infinitude

(Originally written May 22, 2006 in Book 1)

Infinitude

Can we truly believe in infinitude? We cannot experience it. We cannot even truly fathom it. How then can we believe in it?

Even if we have immortal souls they are not infinite souls because they have a beginning. If we do not have immortal souls, infinitude is even more difficult to comprehend.

Imagine a line A going on forever in both directions, and underneath line A is a line segment going on forever to the right B, another line going on forever to the right C and another going on forever to the right D.

If A is infinitude then B is an immortal soul that began in 10,000 BC. C is an immortal soul that began in 1 A.D. and D is an immortal soul that began in 1983. The immortal souls will exist forever and ever, as infinity does but they have a beginning and no end; whereas infinity has neither beginning nor end.

The body is mortal and has no concept of infinitude. The physical realm holds the body and therefore has no concept of infinitude. But, the body encases the immortal soul while in the physical realm. Mind is coexisting with the soul, both of which are immortal (unfalsifiable). Body is mortal (undeniable).

How do I reconcile this? Aaah :(

The mind is immortal (beginning, no end) and con ponder this slightly. By pondering it a lot of times we can gather limited amounts of knowledge of it. We can transfer the knowledge of immortality (beginning, no end) to infinitude (no beginning, no end). Thus, by comprehending a little bit of immortality we can comprehend a smaller bit of infinitude.

By looking at a clear blue sky we can start to fathom both immortality and infinitude. It seems to go on forever, that is we cannot see the end in any direction. This is a good starting place for comprehension of the matter. Unfortunately it may also be the furthest point we can go. Also we can look at two mirrors and see the endless reflections back and forth. This will also give a glimpse of infinitude because we will see countless reflections. Alas our comprehension of infinitude is small regardless of the tests we give it.

Enter faith! Faith comes to the rescue. Faith is assurance of something, which is more powerful than knowledge because we do not possess Absolute Knowledge.

Dichotomy of faith and knowledge. Faith surpasses knowledge.

God: Paradoxical Existence

(Originally written May 22, 2006 in Book 1)

God: Paradoxical Existence

Traits & Opposite Traits

Infinite Justice and Infinite Mercy
Infinite Righteousness and Infinite Forgiveness
Infinite Vengeance and Infinite Love

etc.

Man is sinful; of this there is no doubt. God is infinitely righteous and therefore man and God cannot exist in the same place. Why? Infinite righteousness demands infinite righteousness, thus, even if a single man were very righteous, he would still have the stain of some sin and therefore not be infinitely righteous. Since God is infinitely righteous man cannot be with God. And yet, man is with God in Heaven. Thus we are faced with a dilemma: either God is not infinitely righteous or man is infinitely righteous. Both of these conclusions are absurd.

For man to enter Heaven (and be with God) he must be made infinitely righteous. But God demands infinite justice and therefore punitive action must be taken on man. Man ought to be destroyed for their transgressions. Luckily, God's infinite justice is accompanied by all of God's other attributes, one of which is infinite mercy. So we have a scenario where God's infinite justice demands that sinful man be destroyed and God's infinite mercy demands that sinful man be made righteous, infinitely righteous so that sinful man can be redeemed and dwell with God.

This is a contradiction! God is therefore a contradiction and cannot be. But that is absurd. Thus, there is an intercessor between God's two contradictory attributes, which is His wisdom. God's infinite wisdom saves sinful man from destruction and makes it possible for him to be redeemed. Thus, a God that at first glance appears contradictory is actually paradoxically mysterious. If not for God's infinite wisdom man would be lost forever or God would cease to be God.

Strange Notes on Emotions

(Originally written May 21, 2006 in Book 1)

First of all, this week has been absolutely fucking crazy. Between moving out of the dorms and into 3-D, and finals, and waiting on New Horizons and getting jobs and the apartment, and then having to say no to NH, I sort of hit my threshold level. My 'emotions' were going wild. I've already stated that I believe emotions are essential to human life and understanding so I really want to focus on them. This will probably blend philosophical and psychological studies, but I'm ok with that. First, let's look at my diagram for the operations of the mind to see where emotions fit in.

Consciousness                                                                          Perception
                                                                                         emotions
                                                                        Thought                                     Imagination
                                                                        Reason
                                                                        Understanding
Will                                                                                                                   Memory

As I stated elsewhere the perception function of the mind is like the scientist taking empirical evidence. Perception deals with the physical realm, the spiritual realm and the God realm by observations through the senses.

Once the mind has observations or empirical data, it works to comprehend that data. But no empirical data exists in the thinking process (Thinking process = thought to reason to understanding). The data is transferred from the perception to the thought operation via emotions.

Empirical data -> Perception ->Emotions (filter) sends Empirical-Emotional Data to Thought Process

All empirical data has to be channeled through the emotional operation to reach the thought operation. Thus, all empirical data becomes empirical-emotional data. But what exactly are emotions?

The words 'feelings', 'emotions' and 'mood' seem to be used interchangeably in American society. I believe that we should differentiate these terms to fight off our ever-present enemy, ambiguity. These three terms are what constitute the emotional operation of the mind. They are similar, but not identical. Granted, these words may be used interchangeably in modern English and everyday usage; and, I may simply be playing language games by defining these terms. But, what is language if it isn't a tool that we have at our disposal to articulate meaning through words?

Therefore, I will define these three terms to fight against ambiguity. I understand that they may never become the universally accepted meanings in everyday life, but in our quest for knowledge it is helpful to define terms so that we don't bicker over the senseless and can argue to achieve knowledge.

1) Feeling - a reaction of the mind to an external or internal event (empirical data) that sparks this involuntary reaction.

2) Emotion - A set of feelings that are linked together by the mind to create a unified, stronger and more pervasive account of reactions. While a feeling is an involuntary reaction to a single event, an emotion is an involuntary reaction to a set of events.

3) Mood - A voluntary reaction to feelings and emotions that a mind chooses to embrace. Feelings grow stronger by being linked to other feelings and thus becoming emotions. An emotion becomes a mood when the mind choose to embrace that emotion. The mood is the demeanor or disposition of the mind.

Feelings and emotions are, at the instance that they occur, involuntary and mandatory reactions to events. They are determined responses in the sense that the mind cannot help but feel a certain way about an event. As an example, let us ponder a hypothetical scenario. Say that Kelly's dog Max passes away. The instant that Kelly finds out that Max is dead her mind cannot help but get the feeling of sadness.

The empirical data - Max is dead
Perception - Observation that max is dead (empirical data)
Emotions - Empirical data from the observation that Max is dead + a feeling of sadness
Thought - awareness that Max is dead with the feeling of sadness
Reason - awareness of the implications that Max's death means and the sad feeling inextricably connected to this awareness
Understanding - Comprehension that Max is dead and never coming back and a feeling of sadness

Depending on how sentimental Kelly is and how close she was to Max will determine how strong the feeling of sadness is.

When memory plays a part it is run back through the emotions again to hit the thought process. Kelly will instantly recall the thinking process (thought+reason+understanding) through memory. She will also receive the same empirical data from the perception every instance she observes that Max is dead (by any of the five senses). Each of these procedures will produce a feeling of sadness. When it is being comprehended in the understanding, each of these individual feelings can be united into the emotion of sadness.

Kelly's sadness will be stronger or weaker based on her sentimentality and on her connection to Max. The emotion will be proportional to these two factors and to the emotion(s) or feeling(s) she had previously just felt.

Both the feelings and emotions are determined by the empirical data sent to the emotions. Not in the sense that all reactions are predetermined, but in the sense that Kelly's mind is determined to react in some manner. If she was feeling pleasant or good feelings prior to observing the fact of Max's death this can produce a positive or negative effect. It could be positive in that if she was already experiencing some type of sadness it might have been linked to that and it would then be a stronger sadness. But it could also produce a negative effect if she somehow feels guilty for her happy feelings or emotions and attaches a feeling of guilt to a feeling of sadness to create a guilty-sadness emotion. This process is almost completely involuntary. We have no control over our feelings or emotions. This is quite an abysmal fact for those who desire complete control over their minds.

Luckily, a mood is not determined. It is a free-will choice. Kelly has the option to will herself to not be overcome by the sadness she is experiencing in emotion or feeling form. If Max were suffering, then his death could be viewed as a good thing. The feelings and emotion of sadness would remain in Kelly's mind, but her mood would be a sorrowful joy for the end of pain in Max's life. This would take an incredible amount of strength to do because Kelly's mind would have to work hard to deny the emotion of sadness the power of becoming her mood.

IF Kelly's sadness became a mood, then it did so only because she chose it. It may actually be a negative choice rather than a positive one, but it would be a choice nonetheless. The choice not to work towards a less sad mood and let the emotion of sadness become a mood would be Kelly's choice. Feelings naturally become emotions and emotions naturally become moods. It takes work to alter one's mood, but a choice is still made. Therefore, reactions like feelings and emotions are determined because we do not have the choice in responding in a way we want. But a mood is the choice and subsequent action to make an emotion a mood. Therefore it is an operation of the will and all operations of the will are free.

Church and State

(Originally written May 17, 2006 in Book 1)

The relationship between Church and state should be separate. Separate, yes; however, the government should create an atmosphere that is conducive for the Church to flourish. The government should then leave the Church to worship as they please. But, if a practice of worship is detrimental to any individual or society in a physical way then the government must put a stop to that practice, not to the worship as a whole. This would be the same course of action needed in cases of emotional abuse and psychological hostility. These two must be scrutinized closer than the first. The Church then should influence the state.

Thoughts on the Imago Dei

(Originally written May 16, 2006 in Book 1)

Nature of Man

In the beginning there was God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, three in one.

At creation the image of God (a portion of it) was imputed into man.

At creation man was created in the image of God. My analogy is as follows. God looked at Himself in a mirror and cut a portion of it out of the whole. This portion was a perfect likeness of God, however it was not a complete reflection of him. If God were four squares then man is one square. That square is a perfect representation of the part of God that is in man, but not a perfect and complete copy of himself.

Thus, at creation man was fashioned in the image of God, but not created as a god.

Creation: Man = perfect being with some of the characteristics of God, not all of His characteristics or not the totality of those characteristics.

Post Fall

Sin has tainted the perfection that exists in man.

Thoughts on the notion of individuality

(Originally written May 16, 2006 in Book 1)

Man (Individuality vs. Society)

What is man?

Physical - body
Mental - Mind
Emotional - Mind and Soul
Spiritual - Soul
Social - ? Body/Mind/Soul?

How do you answer such a broad question?

Step one: introspection

By definition I am a human and thus, a man (universal, not sex).

I have a body with many parts (physical). I have thoughts (mind). I have emotions and feelings (soul & mind). I have a spiritual awareness (soul). I have, I have, I have... But what am I?

I am a composite of many things. Thus, I am a society of many things. I am the society of the body, the mind, and the soul of Chris Linehan. But if I am a society, is the concept of an individual or individuality a mute point?

Consider the body of a man as a machine. It works consistently for X amount of years. The processes and functions it performs are regulated by the brain. The brain stores countless programs that help the body function in a normal way. But the body is not a single entity. It is a composition of many parts. Thus, the body is a society. Each organ of he body or part of the body in and of itself is a society of individual cells. Each of those cells is an unique and amazing individual entity and yet if it were isolated, it would cease to be useful. In all likelihood a single cell of a human being would not survive for very long on its own. Thus, is an individual human cell worth as much as an individual? No, its usefulness and worth are derived from the society that it exists in. The body cannot live without the heart, but the heart cannot exist without the body (in a living state). Each are mutually dependent on the other. Yet a single skin cell can be removed and the body will be nearly unaffected. The skin cell is dependent.

Since the body in and of itself is not an individual entity, how can man be an individual entity?

Each individual part of the visible body compose the body. Since the body is merely a composition of parts it is therefore a society of parts. While this may seem to be the end, look even closer still. The head, a part of the individual body can be broken down further into the right eye, left eye, right ear, left ear, nose, lips and chin. Thus, the seemingly individual entity known as the human head is actually a sub-society of the society shown to exist, which is the human body.

Even a single eye at a visible level is not an individual entity. It is a sub-society of the head, which is the sub-society of the body, which is a collection of sub-societies.  This continue on and on and on to infinity.

The purpose of philosophy is to shed light on the world, not to create problems out of nothing. This previous theory of nullifying the concept of individuality seems to do the latter. What benefit do we receive by denying existence of individual entities? Does this help us at all?

At this stage I don't believe it does. However, I think once we realize that each of us is actually a society then we can better understand the way society itself is supposed to exist.

What is individuality? Something that is independent? Something that is alone? Individuality is a relative term. The earth is an individual planet in the solar system. North America is an individual continent on the society that is Earth. America is an individual nation in the North American society. Indiana is an individual state in the society of America. Upland is an individual town in the society of Indiana. Taylor University is an individual University in the Upland society. The Student Union is an individual building in the Taylor society. I am an individual student in the society of the Student Union. And since I am a man, I am a society as we have already seen.

Therefore, individuality is not a concrete quality. It is merely a focal point, a humanly designated word to represent the quality of oneness. It would be much more difficult to define a human being without designating this world. If someone were to ask "who is Chris Linehan?" and we had no concept of individuality, how would you answer that question?

The answer then would be something like this, Chris Linehan is the collection of two feet, two legs, penis, two hands, two arms, stomach, chest, neck and head sitting at the two legged and flat surface (table) with the collection of two feet, two legs, vagina, two arms, stomach, chest, neck and head that is called ______. Luckily, her and I are the only ones sitting in this section so that person would know that either I or her were actually Chris Linehan. Unfortunately, they would have to depants us to inspect which had the penis and which had a vagina to ascertain who was who. I don't particularly like this idea or this type of world. It is here that the concept of individuality plays such a crucial role.

Individuality is a word that we use to give us uniqueness in this world. As human beings we have this need to be individuals. Why? What drives this need? Pride. We are all prideful creatures (as we should be). It is our personal pride that drives us to differentiate ourselves. No two human beings look identical. Even the most similar of identical twins have noticeable differences in their physical appearances. However, this differentiation is not enough for us.

No, we work to set ourselves apart from one another. Even individual human beings who seem to work at great lengths to blend in do not desire to become completely faceless at every point in their lives. There is an urge to differentiate ourselves some how deep inside all human beings. This stems from pride, which comes from our self-serving motives.

Societies are founded on these self-serving motives. Here I mean societies of thinking beings, not of mindless parts.

More questioning about rights

(Originally written May 12, 2006 in Book 1)

Rights

Understanding rights is vital to any ethical system. If we have no rights then what do we act on? Instinct? If we act on instinct then life would be much less complex. We do not act on instinct though, thus, existence is much more complex.

What are rights?

-ability to act on something without impediment.

Actions are the manifestations of rights. i.e. If we have the right to live, then by living we are manifesting that right.

Who has rights?

If one is to claim that a single human being has a fundamental right, then all humans must have that fundamental right. If then one were to claim that a single human has a right to wage a war or tax another human being, do all humans have that right? No, there are types of rights.

If humans all have certain rights, what happens if those rights infringe upon each others?

The end times notes

(Originally written May 10, 2006 in 3 Subject Book)

Historic Christian Belief

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

True, Origen

Between Death & Resurrection

Purgatory
-Roman Catholic Doctrine (2 Maccabees 12:45)

Protestant objections
-Luke 16:26
-Hebrews 9:27

Paradise
-Jesus: Luke 23:43
-Paul: 2 Corinthians 12:4, Philippians 1:23
-Revelation 2:7, 6:9-11

The Return of Christ & the millennium

Historic pre-millennialism (2nd century)
-post apostolic fathers

Amillennialism (4th century)
-Augustine of Hippo

Post-Millennialism (16th century)
-Jonathan Edwards

Dispensational Pre-Millennialism (19th century)
-Darby, LaHaye/Jenkins: Left Behind

Questions about rights

(Originally written May 10, 2006 in Book 1)

Rights:

1. What are rights?
2. Where do rights come from?
3. Why do we have rights?
4. How do we have rights?
5. Why are rights important?
6. Are rights fundamental or derivative?

Rights are abilities to act without impediment.

Rights are principles and therefore useless unless they are manifested in some way. They are potentiality. Thus, rights are potential actions.

Notes on Logical Positivism

(Originally written May 10, 2006 in 3 Subject Notebook)

Logical Positivism

Central Claims/aims

1. Verificationism
2. Reductionism/logical atomism
3. Unity of science (physicalism)

A.J. Ayer - Logic, Truth and Logic

For a proposition to be cognitively meaningful it must be either:
1) Analytic (true by definition)
2) Empirically meaningful

Meaningful statements:
-A triangle has three sides (analytic)
-Bachelors are unmarried (analytic)
-There is life in the Andromeda Galaxy (empirically meaningful)

Meaningless statements
-Phil has an immortal soul
-God exists
-Killing innocent people is wrong
-The Mona Lisa is beautiful

Problems with Logical Positivism

1) The definition of cognitively meaningful fails its own verification principle. Thus, the term cognitively meaningful is cognitively meaningless.

2) Not all truths can be grounded in experience.

Wittgenstein:

Philosophy of Language
-Rejected the picture theory of meaning
-Endorsed the concept of meaning by usage
-Language is socially relative
-Language is always a practical function
-Meaning is derived from usage
-Family resemblances (game)
-Language is blurry concepts

Biblical backing for animal rights issues

(Originally written May 9, 2006 in 3 Subject Book)

Animal Rights

Rights/Duties

Sentient  Rights

Genesis 1:26, 9:1-7 Divine image bearers exercising dominion

Genesis 2:16-17 - Pre-Fall diet, vegetarian??

Deuteronomy 12:15, 20 - Israelites may eat meat

Proverbs 12:10 - ethical treatment of animals

Mark 7:18-19: "Are you so dull? He asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn't go into their heart but their stomach, and then out their body" (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean).

Luke 12:24 - humans are more valuable in God's eyes than animals are

1 Timothy 4:1-5 - humans can eat animals

Isaiah 11:6 - the wolf, the lamb & the child

A rambling exercise about rights

(Originally Written May 9, 2006 in Book 1)

Rights

What is a right?
-The ability to do something without impediment, not the ability to do something without consequences.

Thus all men have the fundamental right to do anything they want. (This is problematic).

-The ability to do something without impediment with the acceptance of the consequences and the duty inextricably attached to the right. It is the duties attached to the rights that prevent man from doing whatever he pleases.

Actions are manifestations of rights.

If an action is done by a person (an individual) that impedes another individual, that action is a manifestation of a right and it is a violation of another individual's right. However, depending on the right that was violated the action may or may not be a crime or an offense.

Example - Each individual has the right to acquire as much wealth as possible, in any means that is not forbidden by a society's laws. Therefore the right of Bill to open a restaurant to accumulate wealth is the same right that Bob has to open a restaurant. If Bob has a restaurant and Bill opens a restaurant (that is basically identical) right next to it, Bill is manifesting his right to wealth and encroaching upon Bob's right to wealth. In this instance Bill is manifesting his right and violating Bob's right. Since there exists no laws against opening restaurants in the same area in this society. Bill's action is not illegal, unethical or immoral, but is still an affront to Bob's individual right.

Rights are one of two categories:
Individual
Societal

Every individual has rights from the moment of conception. Why? Because that is when it begins. Conception is the origin point for every individual human being. Thus, if an individual has individual rights, which he or she most certainly has, they have those rights from the beginning until they are forfeited or traded for something else. Thus, from the moment of conception an individual has rights. Since all men have the fundamental right to do whatever he or she pleases (as checked by duties which are inextricably connected to that right) the human being from the moment of conception has a single right and a single duty. This first and fundamental right is: All men have the right to do whatever they please.

This is an individual right. All individual rights have societal duties connected to them. And, all societal rights have individual duties attached to them.

Thus, from the moment of conception, every human being has the individual right to do whatever he or she pleases. But that individual then has a societal duty to manifest that right in a way that it does not impede on any other individual's right to do whatever they please.

Instantly this individual right and societal duty come into conflict. The human being in utero has the individual right to do whatever it pleases, which obviously is that it wants to form and be born. The manifestation of this right is for the baby to be born. However the baby's right is manifested without it performing it's societal duty. It manifests its right with no regards to impeding its mother's right to do as she pleases. Thus, we have two parties wishing to manifest their right to do whatever they please and one party (the baby in utero) unable to comply with the duty that comes with the right. The baby and the mother must have substitutionary rights.

Two types of rights and duties

Individual rights - societal duties
Societal rights - individual duties

These contradict themselves and therefore the parties involved in contradictions must develop substitutionary rights and duties.

If the individual right conflicts with the societal duty, thus a new society must be formed. A substitutionary societal right is given to the parties and with it a new individual duty. If the society dissipates (especially to the point where a life is at stake) that new formed society is null and void and the parties revert back to the original individual right and societal duty.

Scenario:

Individual right A of Person 1/societal duty A of Person 1

comes into conflict with

Individual Right A of Person 2/Societal duty A of Person 2

Person 1 & Person 2 form society X with a new right and new duty:

Societal Right B of Person 1/Individual duty B of person 1

works together with

Societal Right B of Person 2/Individual duty B of person 2

To manifest itself as:

Satisfactory action C for Person 1

&

Satisfactory action C or D for Person 2

After satisfactory actions are had by both Person 1 and Person 2 the new formed society X has options:

1. It can dissolve itself either by

-Person 1 removing itself

-Person 2 removing itself

-Persons 1 and 2 agreeing to end the society

2. It can continue to follow the same new rights/duties until option 1 occurs

3. It can continue to follow the same new rights/duties (with or without modifying them) and develop other rights/duties until option 1 occurs

Eschatology Notes

(Originally written May 8, 2006 in 3 Subject Book)

Historic Christian Belief

Eschatology

Physical Death

Death - body-soul separation
-not merely 'natural'
-an enemy: sin's penalty
(Genesis 2 & 3, Romans 5:12, 6:23)

For unbelievers: prelude to the final judgment (Revelation 20:6)

For believers: final step in sanctification (1 Corinthians 15:26)

Between Death & Resurrection:

Hades (Hebrew Sheol, Hell)
OT - The Graves
NT - For the wicked dead only

Purgatory

Roman Catholic Doctrine (2 Maccabees 12:45)

Protestant objection to purgatory (Luke 16:26, Hebrews 9:27)

Bad Humor concerening Voltaire

(Originally Written May 8, 2006 in Book 1)


Voltarians, wherefore art thou?

Ecrasons l'infame! We must crush the thing. Voltarians, wherefore art thou Voltarians? It took twelve to establish Christianity and only one to destroy it. Yet, here 228 years later I can hear the bells of the Christian churches ringing at every hour. Where are the Voltarian churches? The time is late, seven has passed, why do I not hear the bells of the first church of Voltaire?

If Voltaire had crushed the vile thing, how is it that it still exists? It seems as if the vile thing has crushed its would be crusher. I guess that this is ok because if it had not turned out this way, I would not be sitting here with my pistachio nuts. Where is your garden Monsieur Voltaire? How will you cultivate it?

Discipleship and how to study the Bible

(Originally Written May 8, 2006 in 3 Subject Book)

Introduction to Christian Education

Colossians 1:28 "He is the one we proclaim, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone fully mature in Christ"

Ephesians 4:11-12 "So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service so that the body of Christ may be built up."

Disciple - follower, pupil, learner
Disciple is used two ways in the New Testament
1) Broad: meaning a follower
2) Narrow: followed Jesus' teaching and bore fruit

Discipleship is a process of learning theology and practice

Spiritual growth is vertical and horizontal. It has a whole person focus. (Luke 2:52, Acts 2:42-47).

The third generation of Christians focused on making disciple-makers (II Timothy 2:2)

Vocation:

Vocation is where your deepest joy meets the world (the divine call to serve). A job is merely a way to earn money. A career is a life goal. What is a divine call? It is not specific to place or time. It is not a way to make life easy. It is not waiting for a voice.

Theory of Revelation:

Liberal - eliminates the supernatural, a perspective of religions, man is generally good
Contemporary - (neo-orthodoxy) contra to the liberal (Karl Barth)
Conservative (evangelical)

One's view of scripture changes the way you view information and the way you teach.

Inductive Bible Study

Deductive - start with a general principle and move to specific details
Inductive (exegesis) - start with specific details and move to a general principle using hermeneutics

Hermeneutics - methods of interpretation

IBS method
1) Observation - what does it say?
2) Interpretation - what does it mean?
3) Generalization - what's the big idea?
4) Application - what's the difference?
5) Implementation - what must I change?

Description vs. Prescriptive interpretation
The Big idea - the point, the composition, the central theme
Ask:
1) What is the author talking about?
2) What is the author saying about what he is talking about?

Application:
Take a specific principle and apply it to a specific situation and apply a specific action plan.

In a lesson plan there are three objectives to touch:
1) A person's head - engage the mind
2) A person's hand - get them to do something
3) A person's heart - get them to feel something

A list of presuppositions

(Originally written May 4, 2006 in Book 1)

Presuppositions

Chris Linehan:

1. I exist
2. I have thoughts
3. I have emotions
4. I am and I was (I have a past)
5. I have physical features
6. I have physical senses
7. I am rational (or at least I am capable of it)
8. I grow through experience or I digress through experience (I am ever changing)
9. I have physical needs
10. I have emotional needs
11. I have physical wants
12. I have emotional wants
13. I have volition

Man:

1. Exists as mind, body, soul and Soul
2. Is intrinsically evil
3. is capable of great things, but unequipped to handle it
4. is overtly sexual
5. is hopelessly lost

God:

1. exists
2. is personal
3. is the creator and redeemer
4. is three in One
5. is involved

Class notes on War & Pacifism

(Originally Written May 2, 2006 in 3 Subject Book)

Contemporary Issues in Philosophy

Pacifists are cordially invited

1. War & Scripture: is there a "Biblical" view in a singular sense?

A. OT - Ancient Israel
B. NT - John the Baptist, Jesus, Luke, Peter, Paul
C. Church History - Pacifism & Just War Theory
D. Luther - two kingdoms

2. Application of Just War Theory

A. Conscription
B. Issues related to Terrorism
1. The State of nature (Pre-law morality)
2. Innocence: how much involvement?
3. International Law
4. God, Israel, Osama bin Laden, Jerry Fallwell
5. Human rights and the laws of war, or law enforcement vs. war
-derogation
-absolute non-derogable rights

Sparse notes on an environmental seminar

(Originally Written May 1, 2006 in 3 Subject)

Stewardship Seminar

Dr. Spiegel - Philosophy department
Dr. Whipple - Biology department
Professor Reber - Earth & Science department

Professor Reber

In 1967, Lynn Townsend White blames the Christian ethics for the current environmental problems. The Christian ideal of nature being for man demands Christians to exploit the earth.

This work by White sparked the Christian Environmental Ethics movement.

In 2006, the pendulum has swung to where most environmentalists see the Christian stewardship concept as one of the strongest environmental ethics in play at the moment.

Background of Reber

-Rural, recycling, Mennonite concept of servitude

More notes on Schopenhauer

(Originally written May 1, 2006 in Book 3)

Schopenhauer

Life's three greatest blessings are youth, freedom and health; but, we only appreciate them once we have lost them.

Time is only noticed when we are bored, not when we are amused.

Existence is happiest when it is least noticed.

Despite Schopenhauer's pessimistic outlook, he still believes life should be lived as long as possible.

Art plays a central role in Schopenhauer's philosophy.