(Originally written June 30, 2006 in Book 2)
It has been awhile since I paid tribute to the man who got me interested in philosophy. It was Bertrand Russell's inexcusable attack upon God, Christianity and the beliefs that sustain me that drove me to philosophy. His folly, passed as wisdom, was the spark that ignited this fire that burns ever hotter in me. Russell was the catalyst that set me on the path to the second greatest thing that drives me. Well, that is a little lofty, and not quite true. Now I will examine myself for the values that guide me. This will answer the question that should plague every human being - Who Am I?
Who is Chris Linehan?
It is befitting my ethics and value system that I am named 'Christopher', which means 'Steadfast in Christ. That is my aim, my goal, my creed, my life. I can spout nonsense until the day I die and not have failed wholly if I live to the meaning of my name. All my philosophy can be proved wrong because I am inherently flawed. I am fallible and incapable of discerning what is truth in all matters (which is my quest for knowledge). For truth is difficult to come by and requires an ever growing and tireless ambition, but Truth is all around me. Truth is inside me, embedded for the war that rages always from the Fall until the Second Coming of Christ and the final unification of God and man. This is the Truth.
Jesus Christ, the son of God, came to earth, fully human yet paradoxically fully God. He was born of the virgin Mary, walked the earth in ministry to the wicked and self-proclaimed righteous. His ministry was seemingly cut short by the cross, but his death was a step in his glorious plan of redemption for the fallen, which is us. His atoning death was a vitally important step in the redemption of man. His ministry culminated when He rose again. His earthly ministry, atoning death, and conquering of the grave and death itself paved the way for all of us who came after Him. This gave us the chance at salvation if we only believe. And, I believe. After rising from the dead he rejoined his Father and the Holy Spirit in paradise, waiting to return in glory and defeat Satan once and for all. Upon his second coming all the saints of every age will join in his triumph and dwell with him forever in the New Heaven. This is Truth and Truth comes easily to us because it was hard fought by a God who needed nothing, but gave everything, that you and I and all men and women could be reconciled to this ever-loving God.
Above all else I am dedicated, motivated and sustained by God.
1. God is my highest value.
After a dedication to God as my highest value and aspiration, what defines me? Where do my loyalties fall next?
They fall in the category of relationships. First, there is the relationship with Truth, which is a personal relationship with God, who is Triune. Second only to the relationships with my creator, redeemer and sustainer is the relationships to whom He has blessed me with; my family and my friends. As with values as a whole, this too is hierarchical.
The most important relationship I have is between my fiancee and I. [As an aside on 1/20/2016, I encourage you to reread paragraph 2, especially where I state 'I am inherently flawed'. Then you will understand this paragraph a bit more like I do.] This is the ordained way of love that God has prescribed. Above all other men and women, I love______
After ______, my immediate family falls close behind. Then, my distant family (which now includes my wife-to-be's family). After that are my brothers and sisters in Christ, who are my family as well.
Values thus far,
1. God, and my relationship with Him
2. Fiancee/Wife, and my relationship with her
2b. My parents, brothers and sisters & those relationships
2c. My extended family (including my fiancee's family)
2d. My family in Christ
After the relationships to my family, first to _______, my beloved wife, then to my immediate family, then to my extended family, then to my family through Christ (of whom include most of the preceding categories) I have a loyalty to my fellow humans. They are all equals as they are all lost. The only difference between them and my family in Christ is that they are welcome in that family and have explicitly or implicitly rejected that welcome. They are all potential brothers and sisters in Christ. My loyalty to them comes with a responsibility to them. I must continue to welcome, invite, educate and love them in hopes of acquiring a new brother or sister in Christ. These are individuals, not incorporated collectives.
Thus, Values are:
1. God, and my relationship with them: a relationship with Truth.
2. ______ [1/20/16: I badly want to address _______ as either 'she who shall not be named' or lady Voldemort] and my relationship with her
2b. My immediate family and my relationship with them.
2c. My extended family and my relationships with them.
2d. My brothers and sisters in Christ and my relationship with them.
3. All individual humans and my responsibility to them and potential relationships with them.
The responsibility and duty I have because of the value of every individual human being that inherently lies in them in spite of their fallenness requires that I acquire tools. These tools are found in the Quest for Knowledge. There are many paths on this quest: medicine, history, sciences, humanities, art, must, mathematics, etc. But all these paths are bound as a single street towards a single goal. They are interconnected by the avenue that either I have chosen or which has chosen me, which is philosophy. But as any rose called something else is a rose, all paths, when traveled straight and narrow, lead to Truth, which is a relationship with God.
Values again:
1. God, and my relationship with Him
2. Lady V, and my relationship with her
2b. My immediate family and my relationship with them
2c. My extended family and my relationship with them
2d. My brothers and sisters in Christ and my relationship with them
3. All individual men and women in the entire world and the responsibility I have to each and every one of them and the potential relationship I have with them that is capable of growing into 2d.
4. The Quest for Knowledge (only as a means to move 3 to 2d).
The Quest for Knowledge can never be used as an end in and of itself because that will only produce a temporary easing of the lust that is curiosity. It can never be used as a means to further selfish ambition, lest it become a tool of self-servitude. I vow to try not to erect an altar to myself as many learned individuals do. If I gain all knowledge but do not fulfill the responsibilities inextricably connected to the relationships I have than I am unfit to worship. Since I am flawed anyway I will never gain all knowledge and therefore should not be worshipped. Rarely does man worship man, but often does man idolize himself. THis is not the Quest for Knowledge - This is perversion of good.
The Quest for Knowledge leads us to conclusions. They create new loyalties and values that are both universal and subjective. Universal ones include nature and living organisms other than man. These both are God's creations and we are called to rule over them. It is our duty to be stewards of this earth and all who inhabit it. But subjective values, like Political Parties, nations, causes, art, music, passions and interests can be valuable subjectively. A person can choose art over music or music over art depending on whether they are audio or visual in inclination. But these are my values and they should be objective and universal (while the persons in the aforementioned hierarchy are subjective).
1. God and one's relationship to Him (Universal)
2. One's wife/husband and relationship to them
2b. One's immediate family and one's relationship to them
2c. One's extended family and one's relationship to them
2d. The body of Christ, which are your brothers and sisters in Christ.
3. Every individual in the world and one's responsibility to them and potential relationship with them.
4. One's Quest for Knowledge, whatever field it may be gives one the skills and tools necessary for fulfilling the responsibility to number 3.
5. To the world as a collective. This includes living organisms and the inanimate universe. The environment is important to all values (Save 1) and therefore is necessary to values as means to furthering (the existence/increase of categories 2-3).
Any other values can be attributed subjectively according to one's background, genetics, passions, interests, and likes, etc. But they cannot contradict the universal ones (aforementioned 5). Otherwise, they will further[add weight to, it's incredibly poor handwriting so I could just be guessing, but at the same time I'm getting fairly angry at Lady V and all of her detractors... sort of the self vs the other and the other's other self vs. the self sort of thing, but, I don't want to interrupt riveting self-taught, self-righteous, self-aggrandizing thought of a self-declared prodigy at 22 ] self-serving ambitions as a means to idolizing one's self. Idolizing one's self is disrespecting the valuable relationships in all the universals. Contradicting the universal values is not valuing something else. It is posturing one's self as the Truth. It is breaking the first commandment.
Noticing that I have excluded one's self from the universal values and subjective values is probably the first thing on your mind. I have omitted one's own self intentionally, not because one's self is not valuable, but because it is included in every category. God has no need for us, but loves us regardless. In order to embrace these ethics (the universal) one must first embrace God and create a relationship with Him. One cannot have any values or ethics if one does not exit. One's own value requires existence and existence implies value.
One finds one's own value in its utmost and highest form; in one's relationship with the creating, redeeming, Triune God. Next one finds one's own value in one's relationship to one's family. Families come in all shapes and sizes. The most important familial relationship is to one's spouse, which is a wife for a man or a husband to a woman. These relationships were put into place by God, so by finding one's own value in one's spouse is indirectly finding one's own value in God.
Not all men and women have spouses for a variety of reasons. One still finds one's own value in their blood relatives. God is a relational God; man is created in the image of God; therefore, man is relational. The closest relations are blood relatives and these extend far or not.
After family ties by blood there are family ties by the blood of Christ. These are extremely valuable because their value comes directly from their relationships with God and one's relationship to God and their relationship between the two brothers and sisters in Christ. This includes the Universal Church and particular churches. A quick note - if one's familial ties are ties to people who are not related through Christ, this category is higher than blood relations and even the relationship between spouses. Believers ought to marry believers, but do not divorce an unbeliever. Work ever harder to welcome them as a brother or sister in Christ. One should also work harder to invite blood relatives into the family of Christ, not because those individuals are universally more valuable than other nonbelievers, but because they are subjectively more valuable because of history and closeness.
All individuals are important and inherently valuable because all are made in the image of God. This makes all individuals inherently valuable. As Christ's family we are to continue His ministry in welcoming the world into reconciliation with Truth and God.
God performs the act of reconciliation but requires us (for our own sake, not his) to guide them in their path to God. We are merely trail guides on the path of reconciliation, which Christ blazed nearly 2,000 years ago,
I wonder to to fulfill our duty as trail guides, must we understand and know the trail? We do this on our own Quest for Knowledge. There are many different trails, but all lead to God if they are followed straight and narrow.
Each path is straight and narrow, but requires different types of knowledge to navigate. In order to guide along any part of the path one must know it fully. If a guide is lost then all are lost. A traveler can be lost and yet safe, if his or her guide knows the path. Philosophy is a path that is sort of the starting point of all paths to truth. It is no more nobler or great than any other path. The philosophical guides are measured as good guides as all guides are measured - on the effectiveness, and more importantly, their effort as a guide to Truth, which is God. Philosophers are merely guides of different paths at the same time. The Quest for Knowledge for philosophers is broader and requires more patience, but can equip them to be more versatile guides.
Regardless of the path, all paths lead to a great divide, which is the separation of man and God. This divide is bridged by the reconciliatory work of Christ. While there are many paths to Christ, it is only through Christ that one reaches Truth and God.
The Quest for Knowledge is an exploration of the physical and natural world; an introspection of self, a virtual compilation and assimilation of ideas, emotions and facts. It looks to the past, the present and the future and works with one aim - Truth, which is only reached in a relationship with God, through the bridge that is Christ.
The Quest gives us explicit and implicit knowledge, which guides us to the Scriptures that explicitly and implicitly formulate these values placed here as the universals, including the value of all God's creation. This is where we find explicit knowledge that demands placing value in nature and living organisms. Implicitly, without the revelation of the Scriptural account of the creation which places humans as stewards of the earth, we can know that these are important and valuable.
The path of one's subjective quest for knowledge is chosen because of genetic predispositions, environmental, socioeconomic and otherwise indeterminable circumstances. Our personalities are guides to which path to choose and then are further molded by that path, the experiences upon that path, and the guides who direct, educate and lead us on our quest, for better or for worse. THese personalities, histories, and subjective circumstances help determine what subjective values we place under the five universal natures.
In the five universal values and the few or many subjective values and the inherent value of ourselves we find in all other values form a comprehensive, coherent and cohesive ethical standard. If any subjective value clashes with a universal value than the subjective value is flawed. If one's own self is given value without relation to another value then it is idolatry and a scourge.
The standard and measure of all values is one's adherence to the duties in that relationship. All relationships are social by nature and this social factor is derived from the social nature of God, which is found in all men because they are created in the image of God. These relationships to individuals are all means to the ultimate purpose of value - finding pure, unadulterated, eternal joy in one's own maker, redeemer, and Truth. The ultimate purpose is to be close to God and the standard by which we measure our values is the God-like quality of them. If our values (universal or subjective) are God-like in nature and quality, the values are good and correct. If they are not God-like, then they are incorrect and evil. There are no amoral values.
The five universal values:
1) God, and one's relationship to him
2) Family and one's relationship to them
3) The individuals who make up the word and one's responsibility and potential relationship to them
4) One's subjective Quest for Knowledge
5) The natural world and one's responsibility and interaction with it are all.
when valued appropriately and acted upon are God-Like because they are derived from God Himself.
Obviously a relationship with God is derived from God. All familial relationships are derived from God by one way or the other. Spousal relationships were implemented y God, which gave rise to immediate familial relationships, which gave rise to extended familial relationships, and to be in a family with brothers and sisters in Christ are required to have a relationship with God in order to be in the family of God. Besides familial relationships, our relationships, actual or potential with ever ever individual in the world comes from two Biblical mandates and truths: 1) All men are created in the image of God and 2) The Great Commission. These obviously come from God if they com from the Bible. In addition to the relationship with them we have a duty via the Great Commission to help them to join the family of God.
We use what is at our disposal to facilitate the Great Commission, which we get on our subjective Quests for Knowledge. Knowledge is the means to accomplish the purpose of our Great Commission. We Quest to fulfill our duty to God, which is fulfilled through man. Lastly, our duty to nature is explicitly spelled out through Genesis. This is derived from God's word, which is obviously derived from God.
Thus, all five universal values meet the criteria of values. Values must be good, which means they are God-like in nature and quality. Values that are not God like are incorrect and evil and not values at all. They are forms of idolatry and contradict the first and highest value: God an one's relationship to Him. Any value that contradicts a universal value destroys cohesiveness and must be cast out.
Thus, in order for something to be a subjective value it must be good, which means God-Like. It must not contradict any universal value. If it is found not to contradict and to be God-like by measuring it up to the standard which God Himself. If it comes from God, either directly or indirectly, it will produce pure, unadulterated joy. This joy is eternal and while it can be muddled, it can never be completely stamped out. This leads us to know the purpose of values and ethics - to draw closer to God. This is only accomplished via Christ, which is reached via the Quest! (Circular?)
Yes but the alpha and omega is, was, and will be. Value is in all creation through God. We find that value through our relationship to God (directly & indirectly). It's always there and always has been there via God. But, we discover it only when we enter into a relationship with Him. (Circular?)
No, a salt shaker has salt in it, but we only discover it when we enter into a relationship with it, directly or indirectly. Directly we shake the salt. Indirectly, we eat the food with salt on it and know through inference there exists a salt shaker, even if we cannot see it. So it is with God.
God is the salt shaker. Value is the salt. Sometimes we see the salt (value) poured out through God in our own relationship with him. Sometimes we taste the salt (value) in other relationships, with who we (might be a hammer?) We can't see the shaker (God), but we can experience the salt (value). It isn't circular. It is what it is: 5 universal values - all stemming from God and countless subjective values stemming from God, working to form a diverse set of ethics with common characteristics, universally aimed at one ultimate purpose- chosen-ness to God and measured by God Himself!
Now I simply ask. How did this come from a reevaluation of Bertrand Russell??? Wow! I'm going to go fix some crabcakes and come back and open The History of Western Philosophy as I planned nearly two hours ago.
Friday, June 30, 2006
A New Concept of Egoism
(Originally written June 30, 2006 in Book 3)
The Virtue of Selfishness: A new concept of Egoism
Ayn Rand
2. Mental Health Vs. Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice
Nathaniel Branden
Healthy minds are those that function to control reality enough to sustain life.
Linehan - Can reality truly be controlled?
Self-esteem is the ultimate control of reality at man's disposal.
Self-esteem is the reward given to a mind that is 'fully committed to reason'
Reason demands that one never subverts consciousness, so consciousness can provide perception, cognition and the control of action.
Self-esteem is necessary for man to deal with reality successfully.
Anxiety and guilt are opposite to self-esteem. They are signals of mental illness. They distort values.
"Self-esteem is a metaphysical estimate" (Rand, 37).
Mysticism and self-sacrificial doctrines are existentially and psychologically destructive.
"Faith is the commitment of one's consciousness to beliefs for which one has no sensory evidence or rational proof... Faith is the equating of feeling with knowledge" (Rand, 37).
In order to have faith one must subdue reason and rationality. Reason becomes guilt when faith is found.
Faith destroys reason.
John Galt - "The alleged shortcut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short circuit destroys the mind" (Rand, 38).
Either a mind is absolutely rational or it is subject to faith, destroying all rationality.
"When one turns from reason to faith, when one rejects the absolutism of reality, one undercuts the absolutism of one's consciousness - and one's mind becomes an organ one cannot trust any longer" (Rand, 38).
Linehan - Reality is absolute? What reality? If one's consciousness is absolute then reality cannot be absolutes. There can only be one absolute. Either it is consciousness of one or it is reality. If it is one's consciousness then reality is the tool of the absolute conscious. This would leave us with purely subjective realities because there are billions of consciousnesses. If reality is absolute then the consciousness of anyone must conform to reality. Both reality and consciousness cannot be absolute.
A supernatural being makes reality uncontrollable. It makes the universe a haunted house.
A supernatural creator of altruism is a sadist.
Humility is the renunciation of the mind.
Linehan - This is completely absurd. Humility does not demand that one is never happy with one's achievements. It demands that one does not count his achievements as absolute, thus making him sure that he himself is not absolute.
Self-sacrifice is equal to mind sacrifice.
"A sacrifice... means the surrender of a higher value in favor of a lower value or of a non-value" (Rand, 40). The opposite is not sacrifice, it is a gain.
Values are hierarchical and if man is rational, the hierarchy of values is rational.
Traditional morality creates a dichotomy between moral acts and practical acts.
Traditional morality expects hypocrisy to sustain life.
Traditional morality has created these ills:
1) Autistic children via a threat of hell
2) Guilt in children
3) Homosexual adolescents via calling sex evil and stating, "women are to be worshipped, but not desired" (Rand, 42).
4) Anxiety attacks because of success via the threat of hell
5) Neurotic people who give up hope of happiness.
Standing by and letting traditional morality stay in practice by denying the possibility of a rational morality is equivalent to spiritual murder.
The Virtue of Selfishness: A new concept of Egoism
Ayn Rand
2. Mental Health Vs. Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice
Nathaniel Branden
Healthy minds are those that function to control reality enough to sustain life.
Linehan - Can reality truly be controlled?
Self-esteem is the ultimate control of reality at man's disposal.
Self-esteem is the reward given to a mind that is 'fully committed to reason'
Reason demands that one never subverts consciousness, so consciousness can provide perception, cognition and the control of action.
Self-esteem is necessary for man to deal with reality successfully.
Anxiety and guilt are opposite to self-esteem. They are signals of mental illness. They distort values.
"Self-esteem is a metaphysical estimate" (Rand, 37).
Mysticism and self-sacrificial doctrines are existentially and psychologically destructive.
"Faith is the commitment of one's consciousness to beliefs for which one has no sensory evidence or rational proof... Faith is the equating of feeling with knowledge" (Rand, 37).
In order to have faith one must subdue reason and rationality. Reason becomes guilt when faith is found.
Faith destroys reason.
John Galt - "The alleged shortcut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short circuit destroys the mind" (Rand, 38).
Either a mind is absolutely rational or it is subject to faith, destroying all rationality.
"When one turns from reason to faith, when one rejects the absolutism of reality, one undercuts the absolutism of one's consciousness - and one's mind becomes an organ one cannot trust any longer" (Rand, 38).
Linehan - Reality is absolute? What reality? If one's consciousness is absolute then reality cannot be absolutes. There can only be one absolute. Either it is consciousness of one or it is reality. If it is one's consciousness then reality is the tool of the absolute conscious. This would leave us with purely subjective realities because there are billions of consciousnesses. If reality is absolute then the consciousness of anyone must conform to reality. Both reality and consciousness cannot be absolute.
A supernatural being makes reality uncontrollable. It makes the universe a haunted house.
A supernatural creator of altruism is a sadist.
Humility is the renunciation of the mind.
Linehan - This is completely absurd. Humility does not demand that one is never happy with one's achievements. It demands that one does not count his achievements as absolute, thus making him sure that he himself is not absolute.
Self-sacrifice is equal to mind sacrifice.
"A sacrifice... means the surrender of a higher value in favor of a lower value or of a non-value" (Rand, 40). The opposite is not sacrifice, it is a gain.
Values are hierarchical and if man is rational, the hierarchy of values is rational.
Traditional morality creates a dichotomy between moral acts and practical acts.
Traditional morality expects hypocrisy to sustain life.
Traditional morality has created these ills:
1) Autistic children via a threat of hell
2) Guilt in children
3) Homosexual adolescents via calling sex evil and stating, "women are to be worshipped, but not desired" (Rand, 42).
4) Anxiety attacks because of success via the threat of hell
5) Neurotic people who give up hope of happiness.
Standing by and letting traditional morality stay in practice by denying the possibility of a rational morality is equivalent to spiritual murder.
Notes on The History of Western Philosophy
(Originally written June 30, 2006 in Book 2)
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1974
Part I - The Pre-Socratics
Chapter 1 - The Rise of Greek Civilization
Prior to Greece, civilization existed in Egypt & Mesopotamia
Greece invented mathematics (deductive reasoning), science and philosophy. They were the first to write history.
They were "writing without being bound in the fetters of any inherited orthodoxy" (Russell, 3).
Linehan: is orthodoxy bad?
Philosophy began in Thales in 585 B.C. Philosophy and science were the same in the beginning.
Writing was invented in Egypt around 4,000 BC.
Civilization occurred in Egypt due to the Nile and in Mesopotamia because of the Tigris & the Euphrates. These rivers made agriculture easier.
Egypt saw a sovereign king who owned all then land and polytheism. This religion had a supreme god with a special relationship with the king. There was both a military aristocracy and a priestly aristocracy.
Egyptian theology focused on death, the afterlife and the eventual reunification of soul and body, hence the mummification. Egypt's culture was rendered stagnant because "religious conservatism made progress impossible".
Egyptian culture spread to Syria and Palestine via the Hyksos reign, circa 1800 BC - 1600 BC.
Babylonia was a more warlike civilization than Egypt.
Sumeria was the original rulers of Mesopotamia. Their origin is unknown. Sumeria invented cuneiform.
Semites then conquered the Sumerians and city-states and gods of those city-states developed religions.
Babylon then conquered the region and its supreme god, Marduk subverted all the other city-state gods.
Zeus of the Greek religion is similar to Marduk.
Ancient religions originated as fertility cults - female earth and male sun.
Bull-gods were symbols of male fertility.
Ishtar, the Babylonian earth-goddess was the supreme deity. Earth-goddesses developed all over the ancient world. Greece assimilated Ishtar as Artemis; Diana of the Ephesisans was Ephesus' Ishtar. The Virgin Mary is Christianity's Ishtar.
Gods became associated with fertility, then the state. Gods had to bring the harvest and victory in war. Through the association with the government, gods became associated with morality. Lawmakers received moral codes via the god. The Hammurabi code came to Hammurabi via Marduk.
Egypt's religion focused on happiness in the next world; whereas Babylonian religion was focused on prosperity in life.
Babylonian religion developed astrology, magic and divination more than other cultures.
Babylon invented (discovered) scientific data like 24-hour days, 360 degree circles and eclipse cycles.
Egypt, Mesopotamian and nearby cultures were agricultural. Commerce developed via maritime nations later on.
Crete seems to be the pioneer of commerce.
Minoan culture existed on Crete from 2500 BC -1400 BC. Minoan culture was very artistic and much more cheerful than the gloomy Egyptian art.
Crete worshipped goddesses, especially the huntress: the "Mistress of Animals", a source of the classical Artemis.
Cretans seemed to have believed in an afterlife based on the deeds of the earthly life, but were not oppressed by gloomy superstitions like the Egyptians.
Minoan culture seems to have been peaceful, as there were no walls on their cities, but undoubtedly possessed strong sea defenses.
It was destroyed by Greek invasions, but survived on mainland Greece in varying forms from 1600 BC - 900 BC. This Minoan culture on the mainland is called Mycenaean.
Mycenaean civilization is seen in Homer's works, though embellished as legend.
The Greeks came to Greece in three waves: Ionians, Achaeans, Dorians.
The Ionians seem to have assimilated the Mycenaean civilization into their own as Rome later did to the Greek.
The Achaeans seem to have had a strong civilization in the 14th century BC.
The Mycenaean civilization was weakened by wars with the Ionians and Achaeans and then obliterated by the Dorians.
While the Ionians and Achaeans adopted Mycenaean religion and culture, the Dorians retained their Indo-European religion. Lower classes kept the Mycenaean religion and eventually the two blended into the Classical Greek Religion.
The Dorian invaders settled in Greece and started agricultural cities in the fertile valleys. The mountainous terrain isolated the cities. Some invaders continued on into Asia Minor, Sicily, and southern Italy.
The social systems in Greek cities varied greatly due to the lack of communication on the mainland.
Sparta had a small aristocracy which enslaved a different race.
In commercial cities, free citizens grew rich by acquiring slaves, which were acquired in warfare.
Wealth brought the isolation of respectable women in Greece, except in Sparta.
Greece did not have absolute kings like Egypt and Babylon. They developed from monarchy to aristocracy to tyranny/democracy alternations.
Tyranny is power of one man in a non-hereditary succession.
Democracy was government by all people other than women and slaves.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1974
Part I - The Pre-Socratics
Chapter 1 - The Rise of Greek Civilization
Prior to Greece, civilization existed in Egypt & Mesopotamia
Greece invented mathematics (deductive reasoning), science and philosophy. They were the first to write history.
They were "writing without being bound in the fetters of any inherited orthodoxy" (Russell, 3).
Linehan: is orthodoxy bad?
Philosophy began in Thales in 585 B.C. Philosophy and science were the same in the beginning.
Writing was invented in Egypt around 4,000 BC.
Civilization occurred in Egypt due to the Nile and in Mesopotamia because of the Tigris & the Euphrates. These rivers made agriculture easier.
Egypt saw a sovereign king who owned all then land and polytheism. This religion had a supreme god with a special relationship with the king. There was both a military aristocracy and a priestly aristocracy.
Egyptian theology focused on death, the afterlife and the eventual reunification of soul and body, hence the mummification. Egypt's culture was rendered stagnant because "religious conservatism made progress impossible".
Egyptian culture spread to Syria and Palestine via the Hyksos reign, circa 1800 BC - 1600 BC.
Babylonia was a more warlike civilization than Egypt.
Sumeria was the original rulers of Mesopotamia. Their origin is unknown. Sumeria invented cuneiform.
Semites then conquered the Sumerians and city-states and gods of those city-states developed religions.
Babylon then conquered the region and its supreme god, Marduk subverted all the other city-state gods.
Zeus of the Greek religion is similar to Marduk.
Ancient religions originated as fertility cults - female earth and male sun.
Bull-gods were symbols of male fertility.
Ishtar, the Babylonian earth-goddess was the supreme deity. Earth-goddesses developed all over the ancient world. Greece assimilated Ishtar as Artemis; Diana of the Ephesisans was Ephesus' Ishtar. The Virgin Mary is Christianity's Ishtar.
Gods became associated with fertility, then the state. Gods had to bring the harvest and victory in war. Through the association with the government, gods became associated with morality. Lawmakers received moral codes via the god. The Hammurabi code came to Hammurabi via Marduk.
Egypt's religion focused on happiness in the next world; whereas Babylonian religion was focused on prosperity in life.
Babylonian religion developed astrology, magic and divination more than other cultures.
Babylon invented (discovered) scientific data like 24-hour days, 360 degree circles and eclipse cycles.
Egypt, Mesopotamian and nearby cultures were agricultural. Commerce developed via maritime nations later on.
Crete seems to be the pioneer of commerce.
Minoan culture existed on Crete from 2500 BC -1400 BC. Minoan culture was very artistic and much more cheerful than the gloomy Egyptian art.
Crete worshipped goddesses, especially the huntress: the "Mistress of Animals", a source of the classical Artemis.
Cretans seemed to have believed in an afterlife based on the deeds of the earthly life, but were not oppressed by gloomy superstitions like the Egyptians.
Minoan culture seems to have been peaceful, as there were no walls on their cities, but undoubtedly possessed strong sea defenses.
It was destroyed by Greek invasions, but survived on mainland Greece in varying forms from 1600 BC - 900 BC. This Minoan culture on the mainland is called Mycenaean.
Mycenaean civilization is seen in Homer's works, though embellished as legend.
The Greeks came to Greece in three waves: Ionians, Achaeans, Dorians.
The Ionians seem to have assimilated the Mycenaean civilization into their own as Rome later did to the Greek.
The Achaeans seem to have had a strong civilization in the 14th century BC.
The Mycenaean civilization was weakened by wars with the Ionians and Achaeans and then obliterated by the Dorians.
While the Ionians and Achaeans adopted Mycenaean religion and culture, the Dorians retained their Indo-European religion. Lower classes kept the Mycenaean religion and eventually the two blended into the Classical Greek Religion.
The Dorian invaders settled in Greece and started agricultural cities in the fertile valleys. The mountainous terrain isolated the cities. Some invaders continued on into Asia Minor, Sicily, and southern Italy.
The social systems in Greek cities varied greatly due to the lack of communication on the mainland.
Sparta had a small aristocracy which enslaved a different race.
In commercial cities, free citizens grew rich by acquiring slaves, which were acquired in warfare.
Wealth brought the isolation of respectable women in Greece, except in Sparta.
Greece did not have absolute kings like Egypt and Babylon. They developed from monarchy to aristocracy to tyranny/democracy alternations.
Tyranny is power of one man in a non-hereditary succession.
Democracy was government by all people other than women and slaves.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
The Objectivist Ethics - 3
(Originally written June 29, 2006 in Book 3)
The Objectivist Ethics
Ayn Rand
The social principle of objectivist ethics is that since man is an end in and of himself, and every man is such an end, one ought not ever sacrifice one's self to others, nor ever sacrifice another to himself.
"The achievement of his own happiness is man's highest moral purpose" (Rand, 27)
Linehan - If happiness is the highest form of morality, then let us live as children and pursue nothing but folly. Let us be controlled by whims. There is nothing happier than a smiling child.
"Happiness is the successful state of life, suffering is the warning signal of failure, of death" (Rand, 27).
Emotions - automatic results of men's value judgements integrated by his subconscious; they are the estimates of that which furthers man's values or threatens them.
"Since man has no automatic knowledge, he can have no automatic values; since he has no innate ideas, he can have no innate value judgments" (Rand, 28).
Man's cognitive ability and emotional mechanism are tabula rasa at birth. Then the cognitive faculty provides its contents.
For those who choose values of mysticism (religious values) "his alleged happiness is the measure of his success in the service of his own destruction" (Rand, 28).
Happiness for the mystic cannot be truly called happiness or pleasure because it is merely a relief from his perpetual state of terror, which he has chosen to thrust himself into.
John Galt - "Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy - a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction... Happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seeks nothing but rational values and finds his joy in nothing but rational actions" (Rand, 29).
Maintenance of life is the pursuit of happiness.
While achieving happiness is the ultimate good, doing whatever makes one happy is following whims and living in the moment pure, true happiness is grabbed solely through rationality.
Hedonism is not the goal.
Happiness is the purpose, not the standard of ethics in objectivism. Whereas happiness is the standard in hedonism.
Hedonistic and altruistic ethics produce moral cannibalism.
Human good does not require human sacrifice because rational interests of men do not clash.
"The principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle for all human relationships, personal and social, private and public, spiritual and material. It is the principle of justice" (Rand, 31).
Linehan - There is no love then. Love, true love, by nature, is selfless. Therefore it cannot be rational. This is absurd. Love is not a barter system.
One must only seek to be loved for their accomplishments, not their flaws.
Linehan - Love is the exchange of soul to soul connections in spite of flaws, not a degradation of the man or woman for being flawed.
Only rationally selfish beings are capable of love. Self-esteem precedes love.
Knowledge and trade are the two great values of human society.
"The basic political principle of the objectivist ethic is no man may initiate the use of physical force against others" (Rand, 32).
The role of government is to protect man's rights, i.e., protect him from physical violence.
"Without property rights, no other rights are possible" (Rand, 32).
Capitalism, pure laissez-faire, is the only politico-economic system which fits the objectivist ethic. If man is to have a future as man, then this system must be implemented.
The three great ethical systems, the mystic, the social and the subjective have caused the mess humanity is in today.
Immorality is not the cause of our present destructive world; it is the moralities being practiced that have caused it.
The rejection of altruism is man's only hope for salvation.
The Objectivist Ethics
Ayn Rand
The social principle of objectivist ethics is that since man is an end in and of himself, and every man is such an end, one ought not ever sacrifice one's self to others, nor ever sacrifice another to himself.
"The achievement of his own happiness is man's highest moral purpose" (Rand, 27)
Linehan - If happiness is the highest form of morality, then let us live as children and pursue nothing but folly. Let us be controlled by whims. There is nothing happier than a smiling child.
"Happiness is the successful state of life, suffering is the warning signal of failure, of death" (Rand, 27).
Emotions - automatic results of men's value judgements integrated by his subconscious; they are the estimates of that which furthers man's values or threatens them.
"Since man has no automatic knowledge, he can have no automatic values; since he has no innate ideas, he can have no innate value judgments" (Rand, 28).
Man's cognitive ability and emotional mechanism are tabula rasa at birth. Then the cognitive faculty provides its contents.
For those who choose values of mysticism (religious values) "his alleged happiness is the measure of his success in the service of his own destruction" (Rand, 28).
Happiness for the mystic cannot be truly called happiness or pleasure because it is merely a relief from his perpetual state of terror, which he has chosen to thrust himself into.
John Galt - "Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy - a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction... Happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seeks nothing but rational values and finds his joy in nothing but rational actions" (Rand, 29).
Maintenance of life is the pursuit of happiness.
While achieving happiness is the ultimate good, doing whatever makes one happy is following whims and living in the moment pure, true happiness is grabbed solely through rationality.
Hedonism is not the goal.
Happiness is the purpose, not the standard of ethics in objectivism. Whereas happiness is the standard in hedonism.
Hedonistic and altruistic ethics produce moral cannibalism.
Human good does not require human sacrifice because rational interests of men do not clash.
"The principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle for all human relationships, personal and social, private and public, spiritual and material. It is the principle of justice" (Rand, 31).
Linehan - There is no love then. Love, true love, by nature, is selfless. Therefore it cannot be rational. This is absurd. Love is not a barter system.
One must only seek to be loved for their accomplishments, not their flaws.
Linehan - Love is the exchange of soul to soul connections in spite of flaws, not a degradation of the man or woman for being flawed.
Only rationally selfish beings are capable of love. Self-esteem precedes love.
Knowledge and trade are the two great values of human society.
"The basic political principle of the objectivist ethic is no man may initiate the use of physical force against others" (Rand, 32).
The role of government is to protect man's rights, i.e., protect him from physical violence.
"Without property rights, no other rights are possible" (Rand, 32).
Capitalism, pure laissez-faire, is the only politico-economic system which fits the objectivist ethic. If man is to have a future as man, then this system must be implemented.
The three great ethical systems, the mystic, the social and the subjective have caused the mess humanity is in today.
Immorality is not the cause of our present destructive world; it is the moralities being practiced that have caused it.
The rejection of altruism is man's only hope for salvation.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
The Objectivist Ethics - 2
(Originally written June 28, 2006 in Book 3)
The Objectivist Ethics
Ayn Rand
Consciousness is the means for survival for beings that possess it. Man, although he has consciousness must rely on reason to survive.
"Man cannot survive, as animals do, by the guidance of mere precepts" (Rand, 21).
Linehan - Then man is not an animal, if man be not an animal, he could not have evolved from an animal. How can a being evolve from something and not be it anymore? It surely cannot. If a single-celled organism evolves into a two-celled organism it is a collection of cells, but remains a celled organism. If man then has evolved from apes, which are animals then man too would be an animal. But if man needs more than precepts to survive (the survival that animals require) then he cannot be an animal and therefore cannot have evolved from them. [This is weak argumentation]
The thought process which man needs for survival is not automatic, instinctive, or infallible.
Linehan - Ms. Rand, are there no instinctive thoughts or innate ideas?
Man has no automatic knowledge, therefore no automatic values. Therefore man does not have an automatic knowledge of good or evil.
"Man is the only living species that has the power to act as his own destroyer - and that is the way he has acted through most of his history" (Rand, 22).
The science of ethics is the pursuit of the right goals and values for the survival of man. Man needs a code of ethics to survive.
"Ethics is not a mystic fantasy - nor a social convention - nor a dispensable subjective luxury, to be switched or discarded in any emergency. Ethics is an objective, metaphysical necessity of man's survival - not by the grace of the supernatural, nor of your neighbors nor of your whims, but by the grace of reality and the nature of life" (Rand, 23).
Man must choose to view his life as valuable and choose to accept a code of values, which is, via the act of choosing, a moral code.
The judging of good and evil requires a standard to judge against. For the objectivist ethics the standard is man's life or 'that which is required for man's survival qua man'.
Reason is man's basic survival tool and with the standard of good and evil being life, then that which is "proper to the life of a rational being is good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is evil" (Rand, 23).
Everything man needs must be discovered and then produced. Therefore, the two essential to survival are 1) thinking and 2) productive work.
Mental parasites are men, who chose not to think and only imitate others to survive. "They are the men who march into the abyss, trailing after any destroyer who promises them to assume the responsibility they evade: the responsibility of being conscious" (Rand, 23).
Men who survive by force steal and loot from men who are surviving via the two essentials. They are parasites who attempt to survive by animal methodology. But just as animals cannot survive via plant methodology, man cannot survive via animal methodology.
Animals live lifes in cyclical form; whereas man's life is a continuous stream of interrelated events.
Man, if he wishes to survive, must choose his values, course, methods, goals, etc. based on a lifetime and not from moment to moment due to the interconnectivity of life.
The choice of these based on a lifetime cannot come from instincts, precepts or sensations; they only come from the rational processes of the mind.
"Man's survival qua man means terms, methods, conditions and goods required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan" (Rand, 24).
Man can exist subhuman as history proves. But he cannot succeed as such. Ethics teach subhuman brutes how to live like men.
"The objectivist ethics holds man's life as the standard of value - and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man" (Rand, 25).
Standard - an abstract principle that serves as a measurement or gauge to guide a man's choices in the achievement of a concrete specific purpose.
Linehan - If ethics are objective and not subjective they must be universal. Therefore there can only be a universal standard and a universal specific purpose for all men. No man can have a unique purpose, therefore a man's life can have nothing to do with objectivist ethics.
Value - that which one acts to gain/and or keep
Virtue - the act by which one gains or keeps it.
The ultimate value in objectivist ethics is one's own life.
3 Cardinal values of objectivist ethics
1) Reason
2) Purpose
3) Self-Esteem
3 Corresponding virtues
1) Rationality
2) Productiveness
3) Pride
"Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man's life... reason is the source, the precondition of his productive work and pride is the result".
Rationality is the basic virtue of man and the source of all other man's virtues. Man's basic vice is un-focusing his mind. It is the source of all evil.
"The virtue of rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action" (Rand, 25).
The virtue of independence - the acceptance of framing one's own judgments and living by the work of one's own mind.
The virtue of integrity - never sacrificing one's convictions to the opinions or wishes of others.
The virtue of honesty - never faking reality
The virtue of justice - never seeking or granting the unearned and undeserved, neither in matter nor in spirit
One must reject any form of mysticism, any claim to non-sensory sources, any claim to non-rational sources, any claim to non-definable sources and any claim to supernatural sources of knowledge.
The virtue of productiveness - the recognition of productive work as being the sustainer of man's life and the freedom to adjust his background to his desire.
Productive work draws man's finest and highest characteristics -
1) Creativity
2) Ambition
3) Self-Assertion
4) a refusal to bear uncontested disasters
5) "dedication to the goal of reshaping the earth in the image of his values" (Rand, 26).
Productive work is a chosen pursuit of a rational endeavor, great or modest. Regardless of the scale of his work, the fullest and most purposeful usage of his mind constitutes productive work.
Linehan - But, how are we to know that one is pursuing a fullest usage of one's mind. If it is truly objective it must be measured on the scale of accomplishment. Otherwise it is pure subjectivism poorly masked as objectivist ethics.
The virtue of pride - "that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining - that as man is being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self - made soul" (Rand, 27).
This is idolatry at its worse. Beware the gods that are men; as they are unfit to be worshiped, save in their own heats and minds.
Pride is moral ambitiousness.
"One must earn the right to hold oneself as one's own highest value by achieving one's own moral perfection" (Rand, 27).
Pride is earned by never placing any concern, wish, fear or mood of the moment above the reality of one's own self-esteem. Pride is the rejection of being a sacrificial animal. Pride rejects anything that upholds self-immolation as being moral. Pride rejects God and Christ and Christianity.
The Objectivist Ethics
Ayn Rand
Consciousness is the means for survival for beings that possess it. Man, although he has consciousness must rely on reason to survive.
"Man cannot survive, as animals do, by the guidance of mere precepts" (Rand, 21).
Linehan - Then man is not an animal, if man be not an animal, he could not have evolved from an animal. How can a being evolve from something and not be it anymore? It surely cannot. If a single-celled organism evolves into a two-celled organism it is a collection of cells, but remains a celled organism. If man then has evolved from apes, which are animals then man too would be an animal. But if man needs more than precepts to survive (the survival that animals require) then he cannot be an animal and therefore cannot have evolved from them. [This is weak argumentation]
The thought process which man needs for survival is not automatic, instinctive, or infallible.
Linehan - Ms. Rand, are there no instinctive thoughts or innate ideas?
Man has no automatic knowledge, therefore no automatic values. Therefore man does not have an automatic knowledge of good or evil.
"Man is the only living species that has the power to act as his own destroyer - and that is the way he has acted through most of his history" (Rand, 22).
The science of ethics is the pursuit of the right goals and values for the survival of man. Man needs a code of ethics to survive.
"Ethics is not a mystic fantasy - nor a social convention - nor a dispensable subjective luxury, to be switched or discarded in any emergency. Ethics is an objective, metaphysical necessity of man's survival - not by the grace of the supernatural, nor of your neighbors nor of your whims, but by the grace of reality and the nature of life" (Rand, 23).
Man must choose to view his life as valuable and choose to accept a code of values, which is, via the act of choosing, a moral code.
The judging of good and evil requires a standard to judge against. For the objectivist ethics the standard is man's life or 'that which is required for man's survival qua man'.
Reason is man's basic survival tool and with the standard of good and evil being life, then that which is "proper to the life of a rational being is good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is evil" (Rand, 23).
Everything man needs must be discovered and then produced. Therefore, the two essential to survival are 1) thinking and 2) productive work.
Mental parasites are men, who chose not to think and only imitate others to survive. "They are the men who march into the abyss, trailing after any destroyer who promises them to assume the responsibility they evade: the responsibility of being conscious" (Rand, 23).
Men who survive by force steal and loot from men who are surviving via the two essentials. They are parasites who attempt to survive by animal methodology. But just as animals cannot survive via plant methodology, man cannot survive via animal methodology.
Animals live lifes in cyclical form; whereas man's life is a continuous stream of interrelated events.
Man, if he wishes to survive, must choose his values, course, methods, goals, etc. based on a lifetime and not from moment to moment due to the interconnectivity of life.
The choice of these based on a lifetime cannot come from instincts, precepts or sensations; they only come from the rational processes of the mind.
"Man's survival qua man means terms, methods, conditions and goods required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan" (Rand, 24).
Man can exist subhuman as history proves. But he cannot succeed as such. Ethics teach subhuman brutes how to live like men.
"The objectivist ethics holds man's life as the standard of value - and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man" (Rand, 25).
Standard - an abstract principle that serves as a measurement or gauge to guide a man's choices in the achievement of a concrete specific purpose.
Linehan - If ethics are objective and not subjective they must be universal. Therefore there can only be a universal standard and a universal specific purpose for all men. No man can have a unique purpose, therefore a man's life can have nothing to do with objectivist ethics.
Value - that which one acts to gain/and or keep
Virtue - the act by which one gains or keeps it.
The ultimate value in objectivist ethics is one's own life.
3 Cardinal values of objectivist ethics
1) Reason
2) Purpose
3) Self-Esteem
3 Corresponding virtues
1) Rationality
2) Productiveness
3) Pride
"Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man's life... reason is the source, the precondition of his productive work and pride is the result".
Rationality is the basic virtue of man and the source of all other man's virtues. Man's basic vice is un-focusing his mind. It is the source of all evil.
"The virtue of rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action" (Rand, 25).
The virtue of independence - the acceptance of framing one's own judgments and living by the work of one's own mind.
The virtue of integrity - never sacrificing one's convictions to the opinions or wishes of others.
The virtue of honesty - never faking reality
The virtue of justice - never seeking or granting the unearned and undeserved, neither in matter nor in spirit
One must reject any form of mysticism, any claim to non-sensory sources, any claim to non-rational sources, any claim to non-definable sources and any claim to supernatural sources of knowledge.
The virtue of productiveness - the recognition of productive work as being the sustainer of man's life and the freedom to adjust his background to his desire.
Productive work draws man's finest and highest characteristics -
1) Creativity
2) Ambition
3) Self-Assertion
4) a refusal to bear uncontested disasters
5) "dedication to the goal of reshaping the earth in the image of his values" (Rand, 26).
Productive work is a chosen pursuit of a rational endeavor, great or modest. Regardless of the scale of his work, the fullest and most purposeful usage of his mind constitutes productive work.
Linehan - But, how are we to know that one is pursuing a fullest usage of one's mind. If it is truly objective it must be measured on the scale of accomplishment. Otherwise it is pure subjectivism poorly masked as objectivist ethics.
The virtue of pride - "that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining - that as man is being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self - made soul" (Rand, 27).
This is idolatry at its worse. Beware the gods that are men; as they are unfit to be worshiped, save in their own heats and minds.
Pride is moral ambitiousness.
"One must earn the right to hold oneself as one's own highest value by achieving one's own moral perfection" (Rand, 27).
Pride is earned by never placing any concern, wish, fear or mood of the moment above the reality of one's own self-esteem. Pride is the rejection of being a sacrificial animal. Pride rejects anything that upholds self-immolation as being moral. Pride rejects God and Christ and Christianity.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
The Objectivist Ethics - 1
(Originally written June 27, 2006 in Book 3)
1. The Objectivist Ethics
by Ayn Rand
Morality/Ethics is "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions - the choices and action that determine the course of his life" (Rand, 13).
The science of ethics is to discover the previously mentioned code.
Why does man need a code of values? This is the first question ethics asks.
"Is the concept of value, of 'good or evil' an arbitrary human invention, unrelated to, underived from and unsupported by any facts of reality - or is it based on a metaphysical fact, on an unalterable condition of man's existence?" (Rand, 13-14).
"No philosopher has given a rational, objectively demonstrable, scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of values" (Rand, 14). That is quite a claim Ms. Rand!
Most philosophers feel ethics is outside of the scope of reason. They believe it must be guided by something other than reason. By what? Faith, instinct, intuition, revelation, feeling, taste, urge, wish, whim.
Linehan - Faith a whim?
Rand - A whim is "a desire experienced by a person who does not know and does not care to discover its cause" (Rand, 14). Thus, faith is a whim.
Linehan - The cause of faith is the psychological need to feel not alone. Even if there is no God (which is absurd) a faith in one is the fulfillment of a need. Therefore, anyone searching to fill a need is searching to discover the cause of faith and by your own definition cannot be a whim.
Most philosophers agree that the ultimate standard of ethics is whim (arbitrary postulate). The question is therefore, whose whim? God's? Society's? A dictator's? One's own? Regardless of whose whim is the standard, moralists agree that ethics is a subjective issue and three things are barred from its field - reason, mind and reality.
Linehan - How can anything bar reality from it, if it pertains to action that determine the course of a man's life (which is inherently real).
To challenge modern ethics and all ethical theory one must attack the premise of ethics being a subjective issue.The challenge begins with 'What are values?' and 'Why does man need them?'
Values - "that which one acts to gain or keep" (Rand, 15). Since one must act to gain something of value, then to have value there must be an entity capable of action.
John Galt - Life makes value and the concept of value possible.
Linehan - I would personally state that not only is life required to make the concept of value possible, but also a degree of consciousness or cognitive ability.
Rand - "To make this point fully clear try to imagine an immortal, indestructible robot, an entity which moves and acts, but which cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be changed in any respect, which cannot be damaged, injured or destroyed. Such an entity would not be able to have any values; it would have nothing to gain or to lose; it could not regard anything as for or against it, as serving or threatening its welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating its interests. It could have no interests and no goals" (Rand, 16).
Linehan - But God moves and acts unaffected by man and is the unchangeable changer. He cannot be destroyed. The love of God may be injured by a man's rejection, yet is more detrimental to the rejector than the rejected. God is the author of values, the perfecter of altruism. Yet, you state He could not have interests, goals or values.
"Ultimate value is that final good or end to which all lesser goods are the means - and it sets the standard by which all lesser goods are evaluated" (Rand, 17).
Linehan - I would agree that there exists an ultimate good (which can be chosen or rejected) in all men and lesser goods are means to it. Yet, I would disagree that it is the standard to be judged. If man were autonomous and generated their own ultimate value then this statement would be true. But man is neither autonomous nor does he generate his ultimate value. Therefore, the theory is implausible.
Ultimate goals are necessary to the existence of values. Without them values could not exist.
How does man come to realize what is 'good' and what is 'evil'. At the simplest level it is discovered through pleasure and pain.
"The capacity to experience pleasure or pain is innate... it is part of his nature... He has no choice about it, and he has no choice about the standard that determines what will make him experience...pleasure or pain" (Rand, 17). The standard is his own life.
The physical sensation of pleasure shows that one is pursuing the right course of action, whereas the physical sensation of pain signals a wrong course. Linehan - long-term or short-term?
Plants have no ability to learn, they simply respond. Animals learn specific good and evil specific to situations. These are passed down generations and serve as a code of survival. "Man has no automatic code of survival. His senses do not tell him automatically what is good for him or evil" (Rand, 19).
Organisms with consciousness possess pleasure-pain mechanism. The higher the consciousness possess perceptions.
"Perception is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism, which gives it the ability to be aware, not of a single stimuli, but of entities of things" (Rand, 19). Animals operate on this level.
Man is distinguished from all other conscious life by a consciousness that is volitional.
Plants - automatic values derived from the plant's body are sufficient for its survival.
Animals - automatic values derived from sensory-perceptional mechanism of its consciousness are sufficient for its survival.
Man - conceptual values derived from conceptual knowledge, conceptual knowledge is not automatic.
"A concept is a mental integration of two or more perceptual concretes, which are isolated by a process of abstraction and united by means of a specific definition" (Rand, 20).
All words, save for proper names denote concepts, which are abstractions of unlimited concretes.
Concepts are formed by conceptualization via the process of thinking, which utilizes reason.
"Reason is the faculty that perceives, identifies and integrates the material provided man's senses" (Rand, 20).
Reason is exercised by choice, thinking is not automatic.
Linehan - How does one not think?
1. The Objectivist Ethics
by Ayn Rand
Morality/Ethics is "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions - the choices and action that determine the course of his life" (Rand, 13).
The science of ethics is to discover the previously mentioned code.
Why does man need a code of values? This is the first question ethics asks.
"Is the concept of value, of 'good or evil' an arbitrary human invention, unrelated to, underived from and unsupported by any facts of reality - or is it based on a metaphysical fact, on an unalterable condition of man's existence?" (Rand, 13-14).
"No philosopher has given a rational, objectively demonstrable, scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of values" (Rand, 14). That is quite a claim Ms. Rand!
Most philosophers feel ethics is outside of the scope of reason. They believe it must be guided by something other than reason. By what? Faith, instinct, intuition, revelation, feeling, taste, urge, wish, whim.
Linehan - Faith a whim?
Rand - A whim is "a desire experienced by a person who does not know and does not care to discover its cause" (Rand, 14). Thus, faith is a whim.
Linehan - The cause of faith is the psychological need to feel not alone. Even if there is no God (which is absurd) a faith in one is the fulfillment of a need. Therefore, anyone searching to fill a need is searching to discover the cause of faith and by your own definition cannot be a whim.
Most philosophers agree that the ultimate standard of ethics is whim (arbitrary postulate). The question is therefore, whose whim? God's? Society's? A dictator's? One's own? Regardless of whose whim is the standard, moralists agree that ethics is a subjective issue and three things are barred from its field - reason, mind and reality.
Linehan - How can anything bar reality from it, if it pertains to action that determine the course of a man's life (which is inherently real).
To challenge modern ethics and all ethical theory one must attack the premise of ethics being a subjective issue.The challenge begins with 'What are values?' and 'Why does man need them?'
Values - "that which one acts to gain or keep" (Rand, 15). Since one must act to gain something of value, then to have value there must be an entity capable of action.
John Galt - Life makes value and the concept of value possible.
Linehan - I would personally state that not only is life required to make the concept of value possible, but also a degree of consciousness or cognitive ability.
Rand - "To make this point fully clear try to imagine an immortal, indestructible robot, an entity which moves and acts, but which cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be changed in any respect, which cannot be damaged, injured or destroyed. Such an entity would not be able to have any values; it would have nothing to gain or to lose; it could not regard anything as for or against it, as serving or threatening its welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating its interests. It could have no interests and no goals" (Rand, 16).
Linehan - But God moves and acts unaffected by man and is the unchangeable changer. He cannot be destroyed. The love of God may be injured by a man's rejection, yet is more detrimental to the rejector than the rejected. God is the author of values, the perfecter of altruism. Yet, you state He could not have interests, goals or values.
"Ultimate value is that final good or end to which all lesser goods are the means - and it sets the standard by which all lesser goods are evaluated" (Rand, 17).
Linehan - I would agree that there exists an ultimate good (which can be chosen or rejected) in all men and lesser goods are means to it. Yet, I would disagree that it is the standard to be judged. If man were autonomous and generated their own ultimate value then this statement would be true. But man is neither autonomous nor does he generate his ultimate value. Therefore, the theory is implausible.
Ultimate goals are necessary to the existence of values. Without them values could not exist.
How does man come to realize what is 'good' and what is 'evil'. At the simplest level it is discovered through pleasure and pain.
"The capacity to experience pleasure or pain is innate... it is part of his nature... He has no choice about it, and he has no choice about the standard that determines what will make him experience...pleasure or pain" (Rand, 17). The standard is his own life.
The physical sensation of pleasure shows that one is pursuing the right course of action, whereas the physical sensation of pain signals a wrong course. Linehan - long-term or short-term?
Plants have no ability to learn, they simply respond. Animals learn specific good and evil specific to situations. These are passed down generations and serve as a code of survival. "Man has no automatic code of survival. His senses do not tell him automatically what is good for him or evil" (Rand, 19).
Organisms with consciousness possess pleasure-pain mechanism. The higher the consciousness possess perceptions.
"Perception is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism, which gives it the ability to be aware, not of a single stimuli, but of entities of things" (Rand, 19). Animals operate on this level.
Man is distinguished from all other conscious life by a consciousness that is volitional.
Plants - automatic values derived from the plant's body are sufficient for its survival.
Animals - automatic values derived from sensory-perceptional mechanism of its consciousness are sufficient for its survival.
Man - conceptual values derived from conceptual knowledge, conceptual knowledge is not automatic.
"A concept is a mental integration of two or more perceptual concretes, which are isolated by a process of abstraction and united by means of a specific definition" (Rand, 20).
All words, save for proper names denote concepts, which are abstractions of unlimited concretes.
Concepts are formed by conceptualization via the process of thinking, which utilizes reason.
"Reason is the faculty that perceives, identifies and integrates the material provided man's senses" (Rand, 20).
Reason is exercised by choice, thinking is not automatic.
Linehan - How does one not think?
Sunday, June 25, 2006
The Virtue of Selfishness - Introduction
(Originally written June 25, 2006 in Book 3)
The Virtue of Selfishness
Ayn Rand
"Ethics is not a mystic fantasy - nor a social convention - nor a dispensable subjective luxury... Ethics is an objective necessity of man's survival - not by the grace of the supernatural nor of your neighbors nor of your whims, but by the grace of reality and nature of life" - Opening Words
Hmmm, after reading this I have a feeling that I will be furious with the contents of this book. First of all the very thought of ethical egoism offends me to the core. The Title of this book drew me to it because it offends me so deeply. However, I pledge to all, God and to myself that I will go in open minded and learn regardless of my presuppositions.
The book defines 'rational selfishness' as the "values required for human survival - not the values produced by the desires, the feelings, the whims, or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices".
Linehan - How does one outgrow the primordial practice of human sacrifice?
Introduction
Rand chooses the word 'selfishness' "for the reason that makes you afraid of it" (Rand, vii).
The word 'selfishness's popular usage has arrested moral development of mankind. Popular usage of selfishness equals evil, but the meaning of selfishness is "concern with one's own interests" (Rand, vii).
The definition of selfishness does not pertain to moral evaluation, or to whether or not a man's interests are good or evil. Ethics serves to evaluate morality and discern whether interests are good or evil. (Linehan - this may be too lofty of a goal for ethics).
Altruistic ethics has created the image of the brute. It has also forced humanity to accept two inhuman tenets:
1) Any concern with one's own interests is evil, regardless of what these interests might be.
2) The brute's activities are in fact to one's own interest (which altruism enjoins man to renounce for the sake of his neighbors.
Altruism is responsible for moral corruption (see Atlas Shrugged)
Altruism lumps the questions "What are values" and "Who should be the beneficiary of values" together. Altruism offers no answer to the first question except that the answer to the second question leaving man no definition of values and thus, providing no moral guidance.
Altruism declares that "any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one's own benefit is evil"
She continues "thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value - and sol long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes" (Rand, viii).
Since Rand's view of altruism is a system of ethics with no specific values if anyone benefits from an altruistic action is good. She attributes 'the appalling immorality', 'chronic injustice', 'grotesque double standards' 'insoluble conflicts' and 'contradictions' that have characterized human relationships throughout history to altruistic ethics.
The beneficiary criterion of altruistic morality does man much harm:
1) First, he learns morality is his enemy
2) Forces people to serve others grudgingly, which produces resentment, not pleasure in relationships
3) robs him of achieving moral significance other than when he forces himself to sacrifice for others
4) It provides no moral guidance
Altruistic ethics produce men that are cynical and guilt-ridden. They are cynical because they neither practice nor accept the altruist morality and guilt ridden because they dare not reject it.
Rand suggest that in order to save mankind we must rebel against 'so devastating an evil' as altruism. To redeem both man and morality, it is the concept of selfishness that one must redeem.
The first step of this rebellion is to "assert man's right to a moral existence", that is, we must recognize that man has a need of a guiding moral code.
"Man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions" (Rand, ix)
Objectivist ethics is not a license to do whatever one pleases, nor is it guided by irrational emotions, feelings, urges, wishes or whims.
Linehan - is man capable of separating himself from his irrational qualities effectively and often enough to be Rand's definition of an objectivist? Where is the proof of it?
Objectivist ethics are not Nietzschean egoists values.
Objectivist ethics does not make the claim that whatever a man chooses is moral if he chooses it.
Man's self-interest is not determined by blind desires. It must be discovered and achieved by the guidance of rational principles.
"The attack on selfishness is an attack on man's self-esteem; to surrender one is to surrender the other" (Rand, x).
"It is impossible for me to engage in philosophical correspondence. If you have any questions to ask me please address them to ... I shall be glad to hear from you, since questions have always interested me; questions, not debates - I have given those up long ago" (Rand, x-xi).
Linehan - This last quote has nothing to do with philosophy, but I would like to take a moment to address it. I believe that philosophical correspondence and debates are essential to the quest for knowledge, which all men undertake in some form or another. To deny readers or even one's self of this privilege and responsibility is to fall into a state of intellectual stagnation. If I publish books and become a professor at a major university I vow to always be engaged in correspondence and debates. It saddens me to read this. If feel as if she has placed the emphasis on the questions and not the questioners, a thing I find reprehensible. But, then again she has also placed her own self-interest (theorizing) over the interests of her readers. Despite the detestableness of this I will grant her credit for being consistent with her morally void value system.
In reading the introduction I feel as if she has confused altruism with asceticism (for the sake of being ascetic) and combined the negative aspects of them to create a self-loathing do-gooder as the example of any altruistic individual. Misrepresentation and witticism and shock seems to be the modus operandi of Ayn Rand.
The Virtue of Selfishness
Ayn Rand
"Ethics is not a mystic fantasy - nor a social convention - nor a dispensable subjective luxury... Ethics is an objective necessity of man's survival - not by the grace of the supernatural nor of your neighbors nor of your whims, but by the grace of reality and nature of life" - Opening Words
Hmmm, after reading this I have a feeling that I will be furious with the contents of this book. First of all the very thought of ethical egoism offends me to the core. The Title of this book drew me to it because it offends me so deeply. However, I pledge to all, God and to myself that I will go in open minded and learn regardless of my presuppositions.
The book defines 'rational selfishness' as the "values required for human survival - not the values produced by the desires, the feelings, the whims, or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices".
Linehan - How does one outgrow the primordial practice of human sacrifice?
Introduction
Rand chooses the word 'selfishness' "for the reason that makes you afraid of it" (Rand, vii).
The word 'selfishness's popular usage has arrested moral development of mankind. Popular usage of selfishness equals evil, but the meaning of selfishness is "concern with one's own interests" (Rand, vii).
The definition of selfishness does not pertain to moral evaluation, or to whether or not a man's interests are good or evil. Ethics serves to evaluate morality and discern whether interests are good or evil. (Linehan - this may be too lofty of a goal for ethics).
Altruistic ethics has created the image of the brute. It has also forced humanity to accept two inhuman tenets:
1) Any concern with one's own interests is evil, regardless of what these interests might be.
2) The brute's activities are in fact to one's own interest (which altruism enjoins man to renounce for the sake of his neighbors.
Altruism is responsible for moral corruption (see Atlas Shrugged)
Altruism lumps the questions "What are values" and "Who should be the beneficiary of values" together. Altruism offers no answer to the first question except that the answer to the second question leaving man no definition of values and thus, providing no moral guidance.
Altruism declares that "any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one's own benefit is evil"
She continues "thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value - and sol long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes" (Rand, viii).
Since Rand's view of altruism is a system of ethics with no specific values if anyone benefits from an altruistic action is good. She attributes 'the appalling immorality', 'chronic injustice', 'grotesque double standards' 'insoluble conflicts' and 'contradictions' that have characterized human relationships throughout history to altruistic ethics.
The beneficiary criterion of altruistic morality does man much harm:
1) First, he learns morality is his enemy
2) Forces people to serve others grudgingly, which produces resentment, not pleasure in relationships
3) robs him of achieving moral significance other than when he forces himself to sacrifice for others
4) It provides no moral guidance
Altruistic ethics produce men that are cynical and guilt-ridden. They are cynical because they neither practice nor accept the altruist morality and guilt ridden because they dare not reject it.
Rand suggest that in order to save mankind we must rebel against 'so devastating an evil' as altruism. To redeem both man and morality, it is the concept of selfishness that one must redeem.
The first step of this rebellion is to "assert man's right to a moral existence", that is, we must recognize that man has a need of a guiding moral code.
"Man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions" (Rand, ix)
Objectivist ethics is not a license to do whatever one pleases, nor is it guided by irrational emotions, feelings, urges, wishes or whims.
Linehan - is man capable of separating himself from his irrational qualities effectively and often enough to be Rand's definition of an objectivist? Where is the proof of it?
Objectivist ethics are not Nietzschean egoists values.
Objectivist ethics does not make the claim that whatever a man chooses is moral if he chooses it.
Man's self-interest is not determined by blind desires. It must be discovered and achieved by the guidance of rational principles.
"The attack on selfishness is an attack on man's self-esteem; to surrender one is to surrender the other" (Rand, x).
"It is impossible for me to engage in philosophical correspondence. If you have any questions to ask me please address them to ... I shall be glad to hear from you, since questions have always interested me; questions, not debates - I have given those up long ago" (Rand, x-xi).
Linehan - This last quote has nothing to do with philosophy, but I would like to take a moment to address it. I believe that philosophical correspondence and debates are essential to the quest for knowledge, which all men undertake in some form or another. To deny readers or even one's self of this privilege and responsibility is to fall into a state of intellectual stagnation. If I publish books and become a professor at a major university I vow to always be engaged in correspondence and debates. It saddens me to read this. If feel as if she has placed the emphasis on the questions and not the questioners, a thing I find reprehensible. But, then again she has also placed her own self-interest (theorizing) over the interests of her readers. Despite the detestableness of this I will grant her credit for being consistent with her morally void value system.
In reading the introduction I feel as if she has confused altruism with asceticism (for the sake of being ascetic) and combined the negative aspects of them to create a self-loathing do-gooder as the example of any altruistic individual. Misrepresentation and witticism and shock seems to be the modus operandi of Ayn Rand.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Detailed observations of Genesis 1:24-31
(Originally written June 24, 2006 in Book 3)
Genesis 1:24 "And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind'. And it was so".
Question - Again the phrase 'according to its kind' appears, why?
Fact - This is the creation of animals and insects (creatures that move along the ground).
1:25 "God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the the things that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good"
Question - According to their kinds, what does it mean?
Theory - Could 'according to their kinds' denote that all creatures that God has made have been made to work in a society? Could it mean that in addition to creating the individual creatures He also created the social structure that each individual creature is to dwell in? I believe that this is very plausible.
Fact - God calls the animals 'good'.
1:26 "Then God said 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground.
Fact - God is not an I; He is an us. God, which is singular refers to Himself as plural. Thus, God is one and at least two.
Fact - Man is made in the image of God and in the likeness of God.
Question - Is there a difference between the image of God and the likeness of God? Check the Hebrew references.
Fact - Man is to be in charge of the earth and all its inhabitants.
Theory - This (above) is a right bestowed on man, so what is the duty attached?
1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them"
Fact - Man and woman are both created in the image of God.
1:28 "God blessed them and said to them 'be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
Fact - Man receives God's blessing.
Theory - This blessing is the right to rule over the earth in verse 26. The duty that comes with this right is to 'be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it'. The right and duty are the same. They are inextricably connected.
Synopsis of Genesis 1
1. Heavens and Earth Created
2. Earth is formless, empty and dark. Spirit of God on earth. Earth has water
3. Light created
4. Light is declared good. Light is separated from darkness
5. Light named day; dark named night. End of day 1
6. Water separated to form an expanse
7. Water separated to form an expanse
8. Expanse called sky. End of day 2
9. Earth waters gathered. Dry ground appears.
10. Dry ground called land. Gathered waters called seas. God saw that it was good.
11. Vegetation created (1st life)
12. Vegetation called good.
13. End of 3rd day
14. Stars created
15. Stars created
16. Differentiation of sun and moon from other stars
17. Reiteration (vv. 14 -16)
18. Stars, sun and moon called good.
19. End of the 4th day
20. Sea creatures and birds created
21. Reiteration of verse 20
22. God blessed sea creatures and birds
23. End of the 5th day
24. Animals created
25. Reiteration of verse 24
26. The thought of man created
27. Actual creation of man
28. God blesses man
29.
Day 1: Heaven & Earth, water darkness, Light, day (light), night (darkness)
Day 2: Sky
Day 3: Land (dry ground) form? - Thus, God calls it good. Vegetation (life)
Day 4: Stars (Heavenly bodies) Sun & Moon
Day 5: Sea creatures, birds
Day 6: Animals, man
Day 7: Rest
1:29 "Then God said, I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food"
Fact - Adam & Eve are given food to eat.
1:30 "And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground - everything that has the breath of life in it - I give every green plant for food. And it was so"
Fact - The vegetation is food for all the sea creatures, birds and animals
Question - Everything that has the breath of life in it - does the original Hebrew mean everything that has a soul?
1:31 "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning - the sixth day.
Fact - God saw that his creation was very good.
Theory - God looks at his creation as a whole and calls it very good, not just good. Could it be that He calls creation very good rather than just good because it is a perfect, harmonious society? Societies would then have a vital role in existence.
Genesis 1:24 "And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind'. And it was so".
Question - Again the phrase 'according to its kind' appears, why?
Fact - This is the creation of animals and insects (creatures that move along the ground).
1:25 "God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the the things that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good"
Question - According to their kinds, what does it mean?
Theory - Could 'according to their kinds' denote that all creatures that God has made have been made to work in a society? Could it mean that in addition to creating the individual creatures He also created the social structure that each individual creature is to dwell in? I believe that this is very plausible.
Fact - God calls the animals 'good'.
1:26 "Then God said 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground.
Fact - God is not an I; He is an us. God, which is singular refers to Himself as plural. Thus, God is one and at least two.
Fact - Man is made in the image of God and in the likeness of God.
Question - Is there a difference between the image of God and the likeness of God? Check the Hebrew references.
Fact - Man is to be in charge of the earth and all its inhabitants.
Theory - This (above) is a right bestowed on man, so what is the duty attached?
1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them"
Fact - Man and woman are both created in the image of God.
1:28 "God blessed them and said to them 'be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
Fact - Man receives God's blessing.
Theory - This blessing is the right to rule over the earth in verse 26. The duty that comes with this right is to 'be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it'. The right and duty are the same. They are inextricably connected.
Synopsis of Genesis 1
1. Heavens and Earth Created
2. Earth is formless, empty and dark. Spirit of God on earth. Earth has water
3. Light created
4. Light is declared good. Light is separated from darkness
5. Light named day; dark named night. End of day 1
6. Water separated to form an expanse
7. Water separated to form an expanse
8. Expanse called sky. End of day 2
9. Earth waters gathered. Dry ground appears.
10. Dry ground called land. Gathered waters called seas. God saw that it was good.
11. Vegetation created (1st life)
12. Vegetation called good.
13. End of 3rd day
14. Stars created
15. Stars created
16. Differentiation of sun and moon from other stars
17. Reiteration (vv. 14 -16)
18. Stars, sun and moon called good.
19. End of the 4th day
20. Sea creatures and birds created
21. Reiteration of verse 20
22. God blessed sea creatures and birds
23. End of the 5th day
24. Animals created
25. Reiteration of verse 24
26. The thought of man created
27. Actual creation of man
28. God blesses man
29.
Day 1: Heaven & Earth, water darkness, Light, day (light), night (darkness)
Day 2: Sky
Day 3: Land (dry ground) form? - Thus, God calls it good. Vegetation (life)
Day 4: Stars (Heavenly bodies) Sun & Moon
Day 5: Sea creatures, birds
Day 6: Animals, man
Day 7: Rest
1:29 "Then God said, I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food"
Fact - Adam & Eve are given food to eat.
1:30 "And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground - everything that has the breath of life in it - I give every green plant for food. And it was so"
Fact - The vegetation is food for all the sea creatures, birds and animals
Question - Everything that has the breath of life in it - does the original Hebrew mean everything that has a soul?
1:31 "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning - the sixth day.
Fact - God saw that his creation was very good.
Theory - God looks at his creation as a whole and calls it very good, not just good. Could it be that He calls creation very good rather than just good because it is a perfect, harmonious society? Societies would then have a vital role in existence.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Detailed observations of Genesis 1:5-23
(Originally written June 21, 2006 in Book 3)
Genesis 1:5 "God called the light 'day' and the darkness he called 'night'. And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day"
Fact - God names light and darkness, signifying ownership. That which he creates, he also names. Naming it also signifies an ongoing relationship.
Theory - The first 'day' of creation is done. This may be an indeterminate amount of time, but I believe that it was a single day. Why? Not because the author says 'day' but because he says 'there was evening, and there was morning'. The day is split into two parts: evening and morning. If it said 'that was the first day' I think those who believe a day is an age would have more weight to their argument, but since it specifies evening then morning, I feel very strongly that it was a single day.
1:6 "And God said, 'let there be an expanse between the water to separate water from water'"
Fact - God speaks and action happens.
Question - What is the significance of separating water from water? What is the necessity of the expanse?
1:7 - "So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so".
This is a reiteration of verse 6.
1:8 "God called the expanse 'sky' and there was evening, and there was morning - the second day"
Fact - God names the expanse 'sky', signifying ownership and a continuing relationship.
1:9 "And God said 'Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear'. And it was so"
Fact - God speaks to enact the forming of seas and land.
Question - God gathers the waters into a single place. Could this be a Biblical proof of Pangea?
Theory - Land 'appears', that is dry ground appears. It isn't created at this point. It must've been created as the earth was created.
1:10 "God called the dry ground 'land' and the gathered waters he called 'seas'. And God saw that it was good.
Fact - God names the dry ground and the gathered waters signifying ownership and a continuing relationship.
Theory - This is the first time when God calls his creation 'good'. (Not true, see verse 4). Why? Why is the land and the seas the first creation warranted as 'good'? Could it be that God calls this creation good because it is the first creation that has form? When the earth was created it was formless, but there was water, without form. The earth was empty (1:2) but had water. By drawing the water into a single place he gave it form and exposed the already created land.
1:11 "Then God said, 'Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.' And it was so."
Fact - This is the first creation of life.
Theory - In this verse God creates 'seed-bearing plants', not just seeds. The tree he creates is a tree, not simply an acorn. This gives weight to an accelerated creation theory. It also adds weight to a day equaling a day, not an era or period of time.
1:12 "The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
Fact - The water is covering the earth from creation, but it and the earth are formless. Then when the water is gathered into a single place it reveals the land that was on the earth from creation. Thus, the land is revealed by gathering of water into a single place. The land then revealed is able to produce vegetation.
Theory - The land produced vegetation: the earth was created formless and empty save for water and the land hidden by the water. The earth was given form by the water being gathered into a place and dry land appearing. Once dry land had appeared it was suitable to now produce and facilitate vegetation.
Fact - God calls the vegetation good. He admires his work.
1:13 "And there was evening and there was morning - the third day".
Theory - This again lends weight to the theory of a day equaling a day and not some indeterminate amount of time.
1:14 - "And God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs as to mark seasons and days and years".
Fact - There was already day and night, but God gave his creations (those created and still to be created) things to mark them so as they could be known to them.
Question - This leaves us a problem. There have been evenings and mornings, yet no stars. How do we know there were evenings and mornings?
Question - The stars were created to mark time. When was time created? (That is time itself, not measurements of time, i.e. days, seasons, years, etc.)
1:15 "and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth' And it was so."
Fact - The lights in the sky serve two purposes: 1) to light up earth and 2) to mark time for created beings.
1:16 - "God made two great lights - the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
Reiteration - THis is just a differentiation of the sun and moon from other stars, not a second act.
1:17 "God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on earth"
Another reiteration.
1:18 "To govern the day and the night and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
Another reiteration.
Fact - God saw that His creation was good.
Question - [side note] Why is there so much repetition in verses 14-18? Is this a literary thing or did we mistranslate?
1:19 - "And there was evening, and there was morning - the fourth day"
I truly feel the reiteration of evening and morning signifies days, not eras.
1:20 "And God said, let the water teem with living creatures, and let the birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."
Fact - God speaks to elicit action.
Fact - This is the second creation of life (the first instance occurs in verse 11).
Question - what has occurred since the first creation of life?
Vegetation (1st creation of life)
1) Vegetation is good.
2) End of the 3rd day
3) Stars, sun and moon created
4) Stars, sun and moon called good
5) End of the 4th day
Question - So before birds and fish are created, the sun, stars and moon were created. But vegetation was created prior to the sun, moon and stars. Science tells us that vegetation requires sunlight to grow (via photosynthesis). How then did it exist prior to the sun? Is photosynthesis a necessary survival tool acquired due to the Curse? WHy is this the order?
Day 1
1) Heavens and earth made (formless)
2) Light
3) Light separated from darkness
Day 2
4) Sky (water separated from water)
Day 3
5) Land (water gathered into one place) revealed
6) Vegetation
Day 4
7) Sun, Moon and Stars
Day 5
8) Fish and birds
Question - This seems illogical. The sun, moon and stars should be prior to vegetation. What is God's purpose in doing it backwards?
1:21 "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which water teems, according to their kind and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good"
Reiteration, not a second act of creating.
Question - What is the significance of the phrase 'according to their kind'/'according to its kind'?
Question - He sees that his creation is good. Does this mean God created them and then said, 'Oh! That's good!"or Did he see to it that his creation was good?
1:22 "God blessed them and said 'be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.
Theory - God's first blessing is bestowed on the birds and sea creatures. This is why these creations are on a higher level than the vegetation, which was also good.
Theory - The blessing also comes with a duty - be fruitful and increase in number. This blessing is the first right granted to any creation, but it comes attached with a duty. Thus, those who bestow rights bestow duties. Their blessing (right) would be stripped if they would become in dereliction of their duty.
Theory - THis could be the beginning of any microevolution that has occurred.
1:23 "And there was evening, and there was morning, - the fifth day"
Theory - Reiteration of days, not eras of creation.
Genesis 1:5 "God called the light 'day' and the darkness he called 'night'. And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day"
Fact - God names light and darkness, signifying ownership. That which he creates, he also names. Naming it also signifies an ongoing relationship.
Theory - The first 'day' of creation is done. This may be an indeterminate amount of time, but I believe that it was a single day. Why? Not because the author says 'day' but because he says 'there was evening, and there was morning'. The day is split into two parts: evening and morning. If it said 'that was the first day' I think those who believe a day is an age would have more weight to their argument, but since it specifies evening then morning, I feel very strongly that it was a single day.
1:6 "And God said, 'let there be an expanse between the water to separate water from water'"
Fact - God speaks and action happens.
Question - What is the significance of separating water from water? What is the necessity of the expanse?
1:7 - "So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so".
This is a reiteration of verse 6.
1:8 "God called the expanse 'sky' and there was evening, and there was morning - the second day"
Fact - God names the expanse 'sky', signifying ownership and a continuing relationship.
1:9 "And God said 'Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear'. And it was so"
Fact - God speaks to enact the forming of seas and land.
Question - God gathers the waters into a single place. Could this be a Biblical proof of Pangea?
Theory - Land 'appears', that is dry ground appears. It isn't created at this point. It must've been created as the earth was created.
1:10 "God called the dry ground 'land' and the gathered waters he called 'seas'. And God saw that it was good.
Fact - God names the dry ground and the gathered waters signifying ownership and a continuing relationship.
Theory - This is the first time when God calls his creation 'good'. (Not true, see verse 4). Why? Why is the land and the seas the first creation warranted as 'good'? Could it be that God calls this creation good because it is the first creation that has form? When the earth was created it was formless, but there was water, without form. The earth was empty (1:2) but had water. By drawing the water into a single place he gave it form and exposed the already created land.
1:11 "Then God said, 'Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.' And it was so."
Fact - This is the first creation of life.
Theory - In this verse God creates 'seed-bearing plants', not just seeds. The tree he creates is a tree, not simply an acorn. This gives weight to an accelerated creation theory. It also adds weight to a day equaling a day, not an era or period of time.
1:12 "The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
Fact - The water is covering the earth from creation, but it and the earth are formless. Then when the water is gathered into a single place it reveals the land that was on the earth from creation. Thus, the land is revealed by gathering of water into a single place. The land then revealed is able to produce vegetation.
Theory - The land produced vegetation: the earth was created formless and empty save for water and the land hidden by the water. The earth was given form by the water being gathered into a place and dry land appearing. Once dry land had appeared it was suitable to now produce and facilitate vegetation.
Fact - God calls the vegetation good. He admires his work.
1:13 "And there was evening and there was morning - the third day".
Theory - This again lends weight to the theory of a day equaling a day and not some indeterminate amount of time.
1:14 - "And God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs as to mark seasons and days and years".
Fact - There was already day and night, but God gave his creations (those created and still to be created) things to mark them so as they could be known to them.
Question - This leaves us a problem. There have been evenings and mornings, yet no stars. How do we know there were evenings and mornings?
Question - The stars were created to mark time. When was time created? (That is time itself, not measurements of time, i.e. days, seasons, years, etc.)
1:15 "and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth' And it was so."
Fact - The lights in the sky serve two purposes: 1) to light up earth and 2) to mark time for created beings.
1:16 - "God made two great lights - the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
Reiteration - THis is just a differentiation of the sun and moon from other stars, not a second act.
1:17 "God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on earth"
Another reiteration.
1:18 "To govern the day and the night and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
Another reiteration.
Fact - God saw that His creation was good.
Question - [side note] Why is there so much repetition in verses 14-18? Is this a literary thing or did we mistranslate?
1:19 - "And there was evening, and there was morning - the fourth day"
I truly feel the reiteration of evening and morning signifies days, not eras.
1:20 "And God said, let the water teem with living creatures, and let the birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."
Fact - God speaks to elicit action.
Fact - This is the second creation of life (the first instance occurs in verse 11).
Question - what has occurred since the first creation of life?
Vegetation (1st creation of life)
1) Vegetation is good.
2) End of the 3rd day
3) Stars, sun and moon created
4) Stars, sun and moon called good
5) End of the 4th day
Question - So before birds and fish are created, the sun, stars and moon were created. But vegetation was created prior to the sun, moon and stars. Science tells us that vegetation requires sunlight to grow (via photosynthesis). How then did it exist prior to the sun? Is photosynthesis a necessary survival tool acquired due to the Curse? WHy is this the order?
Day 1
1) Heavens and earth made (formless)
2) Light
3) Light separated from darkness
Day 2
4) Sky (water separated from water)
Day 3
5) Land (water gathered into one place) revealed
6) Vegetation
Day 4
7) Sun, Moon and Stars
Day 5
8) Fish and birds
Question - This seems illogical. The sun, moon and stars should be prior to vegetation. What is God's purpose in doing it backwards?
1:21 "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which water teems, according to their kind and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good"
Reiteration, not a second act of creating.
Question - What is the significance of the phrase 'according to their kind'/'according to its kind'?
Question - He sees that his creation is good. Does this mean God created them and then said, 'Oh! That's good!"or Did he see to it that his creation was good?
1:22 "God blessed them and said 'be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.
Theory - God's first blessing is bestowed on the birds and sea creatures. This is why these creations are on a higher level than the vegetation, which was also good.
Theory - The blessing also comes with a duty - be fruitful and increase in number. This blessing is the first right granted to any creation, but it comes attached with a duty. Thus, those who bestow rights bestow duties. Their blessing (right) would be stripped if they would become in dereliction of their duty.
Theory - THis could be the beginning of any microevolution that has occurred.
1:23 "And there was evening, and there was morning, - the fifth day"
Theory - Reiteration of days, not eras of creation.
Friday, June 16, 2006
Detailed observations of Genesis 1:1-4
(Originally written June 16, 2006 in Book 3)
I seem to be studying enormous amounts of secular works and neglecting the Bible. I got into philosophy to offer a Christian perspective. How can I offer that if i don't stay current in the Word? Therefore, I resolve to write a series of 66 books, called "Understanding (Bible Book)". In these I want to explore authorship, historicity, philosophical problems and faith issues. I think the best way is to begin with Genesis and work through Revelation.
Genesis
The NIV Discovery Study Bible describes the first eleven chapters of Genesis as falling under the myth category. They are stories that "illuminate the human condition" (1). They are differentiated from other myths of the other cultures because they are true.
The NIV Study Bible states that the myths of God show a personal God who is responsible for creating the material world.
Humans are created in God's own image. This fact differentiates man from the rest of the created order.
The myths also show the origin of pain, suffering and evil that plague earth.
The first eleven chapters show the moral commitments God wove into the very fabric of existence and His willingness to judge and punish breaches of those commitments.
Beginning in chapter 12 the stories exit the myth range and enter the true realm that are rooted in Ancient Near Eastern history.
Genesis 12 began with Abram and the rest of the Old Testament follows his descendants.
Creation
Genesis 1 differentiates God from the rest of creation.
It cites God as the source of creation.
It is disputed whether the 'days' of creation are 24-hour periods of time or undetermined periods of time. Regardless of the disagreement in Christian circles, there is no denying that God was responsible for creation:
1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
Verse 1 uses the phrase "in the beginning". Prior to creation there was nothing, not even a beginning. Creation marks the beginning.
Fact - prior to the beginning there was God to cause the beginning.
Theory - The beginning is the act of creating the heavens and the earth.
1:2 " Not the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters"
Theory - Verse 1 shows that the earth was created, but verse 2 shows that it was empty and formless. This means that verse 1 may simply have been the creating the matter used in forming the earth.
Fact - There was darkness in the earth, no light.
Fact - The earth, despite being formless and dark, contained water
Fact - The Spirit of God dwelled on earth, as it floated over the waters.
1:3 "And God said let there be light and there was light"
Fact - God creates light out of nothing with a command.
1:4 "God saw that the light was good and separated the light from darkness"
Fact - This is an important act because God calls his creation 'good'.
Theory - It is also important because He differentiates light and darkness. There is light and there is darkness only because God has created them. The darkness is not nothingness. Nothingness is neither darkness nor light. It is the absence of both.
I seem to be studying enormous amounts of secular works and neglecting the Bible. I got into philosophy to offer a Christian perspective. How can I offer that if i don't stay current in the Word? Therefore, I resolve to write a series of 66 books, called "Understanding (Bible Book)". In these I want to explore authorship, historicity, philosophical problems and faith issues. I think the best way is to begin with Genesis and work through Revelation.
Genesis
The NIV Discovery Study Bible describes the first eleven chapters of Genesis as falling under the myth category. They are stories that "illuminate the human condition" (1). They are differentiated from other myths of the other cultures because they are true.
The NIV Study Bible states that the myths of God show a personal God who is responsible for creating the material world.
Humans are created in God's own image. This fact differentiates man from the rest of the created order.
The myths also show the origin of pain, suffering and evil that plague earth.
The first eleven chapters show the moral commitments God wove into the very fabric of existence and His willingness to judge and punish breaches of those commitments.
Beginning in chapter 12 the stories exit the myth range and enter the true realm that are rooted in Ancient Near Eastern history.
Genesis 12 began with Abram and the rest of the Old Testament follows his descendants.
Creation
Genesis 1 differentiates God from the rest of creation.
It cites God as the source of creation.
It is disputed whether the 'days' of creation are 24-hour periods of time or undetermined periods of time. Regardless of the disagreement in Christian circles, there is no denying that God was responsible for creation:
1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
Verse 1 uses the phrase "in the beginning". Prior to creation there was nothing, not even a beginning. Creation marks the beginning.
Fact - prior to the beginning there was God to cause the beginning.
Theory - The beginning is the act of creating the heavens and the earth.
1:2 " Not the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters"
Theory - Verse 1 shows that the earth was created, but verse 2 shows that it was empty and formless. This means that verse 1 may simply have been the creating the matter used in forming the earth.
Fact - There was darkness in the earth, no light.
Fact - The earth, despite being formless and dark, contained water
Fact - The Spirit of God dwelled on earth, as it floated over the waters.
1:3 "And God said let there be light and there was light"
Fact - God creates light out of nothing with a command.
1:4 "God saw that the light was good and separated the light from darkness"
Fact - This is an important act because God calls his creation 'good'.
Theory - It is also important because He differentiates light and darkness. There is light and there is darkness only because God has created them. The darkness is not nothingness. Nothingness is neither darkness nor light. It is the absence of both.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
End of Book 1
(Originally written June 15, 2006 in Book 2)
This was the 1st notebook of my life. I apologize for the poor quality and choppiness. Hopefully by book 6,432 I will have a better format. To whoever reads this in the future:
1. Enjoy
2. Love God
3. Philosophy is meaningless without 1 or 2
4. Actions measure men, not words
This was the 1st notebook of my life. I apologize for the poor quality and choppiness. Hopefully by book 6,432 I will have a better format. To whoever reads this in the future:
1. Enjoy
2. Love God
3. Philosophy is meaningless without 1 or 2
4. Actions measure men, not words
Trillion dollar knowledge
(Originally written June 15, 2006)
This is the original outline of Trillion Dollar Knowledge, an essay in Essays.
Absolute knowledge is like one million dollars. Unfortunately, man is capable of achieving one dollar and most of us have less than a quarter. But, the fact remains that all men know that there is a million dollars out there. Absolute knowledge is known to exist and we strive to obtain it, yet we are capable of only a tiny portion of it. Even in cases where man achieves more than their dollar's worth they are completely unequipped to handle it. Thus, genius and madness go hand in hand. Could man obtain the million dollars, he would not be able to store it, let alone pass it to another.
This is the original outline of Trillion Dollar Knowledge, an essay in Essays.
Absolute knowledge is like one million dollars. Unfortunately, man is capable of achieving one dollar and most of us have less than a quarter. But, the fact remains that all men know that there is a million dollars out there. Absolute knowledge is known to exist and we strive to obtain it, yet we are capable of only a tiny portion of it. Even in cases where man achieves more than their dollar's worth they are completely unequipped to handle it. Thus, genius and madness go hand in hand. Could man obtain the million dollars, he would not be able to store it, let alone pass it to another.
Class Notes on Nietzsche
(Originally written June 15, 2006 in Book 1)
I believe that these are notes from History of Philosophy II
Nietzsche (1844-1900)
-God is dead
-Master-slave moralities, a twofold history
Master Morality
Good - that which enables masters to stay in power
Good - power, pride, nobility, self-sufficiency, etc.
Bad - that which undermines power
Bad - meekness, humility, altruism, etc.
Slave Morality
Good - meekness, humility, submissiveness, servitude, altruism, gentleness, etc.
Evil - pride, self-assertion, egoism
In the slave morality it is not bad, it is evil. Evil is stronger language to show the horribleness of the masters.
God, hell and judgment were invented by the slaves to soothe their souls in vengeful wrath against the masters. Christianity epitomizes slave values and represents a denial of life.
I believe that these are notes from History of Philosophy II
Nietzsche (1844-1900)
-God is dead
-Master-slave moralities, a twofold history
Master Morality
Good - that which enables masters to stay in power
Good - power, pride, nobility, self-sufficiency, etc.
Bad - that which undermines power
Bad - meekness, humility, altruism, etc.
Slave Morality
Good - meekness, humility, submissiveness, servitude, altruism, gentleness, etc.
Evil - pride, self-assertion, egoism
In the slave morality it is not bad, it is evil. Evil is stronger language to show the horribleness of the masters.
God, hell and judgment were invented by the slaves to soothe their souls in vengeful wrath against the masters. Christianity epitomizes slave values and represents a denial of life.
Partial Notes on History of Western Philosophy
(Originally written June 15, 2006 in Book 1)
This seems to be a nice chance for reflection. These next few entries are past writings of mine that are loose. I am copying them and tossing the originals. These will be nearly identical.
I. Partial notes from History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell
Sparta influenced Dr. Thomas Arnold & the English public schools. Sparta influenced Rousseau. Sparta influenced National Socialism. Sparta influenced Nietzsche.
Spartan society was the model for perfect communism. Boys were raised from birth to be fully devoted to the state. Land was owned by the state, but granted to individuals. "It was a theory of the state that no Spartan citizen should be destitute and none should be rich" (Russell, 95).
Plato's view of Socrates' last days: Socrates was given a plan to escape death after being convicted. Socrates reportedly states: "We ought not to retaliate evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him" (Russell, 133). This is Christ's sermon on the mount.
Death is the separation of soul and body according to Socrates. Mirrors Paul, 'to die is to gain'.
"Therefore while we are in the body and while the soul is infected with the evils of our body, our desire for truth will not be satisfied" (Russell, 136-137).
Christian paraphrase: "Therefore while we are in the body, and of the flesh, the soul is inflicted with the evils of the flesh or the evils of sin nature, our desire for truth, which can only come from God, will not be satisfied.
Russell argues that this viewpoint excludes all empirical evidence and scientific observation. However, this is simply not true. This statement only says that while we are under the influence of our sin nature we cannot have the truth of God in us. We can look at empirical evidence and derive truth or knowledge of it, but we cannot obtain absolute truth of God. For example we can scientifically observe the growth of an apple tree. We can plant the seed and watch it grow over time. We can carefully observe the maturation process and test the fruit when it is ready. We have scientific documentation of the growth of the apple tree and its fruit. We have scientific documentation of the growth of the apple tree and its fruit. We have knowledge (or truth) of where an apple comes from. The apple comes from the apple tree. The apple tree came from the seed we planted. The seed we planted came from the apple we picked. The apple we picked came from another tree, and so on, and so on. We have the truth where our apple came from. But, where did the original apple come from? There must have been a seed before a tree and a tree before an apple. To know the truth of the origin of the original apple we must seek a non-empirical source of truth. This truth, the original and absolute truth lies in God. God created the original apple tree, therefore God is the original source of the apple. And since the apple is the source of our empirical evidence and truth, God is the original source of truth.
(Speaking today, 06/15/2006, you and I can see that this is the classic argument for God's existence by first cause. However, at the time I wrote that previous paragraph I knew nothing of arguments from cause and had not studied Aquinas at all. I find that very interesting and somewhat comical).
This seems to be a nice chance for reflection. These next few entries are past writings of mine that are loose. I am copying them and tossing the originals. These will be nearly identical.
I. Partial notes from History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell
Sparta influenced Dr. Thomas Arnold & the English public schools. Sparta influenced Rousseau. Sparta influenced National Socialism. Sparta influenced Nietzsche.
Spartan society was the model for perfect communism. Boys were raised from birth to be fully devoted to the state. Land was owned by the state, but granted to individuals. "It was a theory of the state that no Spartan citizen should be destitute and none should be rich" (Russell, 95).
Plato's view of Socrates' last days: Socrates was given a plan to escape death after being convicted. Socrates reportedly states: "We ought not to retaliate evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him" (Russell, 133). This is Christ's sermon on the mount.
Death is the separation of soul and body according to Socrates. Mirrors Paul, 'to die is to gain'.
"Therefore while we are in the body and while the soul is infected with the evils of our body, our desire for truth will not be satisfied" (Russell, 136-137).
Christian paraphrase: "Therefore while we are in the body, and of the flesh, the soul is inflicted with the evils of the flesh or the evils of sin nature, our desire for truth, which can only come from God, will not be satisfied.
Russell argues that this viewpoint excludes all empirical evidence and scientific observation. However, this is simply not true. This statement only says that while we are under the influence of our sin nature we cannot have the truth of God in us. We can look at empirical evidence and derive truth or knowledge of it, but we cannot obtain absolute truth of God. For example we can scientifically observe the growth of an apple tree. We can plant the seed and watch it grow over time. We can carefully observe the maturation process and test the fruit when it is ready. We have scientific documentation of the growth of the apple tree and its fruit. We have scientific documentation of the growth of the apple tree and its fruit. We have knowledge (or truth) of where an apple comes from. The apple comes from the apple tree. The apple tree came from the seed we planted. The seed we planted came from the apple we picked. The apple we picked came from another tree, and so on, and so on. We have the truth where our apple came from. But, where did the original apple come from? There must have been a seed before a tree and a tree before an apple. To know the truth of the origin of the original apple we must seek a non-empirical source of truth. This truth, the original and absolute truth lies in God. God created the original apple tree, therefore God is the original source of the apple. And since the apple is the source of our empirical evidence and truth, God is the original source of truth.
(Speaking today, 06/15/2006, you and I can see that this is the classic argument for God's existence by first cause. However, at the time I wrote that previous paragraph I knew nothing of arguments from cause and had not studied Aquinas at all. I find that very interesting and somewhat comical).
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
A Soccer Ministry
(Originally written June 14, 2006 in Book 3)
In light of the World cup taking place in Germany right now and seeing the incredible draw this sport has internationally I have come to an idea. Or, the idea has come to me. Missions can be accomplished through soccer. What would it take? 15 players/missionaries traveling all over the world to teach soccer, thousands of balls and some traveling money? To see poor children kicking rags around a dusty street is heart wrenchingly beautiful. Thus, "The Beautiful Goal" is born. My aim is to start a mission group that delivers balls and nets and camps to poor areas in the world. Let us go make disciples of football in the name of God. Football (soccer) is a perfect way of spreading Christ's love to the world. Imagine fifteen 18-30 year olds forming a club that is both talented and dedicated to serving Christ. It can cross cultural borders, language barriers and religious differences.
This would be the uniform - simple soccer style with a crest bearing three courses or maybe a just single cross. What could be more beautiful then the love Christ being spread through an international language?
What would be needed?
People - 15 soccer players, requirements being talent, teaching ability, a love of Christ and a love of man
Financial organizer - financial know-how, a love of Christ and a love of man
Cultural expert - requirements being knowledge of cultures, love of Christ love of man
Resources:
Prayer, Money, Soccer balls, uniforms, plane tickets, places to stay
Trips: 2-4 weeks in an impoverished area, delivering joy, Gospel, soccer balls, nets, training and most importantly God's love.
I know that these are normally my philosophical journals, but philosophy should be a means to an end; not an end in and of itself. The end of all things should be the spread of God's love and the ultimate salvation of souls.
In light of the World cup taking place in Germany right now and seeing the incredible draw this sport has internationally I have come to an idea. Or, the idea has come to me. Missions can be accomplished through soccer. What would it take? 15 players/missionaries traveling all over the world to teach soccer, thousands of balls and some traveling money? To see poor children kicking rags around a dusty street is heart wrenchingly beautiful. Thus, "The Beautiful Goal" is born. My aim is to start a mission group that delivers balls and nets and camps to poor areas in the world. Let us go make disciples of football in the name of God. Football (soccer) is a perfect way of spreading Christ's love to the world. Imagine fifteen 18-30 year olds forming a club that is both talented and dedicated to serving Christ. It can cross cultural borders, language barriers and religious differences.
This would be the uniform - simple soccer style with a crest bearing three courses or maybe a just single cross. What could be more beautiful then the love Christ being spread through an international language?
What would be needed?
People - 15 soccer players, requirements being talent, teaching ability, a love of Christ and a love of man
Financial organizer - financial know-how, a love of Christ and a love of man
Cultural expert - requirements being knowledge of cultures, love of Christ love of man
Resources:
Prayer, Money, Soccer balls, uniforms, plane tickets, places to stay
Trips: 2-4 weeks in an impoverished area, delivering joy, Gospel, soccer balls, nets, training and most importantly God's love.
I know that these are normally my philosophical journals, but philosophy should be a means to an end; not an end in and of itself. The end of all things should be the spread of God's love and the ultimate salvation of souls.
Friday, June 9, 2006
Philosophy of Man in three parts
(Originally written June 9, 2006 in Book 3)
I have resolved to undertake ethics. This is an attempt to combine speculation and practicality. Theories are the backbone of true practical philosophy; but, theories are useless unless they are put into practice.
Where do we begin?
1. First, there is man (singular).
Man is a complex compound of many factors (physical, social, emotional, spiritual, psychological).
Thus, man is a complex combination of five factors: physical, emotional, psychological, spiritual and social. All five of these factors balance in each individual.
2. Ethics are a set of beliefs than an individual holds.
(Originally written June 10, 2006)
Beliefs come from all five parts of our individual selfs.
A. Firstly, our physical experiences give us parameters or boundaries. We find our limitations in our physical realm.
B. Secondly, our psychological responses to our physical experiences shape our beliefs. These come to us by two ways: 1) We are logically (by logic I do not mean that it is logically correct, but that it fits into our own natural progression of thought) come to conclusions. Or, 2) we learn responses from others. Thus, we have physical limits and psychological responses to them.
C. Third, there are our emotional responses to both our physical experiences and limitations and our psychological responses to them. These work in a similar fashion to psychological responses in that they are come to naturally (inside ourselves) and they are conditioned responses (learned from outside sources). Yet, psychological responses can be triggered by emotional responses and vice versa.
D. Our emotions and psychological responses (intellect or mind) stem from our very core - the soul. This is the spiritual factor of humanity. Arguing the existence of an immortal soul is not the point of this dialogue, so do not close your mind if you are irreligious, non-religious or areligious. The soul is the core of human existence. It ties us all together. It is for this reason when one person suffers from depression they experience psychological stress, emotional stress and even physical pain.
E. Social factors influence our beliefs. These are the factors of influence from other individuals or groups of individuals, the social factors or forces influence us emotional and psychological responses. They also help to form our physical limitations. Since social forces are societies we are a part of. This they impose by simply setting physical boundaries on us. We can't be in two places at once, thus the society we choose to be in sets a physical boundary. Now even when we are physically isolated we remember the societies that we are a part of and that effects our beliefs.
(Originally written June 13, 2006)
What is man?
A) Man is physical (body)
B) Man is intellectual (mind)
C) Man is spiritual (soul)
A) The physical aspect of man is mortal; that is, it dies. This is an undeniable a posteriori truth.
B) The soul is divided into two parts. First, there is the soul which is the very breath or essence that gives us a physical life. Second, there is the Soul, which is immortal. The soul, as it is connected to a physical life, is mortal. The Soul, however, is immortal, as it is not connected with the body.
C) The mind is also divided in two. It is connected to both the body and Soul. Therefore, as the soul is mortal and the Soul is immortal, so too is the mind mortal and the Mind immortal. The mind is connected to the body via the brain,whereas the mind is connected to the Soul.
Thus, man is a complex synergy of body, Soul, soul, mind and Mind. The Soul is connected to the soul. The Mind is connected to the mind. Both of these connections each create a single entity. Thus man has Soul-soul; Mind-mind, and body. Where they have interacted there is physical life. Thus, it is held all within the bodily sphere.
Since the soul is part of the Soul and the mind is part of the Mind the mortal parts gain access to the immortal parts. Thus, we as mortal men have a taste of the immortality. Each of our parts is connected to the other. Man is triune and man is one. This is part of the image of God in us all.
I have resolved to undertake ethics. This is an attempt to combine speculation and practicality. Theories are the backbone of true practical philosophy; but, theories are useless unless they are put into practice.
Where do we begin?
1. First, there is man (singular).
Man is a complex compound of many factors (physical, social, emotional, spiritual, psychological).
Thus, man is a complex combination of five factors: physical, emotional, psychological, spiritual and social. All five of these factors balance in each individual.
2. Ethics are a set of beliefs than an individual holds.
(Originally written June 10, 2006)
Beliefs come from all five parts of our individual selfs.
A. Firstly, our physical experiences give us parameters or boundaries. We find our limitations in our physical realm.
B. Secondly, our psychological responses to our physical experiences shape our beliefs. These come to us by two ways: 1) We are logically (by logic I do not mean that it is logically correct, but that it fits into our own natural progression of thought) come to conclusions. Or, 2) we learn responses from others. Thus, we have physical limits and psychological responses to them.
C. Third, there are our emotional responses to both our physical experiences and limitations and our psychological responses to them. These work in a similar fashion to psychological responses in that they are come to naturally (inside ourselves) and they are conditioned responses (learned from outside sources). Yet, psychological responses can be triggered by emotional responses and vice versa.
D. Our emotions and psychological responses (intellect or mind) stem from our very core - the soul. This is the spiritual factor of humanity. Arguing the existence of an immortal soul is not the point of this dialogue, so do not close your mind if you are irreligious, non-religious or areligious. The soul is the core of human existence. It ties us all together. It is for this reason when one person suffers from depression they experience psychological stress, emotional stress and even physical pain.
E. Social factors influence our beliefs. These are the factors of influence from other individuals or groups of individuals, the social factors or forces influence us emotional and psychological responses. They also help to form our physical limitations. Since social forces are societies we are a part of. This they impose by simply setting physical boundaries on us. We can't be in two places at once, thus the society we choose to be in sets a physical boundary. Now even when we are physically isolated we remember the societies that we are a part of and that effects our beliefs.
(Originally written June 13, 2006)
What is man?
A) Man is physical (body)
B) Man is intellectual (mind)
C) Man is spiritual (soul)
A) The physical aspect of man is mortal; that is, it dies. This is an undeniable a posteriori truth.
B) The soul is divided into two parts. First, there is the soul which is the very breath or essence that gives us a physical life. Second, there is the Soul, which is immortal. The soul, as it is connected to a physical life, is mortal. The Soul, however, is immortal, as it is not connected with the body.
C) The mind is also divided in two. It is connected to both the body and Soul. Therefore, as the soul is mortal and the Soul is immortal, so too is the mind mortal and the Mind immortal. The mind is connected to the body via the brain,whereas the mind is connected to the Soul.
Thus, man is a complex synergy of body, Soul, soul, mind and Mind. The Soul is connected to the soul. The Mind is connected to the mind. Both of these connections each create a single entity. Thus man has Soul-soul; Mind-mind, and body. Where they have interacted there is physical life. Thus, it is held all within the bodily sphere.
Since the soul is part of the Soul and the mind is part of the Mind the mortal parts gain access to the immortal parts. Thus, we as mortal men have a taste of the immortality. Each of our parts is connected to the other. Man is triune and man is one. This is part of the image of God in us all.
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
Ramblings, just incoherent ramblings
(Originally written June 6, 2006 in Book 3)
Philosophy of Religion
John H. Hick
"Doomsday"
I guess I shouldn't mock as there is yet two hours left for the beast to emerge. Actually, I would have been somewhat disappointed if God as Satan had chosen to act in such a predictable manner. Honestly, who am I to judge God or Satan? May the Lord have mercy on me if I offended Him in ay way and may He protect me if I marked myself with a bullseye.
Anyway, the purpose of today's journaling is to discuss crime and punishment, the death penalty, and imprisonment. The prison system of America is in shambles. It is impotent. I think that it may be one of the biggest failures in our government's history, So now that I have exposed my bias, I cannot in good faith simply tell you to accept it as fact. But, explore for yourself and check if you believe that the American justice system is effective.
Today, out my argument we must start far before prison, before justice, and even before crime. The starting point is what is society's and what is individual?
First, there is individual man.
Second, there is individual man.
Every individual being has the right to do whatever he pleases without impediment, Unfortunately, even in this simplest scenario it is implausible:
Steve wants land 'A' and Joe wants land 'A'. Both have the rights to land 'A'.
But if both Steve and Joe have the right to land 'A' without impediment we have a problem. Both have the rights to land through individual fundamental rights. But if both Steve and Joe have the right to Land 'A' without impediment we have a problem. Each of their rights impedes the other's individual fundamental rights. Thus, there is a violation of that right if either man claim's land "a" of the other man's individual fundamental rights.
Now there is a major problem for human society. We have a paradox: either every human being will either respect one another's right to something by not doing anything or by overpowering others and exerting their right as supreme. If the former is chosen then we will sit idly until we die and if we choose the latter (which has been repeatedly chosen we will live in a world of Hitlers, Stalins and servants. Nietzsche would be proud.
Philosophy of Religion
John H. Hick
"Doomsday"
I guess I shouldn't mock as there is yet two hours left for the beast to emerge. Actually, I would have been somewhat disappointed if God as Satan had chosen to act in such a predictable manner. Honestly, who am I to judge God or Satan? May the Lord have mercy on me if I offended Him in ay way and may He protect me if I marked myself with a bullseye.
Anyway, the purpose of today's journaling is to discuss crime and punishment, the death penalty, and imprisonment. The prison system of America is in shambles. It is impotent. I think that it may be one of the biggest failures in our government's history, So now that I have exposed my bias, I cannot in good faith simply tell you to accept it as fact. But, explore for yourself and check if you believe that the American justice system is effective.
Today, out my argument we must start far before prison, before justice, and even before crime. The starting point is what is society's and what is individual?
First, there is individual man.
Second, there is individual man.
Every individual being has the right to do whatever he pleases without impediment, Unfortunately, even in this simplest scenario it is implausible:
Steve wants land 'A' and Joe wants land 'A'. Both have the rights to land 'A'.
But if both Steve and Joe have the right to land 'A' without impediment we have a problem. Both have the rights to land through individual fundamental rights. But if both Steve and Joe have the right to Land 'A' without impediment we have a problem. Each of their rights impedes the other's individual fundamental rights. Thus, there is a violation of that right if either man claim's land "a" of the other man's individual fundamental rights.
Now there is a major problem for human society. We have a paradox: either every human being will either respect one another's right to something by not doing anything or by overpowering others and exerting their right as supreme. If the former is chosen then we will sit idly until we die and if we choose the latter (which has been repeatedly chosen we will live in a world of Hitlers, Stalins and servants. Nietzsche would be proud.
Thursday, June 1, 2006
Philosophy of Religion interrupted
(Originally written June 1, 2006 in Book 3)
Philosophy of Religion
John H. Hick
Actually I have no desire for studies! Good night!
Philosophy of Religion
John H. Hick
Actually I have no desire for studies! Good night!
A Diary Entry
(Originally written June 1 in Book 3)
On a side note, today was ___ birthday. Her family didn't call her to wish her a happy one as they are in Germany. Still though, a call would be great. In fact I find it quite detestable they did not yet. I digress.
The day was a rather trying one. It started out last night (actually, early this morning) when all my physical were rejected by the birthday sir! Fair enough; it is understandable and completely appropriate. Yet, that is of no comfort when I feel frustrated in the moment. Then, this morning she would not wake up. I left around 9 AM to pay rent and missed the cable guy. ____ continued to sleep. Finally she got up and then proceeded to take an eternity to get ready. He finally left the apartment at two PM. (Frowny face).
When we got back I went to Moncieto to buy her a present. She seemed disappointed in it. Her mood was sour when I returned. Every idea the rest of the night that I thought of (for decorating the apartment) was either brushed aside or flatly and soundly rejected. What a wonderful day! Thus, let's read a bit shall we?
On a side note, today was ___ birthday. Her family didn't call her to wish her a happy one as they are in Germany. Still though, a call would be great. In fact I find it quite detestable they did not yet. I digress.
The day was a rather trying one. It started out last night (actually, early this morning) when all my physical were rejected by the birthday sir! Fair enough; it is understandable and completely appropriate. Yet, that is of no comfort when I feel frustrated in the moment. Then, this morning she would not wake up. I left around 9 AM to pay rent and missed the cable guy. ____ continued to sleep. Finally she got up and then proceeded to take an eternity to get ready. He finally left the apartment at two PM. (Frowny face).
When we got back I went to Moncieto to buy her a present. She seemed disappointed in it. Her mood was sour when I returned. Every idea the rest of the night that I thought of (for decorating the apartment) was either brushed aside or flatly and soundly rejected. What a wonderful day! Thus, let's read a bit shall we?
Thoughts on Existence (part 2)
(Originally written June 1, 2006 in Book 3)
Thus, existence is subdivided like this.
1. Existence
2a. Past
3a. Actual
3b. Intellectual
4a. Organic
4b. Inorganic
2b. Present
3a. Actual
3b. Intellectual
4a. Organic
4b. Inorganic
The organic and inorganic categories only fall under the heading "Actual Existence"
What is tricky though is that whenever we ponder the actual past existence of an object we are actually creating a present intellectual existence of an idea of that object. Thus, we only know intellectual existence whether it be past or present. (Past intellectual existence which we store as memory becomes present intellectual existence the minute we begin to ponder it again).
Thus, existence is as follow.
1) An object exists when it is.
2) That object exists in a set time, either the past or the present.
3) That object has either actual existence (if it is perceivable by the five physical senses) or an intellectual existence (if it is created in the mind of something with actual existence and not made to be tangible, i.e fictional characters, ideas, beliefs, etc.)
3b.) If the object has actual existence, whether it be past or present, then it has either organic (if it has life) or inorganic existence (if it is lifeless). All intellectual existence is inorganic because it has no life.
There are a number of anomalies when it comes to classifying existences. This is a list (though not exhaustive of such anomalies).
1. God - God has actual existence though we (normally) cannot use our five physical senses to perceive Him.
2. Human souls - souls have actual existence though we (normally) cannot use our five physical senses to perceive them.
3. The Human Mind - Minds have actual existence though we (normally) cannot use our five physical senses to perceive them.
Angels, demons and other objects of the Spiritual realm of existence fall into this crack.
Now as far as comprehension of existence I look to Kant for answers. The perception we have of anything that has actual existence conforms to our minds, thus we gain an intellectual existence of an actual object and infer that this idea we now have is inferred from an object with actual existence. This we have probable cause to believe that actual objects exist and it is absurd to doubt their actual existence. Belief then serves as the finishing touches of knowledge.
Knowledge is the foundation and skeleton; whereas belief is the part of the metaphorical building we call philosophy. Knowledge strengthens belief and belief completes knowledge. It is a symbiotic relationship and philosophy (and learning in general) is incomplete without either.
Thus, existence is subdivided like this.
1. Existence
2a. Past
3a. Actual
3b. Intellectual
4a. Organic
4b. Inorganic
2b. Present
3a. Actual
3b. Intellectual
4a. Organic
4b. Inorganic
The organic and inorganic categories only fall under the heading "Actual Existence"
What is tricky though is that whenever we ponder the actual past existence of an object we are actually creating a present intellectual existence of an idea of that object. Thus, we only know intellectual existence whether it be past or present. (Past intellectual existence which we store as memory becomes present intellectual existence the minute we begin to ponder it again).
Thus, existence is as follow.
1) An object exists when it is.
2) That object exists in a set time, either the past or the present.
3) That object has either actual existence (if it is perceivable by the five physical senses) or an intellectual existence (if it is created in the mind of something with actual existence and not made to be tangible, i.e fictional characters, ideas, beliefs, etc.)
3b.) If the object has actual existence, whether it be past or present, then it has either organic (if it has life) or inorganic existence (if it is lifeless). All intellectual existence is inorganic because it has no life.
There are a number of anomalies when it comes to classifying existences. This is a list (though not exhaustive of such anomalies).
1. God - God has actual existence though we (normally) cannot use our five physical senses to perceive Him.
2. Human souls - souls have actual existence though we (normally) cannot use our five physical senses to perceive them.
3. The Human Mind - Minds have actual existence though we (normally) cannot use our five physical senses to perceive them.
Angels, demons and other objects of the Spiritual realm of existence fall into this crack.
Now as far as comprehension of existence I look to Kant for answers. The perception we have of anything that has actual existence conforms to our minds, thus we gain an intellectual existence of an actual object and infer that this idea we now have is inferred from an object with actual existence. This we have probable cause to believe that actual objects exist and it is absurd to doubt their actual existence. Belief then serves as the finishing touches of knowledge.
Knowledge is the foundation and skeleton; whereas belief is the part of the metaphorical building we call philosophy. Knowledge strengthens belief and belief completes knowledge. It is a symbiotic relationship and philosophy (and learning in general) is incomplete without either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)