(Originally written July 31, 2006 in Book 6)
Metaphysics - Peter van Inwagen
Ch. 6 (continued)
The first cause argument is a cosmological argument. But the First Cause Argument begs the question 'why does the first being exist?' by answering 'because it always has existed.'
One cosmological argument for why things exists without appealing to the principle of sufficient reason goes as follows:
An independent being is one who relies on nothing outside of itself for its existence.
A dependent being is one who relies on things outside of itself for its existence.
There can be no independent and contingent being(s). "It is a necessary truth that if there are any beings that in no way, or in any degree depend for their existence on things outside themselves, then those beings are necessary... for every being that exists, there must be at least a partial explanation for the fact of its existence and if a being was truly independent then there could only be one explanation of any sort for its existence: that its non-existence was impossible" (van Inwagen, 111).
This argument suffers because one of its premises is that the world is an individual thing. Both theists and atheists will want to reject this premise (but for different reasons).
Through any argument thus far we have proved the existence of a necessary being, but van Inwagen claims that if there is no necessary being then there can be no answer to the question, Why is there anything at all?
Metaphysics has not or is unable to produce a logical answer for why there is anything at all because it has failed to produce the argument proving the existence of a necessary being.
Some scientists claim that the whole of metaphysics has failed to produce an answer, since has succeeded with the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang theory states that there used to be less space than there is now; that is, space is continually spreading out. If we trace it backwards approximately 10-15 thousand million years we would reach the mathematical origin of the universe: the singularity. Some scientists accept this, but most have an anti-religious bent. Others reject this, partly because they have a belief in God.
Alan Sandage, "the father of modern astronomy" states that, "science cannot answer the deepest questions. As soon as you ask why there is something instead of nothing, you have gone beyond science" (van Inwagen, 115).
The scientific answer is hopelessly flawed. It labels 'nothingness' as an object with he property of instability. Nothingness is not an object and cannot therefore possess properties. Instability is a purely temporal property so even if nothingness were an object it would be an object outside of time and could not possess any temporal properties like instability.
Even the science of quantum field theory there exists a "quantum vacuum", But, a vacuum is not nothing; it is something (the lowest energy state of the quantum field).
"Nothingness is unstable" is merely an linguistic slogan. It is really "the quantum vacuum is unstable". But the quantum vacuum is merely a modification of the quantum field and the quantum field is most definitely something and not nothing.
Science has not succeeded in answering the question why is there anything instead of nothing. They have merely caused confusion through word games of substituting 'nothing' or 'nothingness' for 'vacuum'
Monday, July 31, 2006
Circular ramblings on metaphysical topics with loads of logical errors
(Originally written July 31, 2006 in Book 5)
Book Three of Russell's The History of Western Philosophy will be considered later. Here will be the beginning stages of The Metaphysics of Christopher Linehan.
Introduction/Caveat
Metaphysics is a new subject for me. I am by no means an expert. For this reason my arguments could be subject to change and/or revisal. I do not have a complete grasp on the subject so I will focus only on a few crucial questions.
1) What are the features of the world? (The world is everything that exists, not merely the physical universe). What sorts of things doe the World contain? What is the world like?
2) Why does the world exist? Why does this world exist rather than another one? Why does anything exist rather than nothing?
3) What is humanity's place in the world? How do we fit in?
These questions are broad and demand a lot of attention. I admit that I could wholly devote my life and work to answering these questions and not come up with an answer wholly suitable to everyone or even wholly suitable to myself. But that does not deter me any, nor should it discourage you.
What?
The world is everything that exists. The most obvious question to deal with then is: what exists?
First and foremost, I exist. It is self-evident to me (but not to you) that I exist. If I didn't exist I could not write these words or think about my fiancé at Subway right now. I could not even possess a finance or even know the concept of Subway or finance if I did not exist. While I know that I exist, I have yet to determine how I exist.
There are a number of possibilities to how I exist. I could exist simply as a composite of matter. I could exist as matter and intellect. I could exist as intellect, but not as matter. I could exist as intellect, matter and spirit. I could exist as spirit alone or spirt and mater or spirit and mind. So, how do I exist.
First, I will consider the one of these three, but not the most obvious. Prior to studying philosophy I would have considered material existence first, but I don't see how that is at all plausible. to consider anything I would have to possess some form of intellect, wouldn't I? I feel it is so, and thus, I will consider intellect first.
What is the intellect? The intellect is a process of thinking. It is an act of considering. Basically intellect is thought; intellect is mind.
Is mind matter? The brain is material that is composed of physical matter (seemingly as I have not discovered matter as being real or existent). So is it possible that the thought process is simply a manifestation of matter rearranging itself to produce thoughts, emotions, considerations, etc? Yes, but if mind were simply matter then we would have concrete scientific ways of measuring how matter creates mind. I am not aware of such a process. Sure, brainwaves can be monitored when certain thoughts are processed and chemicals in the brain are released during emotions; but, do we have physical proof (which science itself demands to be called science) that thoughts occur because of brainwaves or emotions occur because of chemicals? Isn't it at least as plausible that emotions cause the chemicals to be released or that thoughts trigger the brainwaves?
In all honesty I need to study the anatomy and scientific data on brains to be certain, but as of right now (7/31/06) I am content to state that either brainwaves cause thoughts or thoughts cause brainwaves are as equally plausible.
So here we are faced with the first dilemma. Do thoughts cause brainwaves (mind cause matter) or do brainwaves cause thoughts (matter cause mind)? From a scientific point of view, of matter caused mind, then we would necessarily have a way to empirically observe a thought.
A thought is simply a process of the intellect. I am using the word very vaguely right now so I apologize for any ambiguity or confusion. For the purposes of this writing I consider any process of the mind (thought, emotion, belief, memory, etc) a thought. A serious work on epistemology is another goal of mine, but for this essay understand that when I write 'thought' I am referring to any process of the mind whatsoever.
So where are we in the question: how do I exist? Not very far sadly. I exist and if I have thoughts then I necessarily have a mind or intellect. I have thoughts. Therefore I exist and have mind. But now I face a tough question: Is the mind material or immaterial?
If the mind were material, that is, if matter causes thoughts then thoughts would be empirical observable because they too would be material. If anything is material then it is empirically observable. If something is empirically observable then it falls under the scope of science. If something is not empirically observable then it falls under the scope of something other than science (religion and philosophy fall under non-empirical investigatory tools). The question of whether matter creates mind or mind creates matter is similarly asked as 'is mind empirically observable and thus a subject of science?'
One quick caveat or precaution: when I state, 'mind creates matter', I mean that thoughts enact changes in matter. But when I state 'matter creates mind', I mean material actions physically create or alter other matter to become thoughts. Also when I restate the question 'does mind create matter or matter create mind' as 'is the mind empirically observable and thus subject to science'? I do not pin science against philosophy or religion. I simply acknowledge that there are certain things that belong to science and certain things that do not. Philosophy and religion work to fill in the gaps where science leaves them and science is consistent with philosophical and religious parts of a 'true' worldview. True is in quotations because I do not believe any fallible human being can produce an infallible explanation of everything.
But I've digressed. Is mind an empirically observable entity? if the answer to this is yes then matter creates mind and thoughts are material. If no, then either science is not advanced enough as of yet to detect the matter of mind or matter does not create mind.
To my knowledge there is no way of empirically observing a thought. A thought does not contain any physical properties. One cannot touch, smell, taste, hear or see a thought. There is no way of sensing a thought. But is there a testable hypothesis that shows that one could theoretically sense a thought? If it is true that thoughts do not possess physical qualities then I do not possible see how. So, if we cannot sense a thought or test a theory of a material object that is a thought then I cannot admit that mind is in the scope of science.
To answer an obvious objection from a scientist or a scientifically inclined philosopher on the subject of brainwaves or chemical reactions and emotions I will give two examples. A brainwave 'x' can be observed to occur that correlates with thought 'y' in human 'h'. If 'h' then has 'x' then 'y' is occurring. Does this mean that 'x' causes 'y' in 'h' or that 'y' causes 'x' in 'h' or 'x' and 'y' accidentally occur in 'h' simultaneously?
Let's consider option three first. "X" and "Y" are seen to happen a number of times in "h" but there is no causal relationship. If it is observed this way once then we can easily accept this option. If it is observed this way ten out of ten times than it would be harder to accept. If it is observed one hundred out of one hundred times then it becomes even harder to accept and so on. If 'x' and 'y' occur simultaneously in 'h' enough times overtime 'h' is observed it becomes highly improbable that neither 'x' causes 'y' nor 'y' causes 'x'. While we cannot completely dismiss this scenario we can consider it highly improbable and render it useless to us on account of its improbability.
This leaves us with two options:
1) X causes Y in H (matter causes mind)
2) Y causes X in H (mind causes matter)
If option one is correct then we would have to concede that mind is matter because material things can exact changes only of material kind. But, if this were true we would have the consequence of thoughts being empirically observable, which is not true. Thus, option two is the only option we have. Mind causes matter and thus material brainwaves are merely a physical manifestation of an immaterial thought. Chemical releases in the brain occur similarly. (In the actual book add in the example of anger or love and the correlating boost of endorphins).
So, for now we have come to the conclusion that if mind exists it is not material. The fact that I just wrote 'mind is not material' shows the existence of a thought. A thought shows the existence of an entity being capable of processing a thought or thoughts. This entity is intellect or mind. Thus, mind exists as an immaterial entity.
So where are we now in the question, how do I exist. I exist as mind (at least). The mind is immaterial and does not possess physical qualities. If I were not writing with my hand or able to see any part of my body we would conclude there. But, we have much more work to do. (If science proves that thoughts are material, which they may be theoretically capable of doing, then this theory is completely disproved. I feel confident thought that they will never actually accomplish this).
Thus far we have established that the world consist of (at least) me and I exist (at least as) mind. By peering around I can see many things including my own body. Thus all that I can see leads me to know that I and my immaterial mind are not all that compose the world.
So what is this body of mine? How can I tell that it is mine? Well, I can pinch myself and a sensation will occur. I will feel pain. My brain will receive information from nerve endings and the brain will proclaim that this is threatening the existence of the body. This is not a thought though. It is something else entirely.
It is a brain (part of the body) corresponding to a sensation in the arm (where I'm pinching myself). The brain takes the sensation and then discerns whether the sensation is harmful to the body as a whole or if it is not harmful to the body. The brain does not create concepts of pain for harmful sensations or pleasure for not-harmful sensations. The brain does not create concepts; only the mind does. Concepts or thoughts are immaterial and therefore not capable of being possessed or formed by material things.
We now come to a point that seems to be an inconsistency. If the brain and thus the rest of the body is matter and the mind is immaterial, it would follow from the argument that mind creates matter, that matter cannot create mind. (Again by create I mean cause or effect or create or change or alter). Here we find a bit of a difficulty. It is true that mind creates matter (i.e. the emotion love is followed by the release of endorphins, thus the concept love causes a material reaction in the body). It is also true that matter does not create mind. So how then does a sensation deemed harmful to the body by the brain cause the concept of pain? It can't because matter cannot create mind.
But fear not because it doesn't actually cause the concept. Consider here the chain of events:
1) My mind has a thought to articulate how to prove my body exists and is mine.
2) My mind comes up with the brilliant idea of pinching my arm.
3) my mind uses thought to enact my hand to pinch my arm (mind creates matter)
4) My body feels a sensation and sends the information to the brain
5) The brain deems the sensation as harmful and will demand that the arm do something to escape.
6) My mind analyzes the situation and the information that the brain deduces from the sensation.
7) The analysis of the mind determines that the harmful conclusion the brain has reach coupled with the sensation falls under the concept of pain.
The concept of main (mind) is not directly arrived at from the conclusion the brain reaches. The conclusion of the brain (matter) is determined to be pain by the analysis of the mind. While the mind uses the conclusion of the brain it still creates the concept of pain on its own account.
This leads us to an interesting point. Mind creates matter and matter does not create mind are true, but what about other possibilities?
1) Mind creates matter - True
2) Mind creates mind - Unknown
3) Matter creates mind - False
4) Matter creates matter
Mind creates mind is true because the mind is the thing that creates or otherwise produces thought, which is not material and therefore not matter. What is left then? Mind. Thus, thought is mind.
Matter creates matter is also true. Take for instance the pinch scenario. A long drawn out process of the mind is not required for the brain to tell the arm to get the hell out of there. Also, a mind does not need to make a conscious decision to breathe. Thus matter creates matter. When this happens in a human it is an instinctive motion. It is an instinct to breathe. It is an instinct for the heart to pump blood. It is an instinct to remove the body from a harmful situation. This last instinctive action is supplemented with the mind creation of fear or pain concepts.
Thus, mind creates matter; mind creates mind; matter does not create mind; and, matter creates matter. So what do we have now? Currently, the world contains me. I am mind and something not-mind. But have we proven the existence of other matter?
Mind is proven to exist (so long as science cannot disprove it some time in the future. This is doubtful, but theoretically possible). Mind is also proven to be a complex structure. What does this mean? We have shown that it is necessary for an intellect or mind to exist if a thought exists. Anything I write proves that a thought exists and thus, mind exists to contain that thought. Likewise, we have proven that if a thought exists then that thought is not an object of physical qualities. We have also proved that matter cannot create mind, thus mind and thought must not be physical or material. But this line of arguing presupposes the notion of matter.
Do we have any good reason for accepting that matter exists? Theoretically, everything I could think could become actual. Thus, I could only be perceiving a body because my mind has created the concept of body or the concept of physicality. If body is actually just a concept of the mind then it is not truly matter, but another form of immaterial thought. This seems to be illogical and even very crazy, but it is not entirely implausible.
Through my mind I have often created scenarios in which my body has reacted. I have created a scenario in which I am shot or stabbed in a dark alley. This scenario issues the concept of fear and pain which I have also created in my mind. Now when my body walks through a dark alley I become tense and my body tightens seemingly instinctively. While I have never been shot or stabbed in an alley I have a thought of that and it creates physical (sensible to the brain) sensations in my body. it is plausible that all scenarios are actually constructs of the mind.
I however cannot control other bodies which are seemingly material. My fiancé is in here and I cannot make her strip off her clothes through the power of my mind. I also cannot cause her to do jumping jacks behind the counter either. I have no control over her body. So it seems impossible that my mind is capable of controlling bodies other than my own. It also seems impossible that I could have created her in my mind. Even if it is possible for me to have created her, it is highly unlikely that every person I have met in my whole life is a mere construct of my mind, let alone all the other things I have come into contact with. It would seem then doubtful that everything is of mind, unless of course I am simply a construct of another mind (along with everything else). We will look into this later.
For now I am content with holding that my mind has not created, nor is it in control of other bodies. I am also content that my mind does control my own body. It is possible then that I have still created my body with my mind and it is thus an immaterial thing. But, if that were true I think I may have created a better one.
In all seriousness I do not feel that my mind is capable of creating my body as a thought. It is this option or that I just do not have control over my mind. But the fact that I can pause and clap my hands if I think about it and choose to act on that thought leads me to believe I have sufficient control of my mind. It is true that I do not have full control of my mind at all times. Dreams and irrational fears are two examples of when one does not have full control of one's own mind (save for lucid dreams). But however many instances anyone can point out that one does not have control over one's own mind, the fact that he or she is consciously doing so proves he has sufficient over his or her own mind enough to state that he or she does not. (This does not disprove any form of determinism though. A mind could be controlled by another and we all could be pawns in a strange cosmic chess game).
So if a body is not an extension of a correlating mind, what is it?
1) It is not-mind or matter (mind is immaterial thus not immaterial is matter).
2) It is mind, but not one's own mind's construct
Either way it is a thing that has physical qualities and I am content to call anything with physical qualities at this point material. Thus for now we shall regard a body as matter.
However I have merely proved that the world consists of me, who is mind and matter and other bodies that are material. How can we assume that these other bodies are anything but matter?
Currently in this room there are a number of bodies. There is this pad and this pen and a whole bunch of tables, glass cases, a soda machine, food and my fiancé. All of these bodies are free from the control of my mind. I cannot enact any change in these material objects without using my own material body. I cannot levitate anything by focusing my mind really hard. I cannot cause my fiancé to strip or do jumping jacks despite by best mental efforts.
Thus here we have to revise the mind/matter argument.
1. My mind creates my matter - true
2. My mind creates my mind - true
3. My matter creates my mind - false
4. My matter creates my matter - true
5. My mind creates other matter - false
6. My mind creates other mind - false
7. My matter creates other mind - false
8. My matter creates other matter - true
9. Other mind creates my matter - false
10. Other mind creates my mind - false
11. Other matter creates my mind - false
12. Other matter creates my matter - true
Other mind here is an equal or lesser or greater mind then my own, but it is not a supreme mind.
I can state that I see no reason to believe that the pen, the pad, the tables, the glass cases, the soda machine and the food contain any mind. They do not move or otherwise create on their own. While mind is not an empirically observable property we can infer from the fact that they do not show any outwardly usual signs of possessing mind that they do not have mind and must be then only matter.
So what exists? So far:
1. I exist
a. I exist as mind
b. I exist as not-mind (matter)
2. Mind exists
a. I am not certain that other minds exist, but I can infer they do in other things
b. mind exists in thoughts
3. Not-mind exists
a. This could be matter
b. This could be a construct of a Supreme Mind
c. Either way, it is not the construct of my mind or any mind similar to my mind if they exist
4. Bodies of matter exists
a. My body exists
b. other bodies exist
Basically at this point I can state that I undeniably exist (or when you read this that you undeniably exist). I can also state that since I can state that I exist, thoughts (which precede statements) exist. Since thoughts exists it follows that mind must exist. While it is self-evident that I exist and undeniable that a thought or many thoughts exist and thus mind is necessary if and only if thoughts exist. Obviously, thoughts exist and thus mind. But I can also state that bodies exist.
My body is not a product or creation of my own mind. This I can state with certainty (though not as certainly as I exist or thoughts exist or mind exists). Nonetheless, I am sure enough to demand that either my body is a product of a mind far greater then my own or not-mind in nature. For the time being I am willing to deny that my body is a product of a greater mind and also designate it as a plausible theory to be dealt with later. Thus, I am willing to state that my body is of physical characteristics and thus, material. My mind is in sufficient enough control of my body to make me believe that I have mind control over my body.
There also is in existence other bodies. I cannot control other bodies as I control my own and thus believe that while they are similar in that they are possessing of physical characteristics like my own body, they are dissimilar in that I have no conscious control over them. I am willing to concede that a small theoretical possibility exists that I do have some sort of mind control over other physical bodies in a subconscious manner. I feel that this improbable because I have sufficient mind control over my body and would expect that if other bodies were subject to my mind that I would exact the same or similar command of those bodies.
I believe strongly that these other bodies defer in matter set-up because they appear differently. I also feel strongly that everything in this room is purely material and not mind (in the same sense that my body is not-mind). There is one exception. My fiancé is not mind in that she is of physical characteristics in differing from the other material objects. Here she moves in a similar way to me. I have mind and considering that her matter is composed and moves in similar ways to my own and owing to the fact that it is not subject to the control of my mind, I can infer with a good conscience that she posses a mind that is similar to my own.
Thus so far we can safely say that the World consists of both mind and non-mind components. This does not entail that nothing possesses both mind and non-mind parts, but that mind and non-mind (conveniently called matter) exist but what of spiritual things? A thing can exist in mind, matter and spirit; mind and matter; mind only; spirit and matter; matter only; or, spirit only. Thus there are six ways a thing could exist:
1) Mind, matter and spirit
2) Mind and matter
3) Mind only
4) Matter only
5) Matter and spirit
6) spirit only.
So far all are still possible. In this room we have a number of things:
1. Me - at least mind and matter
2. Pad - matter, no mind (possibly spirit)
3. Pen (same as 2)
4. Tables (same as 2)
5. Glass cases (same as 2)
6. Soda Machine (same as 2)
7. Food - (same as 2)
8. My fiancé - matter, probably mind, and possibly spirit
It is time to define what characteristics are of mind, of matter and of spirit. But, not now.
Book Three of Russell's The History of Western Philosophy will be considered later. Here will be the beginning stages of The Metaphysics of Christopher Linehan.
Introduction/Caveat
Metaphysics is a new subject for me. I am by no means an expert. For this reason my arguments could be subject to change and/or revisal. I do not have a complete grasp on the subject so I will focus only on a few crucial questions.
1) What are the features of the world? (The world is everything that exists, not merely the physical universe). What sorts of things doe the World contain? What is the world like?
2) Why does the world exist? Why does this world exist rather than another one? Why does anything exist rather than nothing?
3) What is humanity's place in the world? How do we fit in?
These questions are broad and demand a lot of attention. I admit that I could wholly devote my life and work to answering these questions and not come up with an answer wholly suitable to everyone or even wholly suitable to myself. But that does not deter me any, nor should it discourage you.
What?
The world is everything that exists. The most obvious question to deal with then is: what exists?
First and foremost, I exist. It is self-evident to me (but not to you) that I exist. If I didn't exist I could not write these words or think about my fiancé at Subway right now. I could not even possess a finance or even know the concept of Subway or finance if I did not exist. While I know that I exist, I have yet to determine how I exist.
There are a number of possibilities to how I exist. I could exist simply as a composite of matter. I could exist as matter and intellect. I could exist as intellect, but not as matter. I could exist as intellect, matter and spirit. I could exist as spirit alone or spirt and mater or spirit and mind. So, how do I exist.
First, I will consider the one of these three, but not the most obvious. Prior to studying philosophy I would have considered material existence first, but I don't see how that is at all plausible. to consider anything I would have to possess some form of intellect, wouldn't I? I feel it is so, and thus, I will consider intellect first.
What is the intellect? The intellect is a process of thinking. It is an act of considering. Basically intellect is thought; intellect is mind.
Is mind matter? The brain is material that is composed of physical matter (seemingly as I have not discovered matter as being real or existent). So is it possible that the thought process is simply a manifestation of matter rearranging itself to produce thoughts, emotions, considerations, etc? Yes, but if mind were simply matter then we would have concrete scientific ways of measuring how matter creates mind. I am not aware of such a process. Sure, brainwaves can be monitored when certain thoughts are processed and chemicals in the brain are released during emotions; but, do we have physical proof (which science itself demands to be called science) that thoughts occur because of brainwaves or emotions occur because of chemicals? Isn't it at least as plausible that emotions cause the chemicals to be released or that thoughts trigger the brainwaves?
In all honesty I need to study the anatomy and scientific data on brains to be certain, but as of right now (7/31/06) I am content to state that either brainwaves cause thoughts or thoughts cause brainwaves are as equally plausible.
So here we are faced with the first dilemma. Do thoughts cause brainwaves (mind cause matter) or do brainwaves cause thoughts (matter cause mind)? From a scientific point of view, of matter caused mind, then we would necessarily have a way to empirically observe a thought.
A thought is simply a process of the intellect. I am using the word very vaguely right now so I apologize for any ambiguity or confusion. For the purposes of this writing I consider any process of the mind (thought, emotion, belief, memory, etc) a thought. A serious work on epistemology is another goal of mine, but for this essay understand that when I write 'thought' I am referring to any process of the mind whatsoever.
So where are we in the question: how do I exist? Not very far sadly. I exist and if I have thoughts then I necessarily have a mind or intellect. I have thoughts. Therefore I exist and have mind. But now I face a tough question: Is the mind material or immaterial?
If the mind were material, that is, if matter causes thoughts then thoughts would be empirical observable because they too would be material. If anything is material then it is empirically observable. If something is empirically observable then it falls under the scope of science. If something is not empirically observable then it falls under the scope of something other than science (religion and philosophy fall under non-empirical investigatory tools). The question of whether matter creates mind or mind creates matter is similarly asked as 'is mind empirically observable and thus a subject of science?'
One quick caveat or precaution: when I state, 'mind creates matter', I mean that thoughts enact changes in matter. But when I state 'matter creates mind', I mean material actions physically create or alter other matter to become thoughts. Also when I restate the question 'does mind create matter or matter create mind' as 'is the mind empirically observable and thus subject to science'? I do not pin science against philosophy or religion. I simply acknowledge that there are certain things that belong to science and certain things that do not. Philosophy and religion work to fill in the gaps where science leaves them and science is consistent with philosophical and religious parts of a 'true' worldview. True is in quotations because I do not believe any fallible human being can produce an infallible explanation of everything.
But I've digressed. Is mind an empirically observable entity? if the answer to this is yes then matter creates mind and thoughts are material. If no, then either science is not advanced enough as of yet to detect the matter of mind or matter does not create mind.
To my knowledge there is no way of empirically observing a thought. A thought does not contain any physical properties. One cannot touch, smell, taste, hear or see a thought. There is no way of sensing a thought. But is there a testable hypothesis that shows that one could theoretically sense a thought? If it is true that thoughts do not possess physical qualities then I do not possible see how. So, if we cannot sense a thought or test a theory of a material object that is a thought then I cannot admit that mind is in the scope of science.
To answer an obvious objection from a scientist or a scientifically inclined philosopher on the subject of brainwaves or chemical reactions and emotions I will give two examples. A brainwave 'x' can be observed to occur that correlates with thought 'y' in human 'h'. If 'h' then has 'x' then 'y' is occurring. Does this mean that 'x' causes 'y' in 'h' or that 'y' causes 'x' in 'h' or 'x' and 'y' accidentally occur in 'h' simultaneously?
Let's consider option three first. "X" and "Y" are seen to happen a number of times in "h" but there is no causal relationship. If it is observed this way once then we can easily accept this option. If it is observed this way ten out of ten times than it would be harder to accept. If it is observed one hundred out of one hundred times then it becomes even harder to accept and so on. If 'x' and 'y' occur simultaneously in 'h' enough times overtime 'h' is observed it becomes highly improbable that neither 'x' causes 'y' nor 'y' causes 'x'. While we cannot completely dismiss this scenario we can consider it highly improbable and render it useless to us on account of its improbability.
This leaves us with two options:
1) X causes Y in H (matter causes mind)
2) Y causes X in H (mind causes matter)
If option one is correct then we would have to concede that mind is matter because material things can exact changes only of material kind. But, if this were true we would have the consequence of thoughts being empirically observable, which is not true. Thus, option two is the only option we have. Mind causes matter and thus material brainwaves are merely a physical manifestation of an immaterial thought. Chemical releases in the brain occur similarly. (In the actual book add in the example of anger or love and the correlating boost of endorphins).
So, for now we have come to the conclusion that if mind exists it is not material. The fact that I just wrote 'mind is not material' shows the existence of a thought. A thought shows the existence of an entity being capable of processing a thought or thoughts. This entity is intellect or mind. Thus, mind exists as an immaterial entity.
So where are we now in the question, how do I exist. I exist as mind (at least). The mind is immaterial and does not possess physical qualities. If I were not writing with my hand or able to see any part of my body we would conclude there. But, we have much more work to do. (If science proves that thoughts are material, which they may be theoretically capable of doing, then this theory is completely disproved. I feel confident thought that they will never actually accomplish this).
Thus far we have established that the world consist of (at least) me and I exist (at least as) mind. By peering around I can see many things including my own body. Thus all that I can see leads me to know that I and my immaterial mind are not all that compose the world.
So what is this body of mine? How can I tell that it is mine? Well, I can pinch myself and a sensation will occur. I will feel pain. My brain will receive information from nerve endings and the brain will proclaim that this is threatening the existence of the body. This is not a thought though. It is something else entirely.
It is a brain (part of the body) corresponding to a sensation in the arm (where I'm pinching myself). The brain takes the sensation and then discerns whether the sensation is harmful to the body as a whole or if it is not harmful to the body. The brain does not create concepts of pain for harmful sensations or pleasure for not-harmful sensations. The brain does not create concepts; only the mind does. Concepts or thoughts are immaterial and therefore not capable of being possessed or formed by material things.
We now come to a point that seems to be an inconsistency. If the brain and thus the rest of the body is matter and the mind is immaterial, it would follow from the argument that mind creates matter, that matter cannot create mind. (Again by create I mean cause or effect or create or change or alter). Here we find a bit of a difficulty. It is true that mind creates matter (i.e. the emotion love is followed by the release of endorphins, thus the concept love causes a material reaction in the body). It is also true that matter does not create mind. So how then does a sensation deemed harmful to the body by the brain cause the concept of pain? It can't because matter cannot create mind.
But fear not because it doesn't actually cause the concept. Consider here the chain of events:
1) My mind has a thought to articulate how to prove my body exists and is mine.
2) My mind comes up with the brilliant idea of pinching my arm.
3) my mind uses thought to enact my hand to pinch my arm (mind creates matter)
4) My body feels a sensation and sends the information to the brain
5) The brain deems the sensation as harmful and will demand that the arm do something to escape.
6) My mind analyzes the situation and the information that the brain deduces from the sensation.
7) The analysis of the mind determines that the harmful conclusion the brain has reach coupled with the sensation falls under the concept of pain.
The concept of main (mind) is not directly arrived at from the conclusion the brain reaches. The conclusion of the brain (matter) is determined to be pain by the analysis of the mind. While the mind uses the conclusion of the brain it still creates the concept of pain on its own account.
This leads us to an interesting point. Mind creates matter and matter does not create mind are true, but what about other possibilities?
1) Mind creates matter - True
2) Mind creates mind - Unknown
3) Matter creates mind - False
4) Matter creates matter
Mind creates mind is true because the mind is the thing that creates or otherwise produces thought, which is not material and therefore not matter. What is left then? Mind. Thus, thought is mind.
Matter creates matter is also true. Take for instance the pinch scenario. A long drawn out process of the mind is not required for the brain to tell the arm to get the hell out of there. Also, a mind does not need to make a conscious decision to breathe. Thus matter creates matter. When this happens in a human it is an instinctive motion. It is an instinct to breathe. It is an instinct for the heart to pump blood. It is an instinct to remove the body from a harmful situation. This last instinctive action is supplemented with the mind creation of fear or pain concepts.
Thus, mind creates matter; mind creates mind; matter does not create mind; and, matter creates matter. So what do we have now? Currently, the world contains me. I am mind and something not-mind. But have we proven the existence of other matter?
Mind is proven to exist (so long as science cannot disprove it some time in the future. This is doubtful, but theoretically possible). Mind is also proven to be a complex structure. What does this mean? We have shown that it is necessary for an intellect or mind to exist if a thought exists. Anything I write proves that a thought exists and thus, mind exists to contain that thought. Likewise, we have proven that if a thought exists then that thought is not an object of physical qualities. We have also proved that matter cannot create mind, thus mind and thought must not be physical or material. But this line of arguing presupposes the notion of matter.
Do we have any good reason for accepting that matter exists? Theoretically, everything I could think could become actual. Thus, I could only be perceiving a body because my mind has created the concept of body or the concept of physicality. If body is actually just a concept of the mind then it is not truly matter, but another form of immaterial thought. This seems to be illogical and even very crazy, but it is not entirely implausible.
Through my mind I have often created scenarios in which my body has reacted. I have created a scenario in which I am shot or stabbed in a dark alley. This scenario issues the concept of fear and pain which I have also created in my mind. Now when my body walks through a dark alley I become tense and my body tightens seemingly instinctively. While I have never been shot or stabbed in an alley I have a thought of that and it creates physical (sensible to the brain) sensations in my body. it is plausible that all scenarios are actually constructs of the mind.
I however cannot control other bodies which are seemingly material. My fiancé is in here and I cannot make her strip off her clothes through the power of my mind. I also cannot cause her to do jumping jacks behind the counter either. I have no control over her body. So it seems impossible that my mind is capable of controlling bodies other than my own. It also seems impossible that I could have created her in my mind. Even if it is possible for me to have created her, it is highly unlikely that every person I have met in my whole life is a mere construct of my mind, let alone all the other things I have come into contact with. It would seem then doubtful that everything is of mind, unless of course I am simply a construct of another mind (along with everything else). We will look into this later.
For now I am content with holding that my mind has not created, nor is it in control of other bodies. I am also content that my mind does control my own body. It is possible then that I have still created my body with my mind and it is thus an immaterial thing. But, if that were true I think I may have created a better one.
In all seriousness I do not feel that my mind is capable of creating my body as a thought. It is this option or that I just do not have control over my mind. But the fact that I can pause and clap my hands if I think about it and choose to act on that thought leads me to believe I have sufficient control of my mind. It is true that I do not have full control of my mind at all times. Dreams and irrational fears are two examples of when one does not have full control of one's own mind (save for lucid dreams). But however many instances anyone can point out that one does not have control over one's own mind, the fact that he or she is consciously doing so proves he has sufficient over his or her own mind enough to state that he or she does not. (This does not disprove any form of determinism though. A mind could be controlled by another and we all could be pawns in a strange cosmic chess game).
So if a body is not an extension of a correlating mind, what is it?
1) It is not-mind or matter (mind is immaterial thus not immaterial is matter).
2) It is mind, but not one's own mind's construct
Either way it is a thing that has physical qualities and I am content to call anything with physical qualities at this point material. Thus for now we shall regard a body as matter.
However I have merely proved that the world consists of me, who is mind and matter and other bodies that are material. How can we assume that these other bodies are anything but matter?
Currently in this room there are a number of bodies. There is this pad and this pen and a whole bunch of tables, glass cases, a soda machine, food and my fiancé. All of these bodies are free from the control of my mind. I cannot enact any change in these material objects without using my own material body. I cannot levitate anything by focusing my mind really hard. I cannot cause my fiancé to strip or do jumping jacks despite by best mental efforts.
Thus here we have to revise the mind/matter argument.
1. My mind creates my matter - true
2. My mind creates my mind - true
3. My matter creates my mind - false
4. My matter creates my matter - true
5. My mind creates other matter - false
6. My mind creates other mind - false
7. My matter creates other mind - false
8. My matter creates other matter - true
9. Other mind creates my matter - false
10. Other mind creates my mind - false
11. Other matter creates my mind - false
12. Other matter creates my matter - true
Other mind here is an equal or lesser or greater mind then my own, but it is not a supreme mind.
I can state that I see no reason to believe that the pen, the pad, the tables, the glass cases, the soda machine and the food contain any mind. They do not move or otherwise create on their own. While mind is not an empirically observable property we can infer from the fact that they do not show any outwardly usual signs of possessing mind that they do not have mind and must be then only matter.
So what exists? So far:
1. I exist
a. I exist as mind
b. I exist as not-mind (matter)
2. Mind exists
a. I am not certain that other minds exist, but I can infer they do in other things
b. mind exists in thoughts
3. Not-mind exists
a. This could be matter
b. This could be a construct of a Supreme Mind
c. Either way, it is not the construct of my mind or any mind similar to my mind if they exist
4. Bodies of matter exists
a. My body exists
b. other bodies exist
Basically at this point I can state that I undeniably exist (or when you read this that you undeniably exist). I can also state that since I can state that I exist, thoughts (which precede statements) exist. Since thoughts exists it follows that mind must exist. While it is self-evident that I exist and undeniable that a thought or many thoughts exist and thus mind is necessary if and only if thoughts exist. Obviously, thoughts exist and thus mind. But I can also state that bodies exist.
My body is not a product or creation of my own mind. This I can state with certainty (though not as certainly as I exist or thoughts exist or mind exists). Nonetheless, I am sure enough to demand that either my body is a product of a mind far greater then my own or not-mind in nature. For the time being I am willing to deny that my body is a product of a greater mind and also designate it as a plausible theory to be dealt with later. Thus, I am willing to state that my body is of physical characteristics and thus, material. My mind is in sufficient enough control of my body to make me believe that I have mind control over my body.
There also is in existence other bodies. I cannot control other bodies as I control my own and thus believe that while they are similar in that they are possessing of physical characteristics like my own body, they are dissimilar in that I have no conscious control over them. I am willing to concede that a small theoretical possibility exists that I do have some sort of mind control over other physical bodies in a subconscious manner. I feel that this improbable because I have sufficient mind control over my body and would expect that if other bodies were subject to my mind that I would exact the same or similar command of those bodies.
I believe strongly that these other bodies defer in matter set-up because they appear differently. I also feel strongly that everything in this room is purely material and not mind (in the same sense that my body is not-mind). There is one exception. My fiancé is not mind in that she is of physical characteristics in differing from the other material objects. Here she moves in a similar way to me. I have mind and considering that her matter is composed and moves in similar ways to my own and owing to the fact that it is not subject to the control of my mind, I can infer with a good conscience that she posses a mind that is similar to my own.
Thus so far we can safely say that the World consists of both mind and non-mind components. This does not entail that nothing possesses both mind and non-mind parts, but that mind and non-mind (conveniently called matter) exist but what of spiritual things? A thing can exist in mind, matter and spirit; mind and matter; mind only; spirit and matter; matter only; or, spirit only. Thus there are six ways a thing could exist:
1) Mind, matter and spirit
2) Mind and matter
3) Mind only
4) Matter only
5) Matter and spirit
6) spirit only.
So far all are still possible. In this room we have a number of things:
1. Me - at least mind and matter
2. Pad - matter, no mind (possibly spirit)
3. Pen (same as 2)
4. Tables (same as 2)
5. Glass cases (same as 2)
6. Soda Machine (same as 2)
7. Food - (same as 2)
8. My fiancé - matter, probably mind, and possibly spirit
It is time to define what characteristics are of mind, of matter and of spirit. But, not now.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Metaphysics - Ch. 6 (A)
(Originally written July 30, 2006 in Book 6)
Metaphysics - Peter van Inwagen
Chapter 6 - Necessary Being: The Cosmological Argument
The principle of sufficient reason states: for every truth there is a sufficient reason for it being true. The principle of sufficient reason does not entail that everything has a purpose, only that there is a reason for the truth being true or a reason why something is the way it is.
The principle of sufficient reason produces this argument for why something exits: "There is a necessarily existent thing that is in some way responsible for the fact that there are contingent things" (van Inwagen, 102).
The principle of sufficient reason present difficulties though. Quantum mechanics claims nature is filled with events that occur without explanation. Another part of the principle of sufficient reason that is difficult to entertain is that all true propositions are necessarily true. It denies the possibility of contingently true propositions.
If the principle of sufficient reason is false than the entire cosmological argument for why anything rather than nothing exists is false.
Are there other possible worlds as is assumed? I would say no. There is only one possible world and that is the one we exist in. This world could be much different in a variety of ways (i.e. history could be completely different or the world could have more or fewer cities) but that would simply be a variation of this actual world.
Premise 1
The world (physical universe) exists to be a habitat for its inhabitants.
Is this provable? I cannot think of a way to argue it in an indefensible way, but that does not imply that it is false. We have two options when we consider the origin and purpose of the world. Well, three.
1) The world has existed in the way it does in essence eternally.
2) The world has evolved from whatever primordial substance in an undirected, accidental way to produce a habitat capable of sustaining life.
3) The world was created in a purposeful way as a habitat for its inhabitants by a creator.
Each option can have variations but essentially it is one of these three options.
The first option is the most improbable of the three. Science like the laws of thermodynamics deny the possibility of the world existing as it does now forever. That leaves us with the last two options. The principle of sufficient reason would demand that the earth exists in a way that has a purpose and deny accidental causes, but people who reject the principle of sufficient reason will not be swayed by that argument. We face a bit of a conundrum. For this dilemma I will appeal to Occam's razor. What demands more speculation: the existence of a Creator (Supreme Being/God) or the probability of concurrent accidents?
In order to accept option two we would have to accept many unprovable scientific hypotheses. The weight of science is truly impressive and hard to escape. Is science infallible though? Science has produced many truths and many, many falsehoods. The fact that it has produced falsehoods shows that it is not infallible. I could list a number of error science has produced but that would simply be prejudicial.
In order to accept option three we would have to accept one, untestable hypothesis: there is a Supreme Being.
Now by simple numbers it would seem that accepting one hypothesis is less speculative than accepting a number of hypotheses. But, the hypothesis that God exists is hard to accept and a number of scientific hypotheses (even if some are obviously false) seem to be probable.
I do not feel that the ontological argument holds any weight. But, I believe that the first cause argument proves the existence of a necessary being or a god. (For the conclusion of this argument see Book 5 pg. 43-53)
Metaphysics - Peter van Inwagen
Chapter 6 - Necessary Being: The Cosmological Argument
The principle of sufficient reason states: for every truth there is a sufficient reason for it being true. The principle of sufficient reason does not entail that everything has a purpose, only that there is a reason for the truth being true or a reason why something is the way it is.
The principle of sufficient reason produces this argument for why something exits: "There is a necessarily existent thing that is in some way responsible for the fact that there are contingent things" (van Inwagen, 102).
The principle of sufficient reason present difficulties though. Quantum mechanics claims nature is filled with events that occur without explanation. Another part of the principle of sufficient reason that is difficult to entertain is that all true propositions are necessarily true. It denies the possibility of contingently true propositions.
If the principle of sufficient reason is false than the entire cosmological argument for why anything rather than nothing exists is false.
Are there other possible worlds as is assumed? I would say no. There is only one possible world and that is the one we exist in. This world could be much different in a variety of ways (i.e. history could be completely different or the world could have more or fewer cities) but that would simply be a variation of this actual world.
Premise 1
The world (physical universe) exists to be a habitat for its inhabitants.
Is this provable? I cannot think of a way to argue it in an indefensible way, but that does not imply that it is false. We have two options when we consider the origin and purpose of the world. Well, three.
1) The world has existed in the way it does in essence eternally.
2) The world has evolved from whatever primordial substance in an undirected, accidental way to produce a habitat capable of sustaining life.
3) The world was created in a purposeful way as a habitat for its inhabitants by a creator.
Each option can have variations but essentially it is one of these three options.
The first option is the most improbable of the three. Science like the laws of thermodynamics deny the possibility of the world existing as it does now forever. That leaves us with the last two options. The principle of sufficient reason would demand that the earth exists in a way that has a purpose and deny accidental causes, but people who reject the principle of sufficient reason will not be swayed by that argument. We face a bit of a conundrum. For this dilemma I will appeal to Occam's razor. What demands more speculation: the existence of a Creator (Supreme Being/God) or the probability of concurrent accidents?
In order to accept option two we would have to accept many unprovable scientific hypotheses. The weight of science is truly impressive and hard to escape. Is science infallible though? Science has produced many truths and many, many falsehoods. The fact that it has produced falsehoods shows that it is not infallible. I could list a number of error science has produced but that would simply be prejudicial.
In order to accept option three we would have to accept one, untestable hypothesis: there is a Supreme Being.
Now by simple numbers it would seem that accepting one hypothesis is less speculative than accepting a number of hypotheses. But, the hypothesis that God exists is hard to accept and a number of scientific hypotheses (even if some are obviously false) seem to be probable.
I do not feel that the ontological argument holds any weight. But, I believe that the first cause argument proves the existence of a necessary being or a god. (For the conclusion of this argument see Book 5 pg. 43-53)
Metaphysics - Ch. 5
(Originally written July 30, 2006 in Book 6)
Metaphysics - Peter van Inwagen
Ch. 5 - Necessary Beings - The Ontological Argument
Part 2 - Why the World Is
Why is there anything rather than nothing? This seems a completely absurd and a difficult question?
Anselm came up with the ontological argument. Descartes puts it into an easier to follow form. Descartes claims that we can imagine a being that is perfection in every way. Perfection demands existence. Thus, if a being is absolutely perfect it must exist because to exist is better than not to exist.
One argument against the ontological argument was put forth by Kant: A perfection must be a property. Existence is not a property. This argument against the ontological argument was standard for 200 years, but it is not satisfactory. Necessary existence is an existence of a thing that would have existed no matter what. A thing necessarily exists if its non-existence is impossible. While mere existence is not a property, necessary existence is. If a thing is not a property it cannot be part of a concept. Necessary existence is a property of God and thus a part of the concept of God (some philosophers and theologians deny this).
Descartes' ontological argument when necessary existence is substituted for mere existence.
Pt. 1
A perfect being has all perfections.
Necessary existence is a perfection.
Therefore, a perfect being has necessary existence.
Pt. 2
Whatever has necessary existence has existence.
Therefore, a perfect being has existence.
Pt. 3
Whatever has existence exists.
Therefore, a perfect being exists.
This argument is invalid because it can be used to state an obvious falsehood. It is also ambiguous and two arguments wrapped into one. Instead it should read:
Argument 1:
Pt. 1
Anything that is a perfect being has all perfections
Necessary existence is a perfection
Therefore, anything that is a perfect being has necessary existence.
Pt. 2
Whatever has necessary existence has existence.
Therefore, anything that is perfect being has existence.
Pt. 3
Whatever has existence exists.
Therefore anything that is perfect being exists.
Argument 2:
Pt 1
There is a perfect being that has all perfections.
Necessary existence is a perfection.
Therefore anything that is a perfect being has necessary existence.
Pt. 2
Whatever has necessary existence has existence.
Therefore, there is perfect being that has existence.
Pt. 3
Whatever has existence exists
Therefore there is a perfect being that exists
Linehan - I am struggling to stay interested in this topic. It is very dry and technical and while I don't mind difficult topics, when it is leading to a question like "why does anything exist?" (a pretty useless one in my view) it is hard to stay focused.
The first argument proceeds from an obvious premise to a trivial conclusion. The second argument has an important conclusion but it is basically restating the first premise. The ontological argument is basically a failure in persuasiveness.
Linehan - I think that the ontological argument could be valid fi a necessary being is proved to exist. But then what would be the point of restating the truth?
The philosophy of modality has produce an ontological argument that does not fail in the way of Descartes' or Anselm's. Modality is the philosophy of necessity and possibility. The modal ontological argument uses the 'possible worlds' concept. The 'possible worlds' concept is the idea that this world could be different in any way.
The possible worlds demands the concepts of 'truth in' and 'existence in'. 'Truth in' means that in world X, Y is true in X. It doesn't matter if it is false in the real world or false in world Z. 'Existence in' means that in world X, Y exists. From these concepts we can arrive at something being 'possibly true' vs. 'necessarily true'.
A proposition is possibly true if it is true in at least one world. A proposition is necessarily true if it is true in all worlds.
The actual world is the possible world that we exist in.
In order to state the modal ontological argument we need two notions:
1) The notion of a necessary being
2) The notion of something having a property essentially
A necessary being is a being that exists in every possible world. Beings that are not necessary are contingent.
The notion of essential possession of a property is that the property is inextricably entwined with a beings's nature in such a way that if a being did not posses that property it could not exist at all. An essential property will exist in any being that exists in any possible world that that being could possibly exist.
If a thing has a property that it does not possess essentially, it possess it accidentally.
Linehan - what is an essential property that I possess? My name? No, it is possible that I could have a different name in another world? My loves? No, it is possible that I could love other things or enjoy what I actually dislike in this world in other possible worlds? My looks? No, it is possible that I could look different in other possible worlds. My existence? No, I could possibly not exist in other possible worlds. If it is not anything I am defined by (name, title, etc.) or anything mental (loves, passion, likes, etc.) or anything physical (looks, size, etc.) or my very existence, what, if anything do I possess essentially?
van Inwagen asks if the property of humanity is possessed essentially? I would say yes to this one, but not from a mere physical standpoint. What is humanity or what differentiates humans from other beings?
Could I theoretically exist as an ape or a parakeet in another possible world? No, the rationality and faculty of mind demands that I be something of intelligence. This means I cannot be anything that exists in the actual world. What's left then? God, Angel, Demon, Unknown Species? I could not possibly be God in any world because a contingent being cannot be a necessary being. I could not possibly be an Angel because a sinful being cannot be sinless. I could not possibly be a demon because a redeemable being cannot be unredeemable. Thus, I could only be a human or some unknown species. But that unknown species would necessarily possess the same type of soul as a human being and thus could only be physically different than a human being.
Necessary existence is a perfection is a premise of modal ontological arguments. The other premise is a perfect being is not impossible. The modal ontological argument:
A perfect being (a being that possesses all perfections essentially) is not impossible.
Necessary existence is a perfection.
Therefore, a perfect being exists.
This argument is logically valid, in that its conclusion follows logically from its premises.
Premise two, necessary existence is a perfection, can be accepted without much arguing. It is very plausible. Premise one, a perfect being is not impossible, is not as easily accepted.
The best way to prove the existence of a perfect being is to look for instances of it. But, we cannot show any instances of a perfect being. (We can show the existence of dogs by pointing at a dog. An individual dog is an instance of dog).
Leibniz offered a method of abstract metaphysical argument. Leibniz knew that any successful version of the ontological argument would necessarily include proof that shows a perfect being is not impossible. Leibniz's argument:
A perfect being is a being who has all perfections and thus is possible if all perfections are consistent with one another.
Every perfection is a "single positive property.
(A simple property is one that is not complex, i.e. a color, a shape but not a color and a shape)
(A positive property is one that is not negative, i.e. X or Y, but not not-X or not-Y)
Leibniz continued that all simple positive properties are consistent because to be inconsistent they would have to be negations of each other.
Thus, if every perfection is a simple positive property then it is possible for a perfect being to exist.
There are many problems with Leibniz's argument; one is the the concept of simple-positive properties doesn't make any sense.
Some things can be disproved by showing that a concept is impossible. J. N. Findlay claimed that an impossible could be derived from the concept of a perfect being. His argument stated: a perfect being must be a necessary being and an impossibility occurs in the concept of a necessary being. Findlay claimed that in order for there to be a necessary being there must be at least one necessarily true existential proposition. Necessarily true existential propositions are impossible.
An existential proposition is a proposition that asserts the existence of something. Necessary true existential truths are impossible because necessary truths are truths that owe their status as truths to the meaning of words (i.e. all nuns are females because the definition of 'nun' demands that for a person to be a nun they must be female)
Here is Findlay's argument:
There is no such thing as a necessary existential truth.
Thus, there is no such thing as a necessary being.
Thus, there is no such thing as a perfect being.
Thus, the modal ontological argument is invalid because it has a false premise.
The problem with Findlay's argument is that there are necessary existential truths. Mathematics provides many.
The ontological argument throughout its history is at best inconclusive.
Linehan - I am so glad that I wasted my entire afternoon on something that is at best inconclusive. I don't understand why philosophers waste their time on inconclusive evidences and arguments. (Yet, here I am studying it. Irony.)
Metaphysics - Peter van Inwagen
Ch. 5 - Necessary Beings - The Ontological Argument
Part 2 - Why the World Is
Why is there anything rather than nothing? This seems a completely absurd and a difficult question?
Anselm came up with the ontological argument. Descartes puts it into an easier to follow form. Descartes claims that we can imagine a being that is perfection in every way. Perfection demands existence. Thus, if a being is absolutely perfect it must exist because to exist is better than not to exist.
One argument against the ontological argument was put forth by Kant: A perfection must be a property. Existence is not a property. This argument against the ontological argument was standard for 200 years, but it is not satisfactory. Necessary existence is an existence of a thing that would have existed no matter what. A thing necessarily exists if its non-existence is impossible. While mere existence is not a property, necessary existence is. If a thing is not a property it cannot be part of a concept. Necessary existence is a property of God and thus a part of the concept of God (some philosophers and theologians deny this).
Descartes' ontological argument when necessary existence is substituted for mere existence.
Pt. 1
A perfect being has all perfections.
Necessary existence is a perfection.
Therefore, a perfect being has necessary existence.
Pt. 2
Whatever has necessary existence has existence.
Therefore, a perfect being has existence.
Pt. 3
Whatever has existence exists.
Therefore, a perfect being exists.
This argument is invalid because it can be used to state an obvious falsehood. It is also ambiguous and two arguments wrapped into one. Instead it should read:
Argument 1:
Pt. 1
Anything that is a perfect being has all perfections
Necessary existence is a perfection
Therefore, anything that is a perfect being has necessary existence.
Pt. 2
Whatever has necessary existence has existence.
Therefore, anything that is perfect being has existence.
Pt. 3
Whatever has existence exists.
Therefore anything that is perfect being exists.
Argument 2:
Pt 1
There is a perfect being that has all perfections.
Necessary existence is a perfection.
Therefore anything that is a perfect being has necessary existence.
Pt. 2
Whatever has necessary existence has existence.
Therefore, there is perfect being that has existence.
Pt. 3
Whatever has existence exists
Therefore there is a perfect being that exists
Linehan - I am struggling to stay interested in this topic. It is very dry and technical and while I don't mind difficult topics, when it is leading to a question like "why does anything exist?" (a pretty useless one in my view) it is hard to stay focused.
The first argument proceeds from an obvious premise to a trivial conclusion. The second argument has an important conclusion but it is basically restating the first premise. The ontological argument is basically a failure in persuasiveness.
Linehan - I think that the ontological argument could be valid fi a necessary being is proved to exist. But then what would be the point of restating the truth?
The philosophy of modality has produce an ontological argument that does not fail in the way of Descartes' or Anselm's. Modality is the philosophy of necessity and possibility. The modal ontological argument uses the 'possible worlds' concept. The 'possible worlds' concept is the idea that this world could be different in any way.
The possible worlds demands the concepts of 'truth in' and 'existence in'. 'Truth in' means that in world X, Y is true in X. It doesn't matter if it is false in the real world or false in world Z. 'Existence in' means that in world X, Y exists. From these concepts we can arrive at something being 'possibly true' vs. 'necessarily true'.
A proposition is possibly true if it is true in at least one world. A proposition is necessarily true if it is true in all worlds.
The actual world is the possible world that we exist in.
In order to state the modal ontological argument we need two notions:
1) The notion of a necessary being
2) The notion of something having a property essentially
A necessary being is a being that exists in every possible world. Beings that are not necessary are contingent.
The notion of essential possession of a property is that the property is inextricably entwined with a beings's nature in such a way that if a being did not posses that property it could not exist at all. An essential property will exist in any being that exists in any possible world that that being could possibly exist.
If a thing has a property that it does not possess essentially, it possess it accidentally.
Linehan - what is an essential property that I possess? My name? No, it is possible that I could have a different name in another world? My loves? No, it is possible that I could love other things or enjoy what I actually dislike in this world in other possible worlds? My looks? No, it is possible that I could look different in other possible worlds. My existence? No, I could possibly not exist in other possible worlds. If it is not anything I am defined by (name, title, etc.) or anything mental (loves, passion, likes, etc.) or anything physical (looks, size, etc.) or my very existence, what, if anything do I possess essentially?
van Inwagen asks if the property of humanity is possessed essentially? I would say yes to this one, but not from a mere physical standpoint. What is humanity or what differentiates humans from other beings?
Could I theoretically exist as an ape or a parakeet in another possible world? No, the rationality and faculty of mind demands that I be something of intelligence. This means I cannot be anything that exists in the actual world. What's left then? God, Angel, Demon, Unknown Species? I could not possibly be God in any world because a contingent being cannot be a necessary being. I could not possibly be an Angel because a sinful being cannot be sinless. I could not possibly be a demon because a redeemable being cannot be unredeemable. Thus, I could only be a human or some unknown species. But that unknown species would necessarily possess the same type of soul as a human being and thus could only be physically different than a human being.
Necessary existence is a perfection is a premise of modal ontological arguments. The other premise is a perfect being is not impossible. The modal ontological argument:
A perfect being (a being that possesses all perfections essentially) is not impossible.
Necessary existence is a perfection.
Therefore, a perfect being exists.
This argument is logically valid, in that its conclusion follows logically from its premises.
Premise two, necessary existence is a perfection, can be accepted without much arguing. It is very plausible. Premise one, a perfect being is not impossible, is not as easily accepted.
The best way to prove the existence of a perfect being is to look for instances of it. But, we cannot show any instances of a perfect being. (We can show the existence of dogs by pointing at a dog. An individual dog is an instance of dog).
Leibniz offered a method of abstract metaphysical argument. Leibniz knew that any successful version of the ontological argument would necessarily include proof that shows a perfect being is not impossible. Leibniz's argument:
A perfect being is a being who has all perfections and thus is possible if all perfections are consistent with one another.
Every perfection is a "single positive property.
(A simple property is one that is not complex, i.e. a color, a shape but not a color and a shape)
(A positive property is one that is not negative, i.e. X or Y, but not not-X or not-Y)
Leibniz continued that all simple positive properties are consistent because to be inconsistent they would have to be negations of each other.
Thus, if every perfection is a simple positive property then it is possible for a perfect being to exist.
There are many problems with Leibniz's argument; one is the the concept of simple-positive properties doesn't make any sense.
Some things can be disproved by showing that a concept is impossible. J. N. Findlay claimed that an impossible could be derived from the concept of a perfect being. His argument stated: a perfect being must be a necessary being and an impossibility occurs in the concept of a necessary being. Findlay claimed that in order for there to be a necessary being there must be at least one necessarily true existential proposition. Necessarily true existential propositions are impossible.
An existential proposition is a proposition that asserts the existence of something. Necessary true existential truths are impossible because necessary truths are truths that owe their status as truths to the meaning of words (i.e. all nuns are females because the definition of 'nun' demands that for a person to be a nun they must be female)
Here is Findlay's argument:
There is no such thing as a necessary existential truth.
Thus, there is no such thing as a necessary being.
Thus, there is no such thing as a perfect being.
Thus, the modal ontological argument is invalid because it has a false premise.
The problem with Findlay's argument is that there are necessary existential truths. Mathematics provides many.
The ontological argument throughout its history is at best inconclusive.
Linehan - I am so glad that I wasted my entire afternoon on something that is at best inconclusive. I don't understand why philosophers waste their time on inconclusive evidences and arguments. (Yet, here I am studying it. Irony.)
Saturday, July 29, 2006
The 13th Century
(Originally written July 29, 2006 in Book 5)
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter XII - The 13th Century
The great men of the 13th century were:
1) Innocent III
2) St. Francis
3) Frederick II
4) Thomas Aquinas
Pope Innocent III reigned from 1198-1216. Innocent III was a shrewd politician and assured Papal supremacy in Sicily, Portugal and Aragon. After resistance, King John conceded England under Papal supremacy.
He destroyed the Albigenses, a heretical group in southern France. He "rooted out heresy, happiness, and culture from southern France" (Russell, 442).
He had Emperor Otto deposed by the German people.
"Innocent III was the first great pope in whom there was no element of sanctity" (Russell, 443).
He codified Canon Law, increasing the power of the Curia.
Frederick II became Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire through Innocent's endorsement. Innocent III would die before Frederick II assumed the position of a formidable antagonist to the Church.
Frederick II was the son of Henry IV and Constance (heir to the Sicilian throne). His childhood was marred with Sicilian wars with Muslims, Germans, Pisans, and Genoese.
The culture of Sicily was a combination of Arabic, Italian, Greek, Byzantine and German cultures.
Frederick II spoke six languages fluently and wittily. He was familiar with Arabic philosophy. He was a Hohenstaufen and could thus be considered German. He was culturally akin to Italians however.
Frederick II's problems with the papacy came when he refused to go on crusade. He was excommunicated later by Pope Gregory IX for not going on crusades and waging war in Lombardy.
He married the daughter of the King of Jerusalem and after the king's death calls himself the king of Jerusalem, infuriating the Pope. He integrated Muslims back into Jerusalem, thus further infuriating the Pope.
Eventually peace was restored between Emperor and Pope in 1230.
He systematized the laws of Sicily (where he was also king).
He founded an important university at Naples.
He freed up trade.
He was once again excommunicated in 1237 for waging war against the Lombards.
His successors after his death in 1250 were not as powerful and the Papacy absorbed power and Italy was left divided.
The heresies of the 13th century are important to study:
The Carthi or Albigenses were the largest sect of heresy at the time. They existed primarily in Northern Italy and Southern France. The Carthi were dualists. They regarded the Old Testament God as wicked. They regarded matter as evil. They believed that virtuous men had no resurrection of the body. They believed that the wicked would suffer transmigration into the bodies of animals. For this they were vegetarians, even abstaining from eggs, cheese, and milk. They ate fish because they did not think that fish reproduced sexually. They despised sex, even inside of marriage. They did not object to suicide. They interpreted the New Testament entirely literally. One who was persecuted offered his defense by claiming that he ate meat, lied and swore like any other good Catholic.
The genealogy of the Carthi is interesting. Carthi (from) Bogomiles (in Bulgaria) - a fusion of Manichaeans and Paulicians. The Manichaeans were founded by Mani and once had Augustine as a proponent.
The Paulicians were followers of Marcion. They were an Armenian sect. They rejected:
1) Infant baptism
2) Purgatory
3) The invocation of the saints
4) The Trinity
5) The Jewish elements of Christianity
The other important heresy of the 13th century were the Waldenses. They were followers of Peter Waldo.
Peter Waldo founded the "Poor Men of Lyons". They were originally papally sanctioned, but were condemned for condemning immorality in the clergy too vocally. They then split from the church.
They existed in Lombardy and Bohemia, eventually paving the way for Jan Hus. They still exist today in the Alpines and in the US.
Heresy was combatted by the Pope in founding the Inquisition in 1233 by Pope Gregory IX.
The Inquisition was mainly performed by the Dominican and Franciscans.
The Church was in danger of a revolt in the 13th century, but was saved by mendicant orders.
St. Francis of Assisi was born around 1181 and died in 1226. He was well-to-do, but later devoted himself to poverty, despite furious family members. Pope Innocent III recognized St. Francis' followers as an order around 1210. St. Francis was one of the most lovable men in History and a saint among saints. But after his death the Franciscans fell into a trap.
"If Satan existed, the future of the order founded by Saint Francis would afford him the most exquisite gratification" (Russell, 450). Linehan - this is an off-hand remark that is completely unnecessary to the conversation. It is another cheap shot by Russell.
The Franciscans became another wealthy order in the Church hierarchy after Francis' death. They took an active role in the Inquisition and suppression of free thought.
Saint Dominic (1170 - 1221) devoted himself to combatting heresy. He founded his order in 1215.
The Dominicans were even more active in the Inquisition. They were devoted to learning. Dominicans provided two great philosophers intent on reconciling Aristotle to Christ:
1) Albertus Magnus
2) Thomas Aquinas
The Franciscans produced three great philosophers:
1) Roger Bacon
2) Duns Scotus
3) William of Occam
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter XII - The 13th Century
The great men of the 13th century were:
1) Innocent III
2) St. Francis
3) Frederick II
4) Thomas Aquinas
Pope Innocent III reigned from 1198-1216. Innocent III was a shrewd politician and assured Papal supremacy in Sicily, Portugal and Aragon. After resistance, King John conceded England under Papal supremacy.
He destroyed the Albigenses, a heretical group in southern France. He "rooted out heresy, happiness, and culture from southern France" (Russell, 442).
He had Emperor Otto deposed by the German people.
"Innocent III was the first great pope in whom there was no element of sanctity" (Russell, 443).
He codified Canon Law, increasing the power of the Curia.
Frederick II became Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire through Innocent's endorsement. Innocent III would die before Frederick II assumed the position of a formidable antagonist to the Church.
Frederick II was the son of Henry IV and Constance (heir to the Sicilian throne). His childhood was marred with Sicilian wars with Muslims, Germans, Pisans, and Genoese.
The culture of Sicily was a combination of Arabic, Italian, Greek, Byzantine and German cultures.
Frederick II spoke six languages fluently and wittily. He was familiar with Arabic philosophy. He was a Hohenstaufen and could thus be considered German. He was culturally akin to Italians however.
Frederick II's problems with the papacy came when he refused to go on crusade. He was excommunicated later by Pope Gregory IX for not going on crusades and waging war in Lombardy.
He married the daughter of the King of Jerusalem and after the king's death calls himself the king of Jerusalem, infuriating the Pope. He integrated Muslims back into Jerusalem, thus further infuriating the Pope.
Eventually peace was restored between Emperor and Pope in 1230.
He systematized the laws of Sicily (where he was also king).
He founded an important university at Naples.
He freed up trade.
He was once again excommunicated in 1237 for waging war against the Lombards.
His successors after his death in 1250 were not as powerful and the Papacy absorbed power and Italy was left divided.
The heresies of the 13th century are important to study:
The Carthi or Albigenses were the largest sect of heresy at the time. They existed primarily in Northern Italy and Southern France. The Carthi were dualists. They regarded the Old Testament God as wicked. They regarded matter as evil. They believed that virtuous men had no resurrection of the body. They believed that the wicked would suffer transmigration into the bodies of animals. For this they were vegetarians, even abstaining from eggs, cheese, and milk. They ate fish because they did not think that fish reproduced sexually. They despised sex, even inside of marriage. They did not object to suicide. They interpreted the New Testament entirely literally. One who was persecuted offered his defense by claiming that he ate meat, lied and swore like any other good Catholic.
The genealogy of the Carthi is interesting. Carthi (from) Bogomiles (in Bulgaria) - a fusion of Manichaeans and Paulicians. The Manichaeans were founded by Mani and once had Augustine as a proponent.
The Paulicians were followers of Marcion. They were an Armenian sect. They rejected:
1) Infant baptism
2) Purgatory
3) The invocation of the saints
4) The Trinity
5) The Jewish elements of Christianity
The other important heresy of the 13th century were the Waldenses. They were followers of Peter Waldo.
Peter Waldo founded the "Poor Men of Lyons". They were originally papally sanctioned, but were condemned for condemning immorality in the clergy too vocally. They then split from the church.
They existed in Lombardy and Bohemia, eventually paving the way for Jan Hus. They still exist today in the Alpines and in the US.
Heresy was combatted by the Pope in founding the Inquisition in 1233 by Pope Gregory IX.
The Inquisition was mainly performed by the Dominican and Franciscans.
The Church was in danger of a revolt in the 13th century, but was saved by mendicant orders.
St. Francis of Assisi was born around 1181 and died in 1226. He was well-to-do, but later devoted himself to poverty, despite furious family members. Pope Innocent III recognized St. Francis' followers as an order around 1210. St. Francis was one of the most lovable men in History and a saint among saints. But after his death the Franciscans fell into a trap.
"If Satan existed, the future of the order founded by Saint Francis would afford him the most exquisite gratification" (Russell, 450). Linehan - this is an off-hand remark that is completely unnecessary to the conversation. It is another cheap shot by Russell.
The Franciscans became another wealthy order in the Church hierarchy after Francis' death. They took an active role in the Inquisition and suppression of free thought.
Saint Dominic (1170 - 1221) devoted himself to combatting heresy. He founded his order in 1215.
The Dominicans were even more active in the Inquisition. They were devoted to learning. Dominicans provided two great philosophers intent on reconciling Aristotle to Christ:
1) Albertus Magnus
2) Thomas Aquinas
The Franciscans produced three great philosophers:
1) Roger Bacon
2) Duns Scotus
3) William of Occam
The 12th Century (C)
(Originally written July 29, 2006 in Book 5)
Roscelin recanted the heresy at Rheims then fled to England. While in England he attacked Anselm, then fled to Rome.
Roscelin's writings are all lost except for a letter to Abelard on the Trinity. Roscelin mocks Abelard in the letter.
Ueberweg describes Roscelin as not a very nice man.
Roscelin's teachings are known through the writings of Abelard and Anselm.
Anselm states that Roscelin believed universals are "breath of voice" or that they physically occur when we speak them. Russell contends that Roscelin would not have believed something so foolish. Anselm states that Roscelin also believed man is not a unity, but a collection under a common name. Anselm stated that Roscelin believed reality is what is sensible. Roscelin believed (according to Anselm) that a whole is merely a word, but reality rests in the parts of a whole. He was led by this view to extreme atomism and troubles in dealing with the Trinity.
He held that the Godhead was three distinct substances and thus there are three Gods. He stated this because if they are one substance then all three had been incarnate in Jesus Christ. He couldn't accept that. But this is what he recanted in Rheims.
Abelard was Roselyn's pupil. He was born near Nantes in 1079. He first studied under the realist William of Champeaux in Paris. He taught at the Paris cathedral school where he argued against William's realism and compelled his former teacher to change his views. He left Paris to study theology under Anselm of Leon then returned to Paris in 1113. Upon returning he became widely popular as a teacher and became the lover of Heloïse, niece of Canon Fulbert. Canon Fulbert castrated him and he joined the monastery at St. Denis.
Abelard was vain, disputatious and tempts. After being castrated he was angry and humiliated. (Linehan - what a shock!)
He was condemned for an unorthodox book on the Trinity in 1121.
He then became the abbot of Saint Gildas in Brittany for four years. He hated it because he saw the monks as uncivilized.
In 1141 he was again condemned at the insistence of St. Bernard. He retired to Cluny and died in 1142.
Abelard's most famous book is "Yes and No". It is a dialectical argument for and against many theses. It did not however produce any conclusions.
Abelard held that, apart from Scriptures, dialectic is the sole road to truth.
He considered logic to be the chief science.
He is best known for logic and theory of knowledge.
Universals - "what can be predicated of many different things" (Russell, 430).
Abelard held that we do not predicate a thing, but only a word. He was a nomalist in this sense.
He fought realism.
He regards Platonic Ideas as the pattern of creation in the mind of God.
St. Bernard charged him without fully understanding Abelard's teachings. The heresies Bernard charged him with are:
1) Treating the Trinity like an Arian
2) Treating grace like a Pelagian
3) Treating the Person of Christ like a Nestorian
4) Being a heathen by making Plato to be a Christian
5) Destroying Christianity by maintaining that God can be understood through reason alone.
In all reality it was his hostile disposition towards clergy that caused his heretical label and not his teachings.
Abelard was more dialectical than any others at his time.
1) The school of Chartres was a humanistic movement
2) Abelard of Bath translated Euclid due to a renaissance of mathematical learning
3) There was a strong mystical movement headed by St. Bernard.
St. Bernard was not an intellectualist, but was extremely influential.
1) His father was a knight in the first Crusade
2) He was a Cistercian monk
3) He was the abbot at Clairvaux
4) He was influential in ecclesiastical politics
5) He fought antipopes
6) he combatted heresy in Northern Italy and Southern France
7) He brought philosophers down with the weight of orthodoxy
8) He set into motion the second Crusade
"Although a politician and a bigot, he was a man of genuinely religious temperament" (Russel, 439).
Bernard's reverence of the Papacy increased the power of the Pope.
Roscelin recanted the heresy at Rheims then fled to England. While in England he attacked Anselm, then fled to Rome.
Roscelin's writings are all lost except for a letter to Abelard on the Trinity. Roscelin mocks Abelard in the letter.
Ueberweg describes Roscelin as not a very nice man.
Roscelin's teachings are known through the writings of Abelard and Anselm.
Anselm states that Roscelin believed universals are "breath of voice" or that they physically occur when we speak them. Russell contends that Roscelin would not have believed something so foolish. Anselm states that Roscelin also believed man is not a unity, but a collection under a common name. Anselm stated that Roscelin believed reality is what is sensible. Roscelin believed (according to Anselm) that a whole is merely a word, but reality rests in the parts of a whole. He was led by this view to extreme atomism and troubles in dealing with the Trinity.
He held that the Godhead was three distinct substances and thus there are three Gods. He stated this because if they are one substance then all three had been incarnate in Jesus Christ. He couldn't accept that. But this is what he recanted in Rheims.
Abelard was Roselyn's pupil. He was born near Nantes in 1079. He first studied under the realist William of Champeaux in Paris. He taught at the Paris cathedral school where he argued against William's realism and compelled his former teacher to change his views. He left Paris to study theology under Anselm of Leon then returned to Paris in 1113. Upon returning he became widely popular as a teacher and became the lover of Heloïse, niece of Canon Fulbert. Canon Fulbert castrated him and he joined the monastery at St. Denis.
Abelard was vain, disputatious and tempts. After being castrated he was angry and humiliated. (Linehan - what a shock!)
He was condemned for an unorthodox book on the Trinity in 1121.
He then became the abbot of Saint Gildas in Brittany for four years. He hated it because he saw the monks as uncivilized.
In 1141 he was again condemned at the insistence of St. Bernard. He retired to Cluny and died in 1142.
Abelard's most famous book is "Yes and No". It is a dialectical argument for and against many theses. It did not however produce any conclusions.
Abelard held that, apart from Scriptures, dialectic is the sole road to truth.
He considered logic to be the chief science.
He is best known for logic and theory of knowledge.
Universals - "what can be predicated of many different things" (Russell, 430).
Abelard held that we do not predicate a thing, but only a word. He was a nomalist in this sense.
He fought realism.
He regards Platonic Ideas as the pattern of creation in the mind of God.
St. Bernard charged him without fully understanding Abelard's teachings. The heresies Bernard charged him with are:
1) Treating the Trinity like an Arian
2) Treating grace like a Pelagian
3) Treating the Person of Christ like a Nestorian
4) Being a heathen by making Plato to be a Christian
5) Destroying Christianity by maintaining that God can be understood through reason alone.
In all reality it was his hostile disposition towards clergy that caused his heretical label and not his teachings.
Abelard was more dialectical than any others at his time.
1) The school of Chartres was a humanistic movement
2) Abelard of Bath translated Euclid due to a renaissance of mathematical learning
3) There was a strong mystical movement headed by St. Bernard.
St. Bernard was not an intellectualist, but was extremely influential.
1) His father was a knight in the first Crusade
2) He was a Cistercian monk
3) He was the abbot at Clairvaux
4) He was influential in ecclesiastical politics
5) He fought antipopes
6) he combatted heresy in Northern Italy and Southern France
7) He brought philosophers down with the weight of orthodoxy
8) He set into motion the second Crusade
"Although a politician and a bigot, he was a man of genuinely religious temperament" (Russel, 439).
Bernard's reverence of the Papacy increased the power of the Pope.
Time and The Knowledge of Good and Evil
(Originally written July 29, 2006 in Book 7)
Time
Time is a creation of God as a boundary for finite creatures. Infinity is not a ceaseless amount of time it is an existence apart from time.
Time is finite as an hour is finite. An hour is merely sixty minutes. A minute is merely 60 seconds. A second is a combination of smaller units. This pointless process can continue ceaselessly. But, that is not infinitude.
God exists as infinitude. He is infinite. Thus, rules that apply to anything finite do not pertain to infinite beings.
The knowledge of Good and Evil
Prior to the Fall of man his possibilities were endless in a certain manner as he was not subject to death. Thus, man was not hampered by a horizontal way. But man did not have access to the full knowledge of good and evil. Thus, he was limited in a vertical way. (Horizontal and vertical only stand for ways, the choice to label which as which was merely personal preference).
After the Fall man acquired the full knowledge of good and evil, thus remaining the limit of knowledge of good and evil. But it created a limit of death.
Unfortunately man has only the faculty to comprehend so much of good and evil. This is the disease all humans now suffer: humanity possess an unlimited knowledge both good and evil, but only possess a small amount of time to comprehend it. If man could live long enough he could theoretically comprehend it all and become the equal, yet opposite of God (undoing them both). Death imposed on mankind was punishment for his sin and the same time an act of mercy.
Time
Time is a creation of God as a boundary for finite creatures. Infinity is not a ceaseless amount of time it is an existence apart from time.
Time is finite as an hour is finite. An hour is merely sixty minutes. A minute is merely 60 seconds. A second is a combination of smaller units. This pointless process can continue ceaselessly. But, that is not infinitude.
God exists as infinitude. He is infinite. Thus, rules that apply to anything finite do not pertain to infinite beings.
The knowledge of Good and Evil
Prior to the Fall of man his possibilities were endless in a certain manner as he was not subject to death. Thus, man was not hampered by a horizontal way. But man did not have access to the full knowledge of good and evil. Thus, he was limited in a vertical way. (Horizontal and vertical only stand for ways, the choice to label which as which was merely personal preference).
After the Fall man acquired the full knowledge of good and evil, thus remaining the limit of knowledge of good and evil. But it created a limit of death.
Unfortunately man has only the faculty to comprehend so much of good and evil. This is the disease all humans now suffer: humanity possess an unlimited knowledge both good and evil, but only possess a small amount of time to comprehend it. If man could live long enough he could theoretically comprehend it all and become the equal, yet opposite of God (undoing them both). Death imposed on mankind was punishment for his sin and the same time an act of mercy.
The Eclipse of the Papacy
(Originally written July 29, 2006 in Book 5)
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter XV - The Eclipse of the Papacy
The Christian 13th century was the culmination of Greek philosophy, Alexander's conquests and oriental religions.
Russell calls Satan "a development of Ahriman" (Russell, 476). Ahriman was an evil Persian God.
Linehan - Yes, Christianity incorporated a number of influences, but to state that it is wholly derivative is ridiculous. Also to not explicitly state the influence of ancient Judaism is wholly disgusting from a purely historical point of view... Russell does pay lip service to the Jewish element of Christianity. My apologies.
Russell believes that the switch from Plato to Aristotle may have been detrimental.
The Pope became a pawn of the French King.
The rise of a wealthy merchant class also took power from the papacy.
Cities became more independent from Pope and Emperor.
The decline of the papacy can be stated as the beginning with a plenary indulgence issued in the first jubilee year by Pope Boniface VIII.
The Avignon Papacy caused further independence form the Pope and weekend its power.
Pope Gregory XI returned the papacy to Rome. The French Cardinal's split form the Church causing the Great Schism. The Schism ended in 1417 with the council of Constance and the crowning of Pope Martin V.
John Wycliffe (1320-1384) shows the decline of Papal power. Wycliffe was a realist and a Platonist, but a scholastic nonetheless. He was orthodox until he was 50 then became heretical. The heresy became apparent in 1376 with the lectures at Oxford called "On Civil Dominion". His heresies were on property ownership. Eighteen theses of Wycliffe were condemned by Gregory XI. He was protected by the Queen and the mob of England from the Pope's summons. He translated the Vulgate into English and labeled the Pope as an anti-Christ. He denounced transubstantiation as a blasphemous folly. He got into more trouble when he did not condemn the Peasant's Revolt of 1381. He was excommunicated in 1366. His teachings were stamped out in England but reached Bohemia and Jan Hus. The Hussites paved the way for the Reformation.
End of Book 2
Linehan - I have lost a bit of respect for Russell in his treatment of Christianity. He labels many devout Christians as bigots, but his tactics are driven by bigotry. He is inconsistent and a great bigot himself. There have been a number of atrocities performed in the name of Christ, but how many atrocities have been performed in some other name? Christians ought to be held in a higher judgment, but atrocities performed in Christ's name discredits the performers and performances, not Christ.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter XV - The Eclipse of the Papacy
The Christian 13th century was the culmination of Greek philosophy, Alexander's conquests and oriental religions.
Russell calls Satan "a development of Ahriman" (Russell, 476). Ahriman was an evil Persian God.
Linehan - Yes, Christianity incorporated a number of influences, but to state that it is wholly derivative is ridiculous. Also to not explicitly state the influence of ancient Judaism is wholly disgusting from a purely historical point of view... Russell does pay lip service to the Jewish element of Christianity. My apologies.
Russell believes that the switch from Plato to Aristotle may have been detrimental.
The Pope became a pawn of the French King.
The rise of a wealthy merchant class also took power from the papacy.
Cities became more independent from Pope and Emperor.
The decline of the papacy can be stated as the beginning with a plenary indulgence issued in the first jubilee year by Pope Boniface VIII.
The Avignon Papacy caused further independence form the Pope and weekend its power.
Pope Gregory XI returned the papacy to Rome. The French Cardinal's split form the Church causing the Great Schism. The Schism ended in 1417 with the council of Constance and the crowning of Pope Martin V.
John Wycliffe (1320-1384) shows the decline of Papal power. Wycliffe was a realist and a Platonist, but a scholastic nonetheless. He was orthodox until he was 50 then became heretical. The heresy became apparent in 1376 with the lectures at Oxford called "On Civil Dominion". His heresies were on property ownership. Eighteen theses of Wycliffe were condemned by Gregory XI. He was protected by the Queen and the mob of England from the Pope's summons. He translated the Vulgate into English and labeled the Pope as an anti-Christ. He denounced transubstantiation as a blasphemous folly. He got into more trouble when he did not condemn the Peasant's Revolt of 1381. He was excommunicated in 1366. His teachings were stamped out in England but reached Bohemia and Jan Hus. The Hussites paved the way for the Reformation.
End of Book 2
Linehan - I have lost a bit of respect for Russell in his treatment of Christianity. He labels many devout Christians as bigots, but his tactics are driven by bigotry. He is inconsistent and a great bigot himself. There have been a number of atrocities performed in the name of Christ, but how many atrocities have been performed in some other name? Christians ought to be held in a higher judgment, but atrocities performed in Christ's name discredits the performers and performances, not Christ.
Chapter 14 - Franciscan Schoolmen
(Originally written July 29, 2006 in Book 5)
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter 14 - Franciscan Schoolmen
The Franciscans and Dominicans were bitter rivals. The Franciscans were less orthodox. They were disinclined to accept the authority of Thomas Aquinas (a Dominican).
The Franciscans produced Roger Bacon, Duns Scotus, William of Occam, Saint Bonaventura and Matthew of Aquasparta.
Roger Bacon lived from 1214-1294. Bacon was a philosopher and a man of science. Science was mixed up with black magic and alchemy at the time so Bacon was in constant danger of being labeled a heretic. He was placed under a no-publish edict by the head of the Franciscans, but commanded by the papal legate to England to write his philosophy for the benefit o the Pope. He wrote three books in a very short time:
1) Opus Majus
2) Opus Minus
3) Opus Tertium
He was imprisoned for condemning clerics for ignorance. He was imprisoned 14 years and died shortly after being released. He was experimental by nature; encyclopedic but not systematic. He was a good geographer and a good mathematician. He thought logic was useless and wrote on alchemy.
He believed there were four causes for ignorance:
1) frail and unsuitable authority
2) influence of custom
3) the opinion of the unlearned crowd
4) the concealment of ignorance by apparent wisdom
All ignorance produces the evils that plague mankind. The fourth is the worst.
He considers Aristotle to be the chief philosopher and Avicenna the price.
He sees no fault in finding truth from the heathen and quotes Avicenna, Averroes, Alfarabi and Albumazar.
He sees mathematics as the only unrivaled source of certitude.
He believed that the intellect is separate from the soul.
Modern times praise Bacon because he places experimentation as a source of knowledge in higher esteem than argumentation as a source.
He believed in magic and astrology.
He is more respected now than he was in medieval times.
St. Bonaventura (1221-1274) was the General of the Franciscan order. He believed in the ontological argument for God. He believed in Platonic Ideas and saw Aristotelianism as in opposition to Christianity. He quoted Augustine extensively but ignored Pagan and Arab philosophies.
Matthew of Aquasparta (1235-1302) was a follower of Bonaventura. He opposed Aquinas from an Augustinian point of view. He quotes Aristotle, Avicenna, Anselm, the pseudo-dionysius and chiefly, Augustine.
He believed that Plato's ideas produce wisdom, but not knowledge and Aristotle produced knowledge but not wisdom. He sought to sync the two.
Duns Scotus (1270-1308) was Scottish and joined the Franciscans at Oxford University. He fought Aquinas on the immaculate conception and won the argument. He was Augustinian but less severe than other Franciscans.
Franciscans often disagreed with Aquinas because he was Aristotelian and the Franciscans were Platonic (through Augustine).
Scouts was a moderate realist, believed in Free Will and leaned somewhat to Pelagianism.
He held that there was no difference between being and essence.
He focused on evidence, things knowable without proof. There were three kinds of evidence:
1) Principles known by themselves
2) Things known by experience
3) our own actions
Without divine illumination no one can know anything.
He held the the principle of individuation (what makes one thing not identical with another) was due to form, not matter.
William of Occam is the second most important scholastic philosopher next to Aquinas. He lived circa 1290-1350. He was a pupil, then a rival of Scotus. He was excommunicated by Pope John XXII and took refuge with Emperor Louis (who was likewise excommunicated).
Dante (1265-1321) was an influential commentator in this age. Marsiglio of Padua (1270-1342) was a friend of William of Occham and a great political force of the time (in theory, not action). Marsiglio and William sought to preserve the Catholic faith, but fought against papal absolutism.
William's political works are done in a philosophical disputation style. William is best known for Occam's razor "it is vain to do with more what can be done with fewer" (Russell, 472).
In logic, William of Occam was a homilist.
He set to free logic and theory of knowledge from the basis of metaphysics and theology.
He holds that there are six metaphysical terms:
1) being
2) thing
3) something
4) one
5) true
6) good
He holds universals are things that can be predicated to many.
William of Occam believed perception to be the definition of knowledge.
His work encouraged scientific research.
After William of Occam there were no great scholastic philosophers.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter 14 - Franciscan Schoolmen
The Franciscans and Dominicans were bitter rivals. The Franciscans were less orthodox. They were disinclined to accept the authority of Thomas Aquinas (a Dominican).
The Franciscans produced Roger Bacon, Duns Scotus, William of Occam, Saint Bonaventura and Matthew of Aquasparta.
Roger Bacon lived from 1214-1294. Bacon was a philosopher and a man of science. Science was mixed up with black magic and alchemy at the time so Bacon was in constant danger of being labeled a heretic. He was placed under a no-publish edict by the head of the Franciscans, but commanded by the papal legate to England to write his philosophy for the benefit o the Pope. He wrote three books in a very short time:
1) Opus Majus
2) Opus Minus
3) Opus Tertium
He was imprisoned for condemning clerics for ignorance. He was imprisoned 14 years and died shortly after being released. He was experimental by nature; encyclopedic but not systematic. He was a good geographer and a good mathematician. He thought logic was useless and wrote on alchemy.
He believed there were four causes for ignorance:
1) frail and unsuitable authority
2) influence of custom
3) the opinion of the unlearned crowd
4) the concealment of ignorance by apparent wisdom
All ignorance produces the evils that plague mankind. The fourth is the worst.
He considers Aristotle to be the chief philosopher and Avicenna the price.
He sees no fault in finding truth from the heathen and quotes Avicenna, Averroes, Alfarabi and Albumazar.
He sees mathematics as the only unrivaled source of certitude.
He believed that the intellect is separate from the soul.
Modern times praise Bacon because he places experimentation as a source of knowledge in higher esteem than argumentation as a source.
He believed in magic and astrology.
He is more respected now than he was in medieval times.
St. Bonaventura (1221-1274) was the General of the Franciscan order. He believed in the ontological argument for God. He believed in Platonic Ideas and saw Aristotelianism as in opposition to Christianity. He quoted Augustine extensively but ignored Pagan and Arab philosophies.
Matthew of Aquasparta (1235-1302) was a follower of Bonaventura. He opposed Aquinas from an Augustinian point of view. He quotes Aristotle, Avicenna, Anselm, the pseudo-dionysius and chiefly, Augustine.
He believed that Plato's ideas produce wisdom, but not knowledge and Aristotle produced knowledge but not wisdom. He sought to sync the two.
Duns Scotus (1270-1308) was Scottish and joined the Franciscans at Oxford University. He fought Aquinas on the immaculate conception and won the argument. He was Augustinian but less severe than other Franciscans.
Franciscans often disagreed with Aquinas because he was Aristotelian and the Franciscans were Platonic (through Augustine).
Scouts was a moderate realist, believed in Free Will and leaned somewhat to Pelagianism.
He held that there was no difference between being and essence.
He focused on evidence, things knowable without proof. There were three kinds of evidence:
1) Principles known by themselves
2) Things known by experience
3) our own actions
Without divine illumination no one can know anything.
He held the the principle of individuation (what makes one thing not identical with another) was due to form, not matter.
William of Occam is the second most important scholastic philosopher next to Aquinas. He lived circa 1290-1350. He was a pupil, then a rival of Scotus. He was excommunicated by Pope John XXII and took refuge with Emperor Louis (who was likewise excommunicated).
Dante (1265-1321) was an influential commentator in this age. Marsiglio of Padua (1270-1342) was a friend of William of Occham and a great political force of the time (in theory, not action). Marsiglio and William sought to preserve the Catholic faith, but fought against papal absolutism.
William's political works are done in a philosophical disputation style. William is best known for Occam's razor "it is vain to do with more what can be done with fewer" (Russell, 472).
In logic, William of Occam was a homilist.
He set to free logic and theory of knowledge from the basis of metaphysics and theology.
He holds that there are six metaphysical terms:
1) being
2) thing
3) something
4) one
5) true
6) good
He holds universals are things that can be predicated to many.
William of Occam believed perception to be the definition of knowledge.
His work encouraged scientific research.
After William of Occam there were no great scholastic philosophers.
Saint Thomas Aquinas
(Originally Written July 29, 2006 in Book 5)
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter 13 - St. Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) is the greatest scholastic philosopher of all time.
Catholic philosophies still teach his philosophical system as the only true system.
He has the respect and authority of the Church Fathers in Catholicism.
Thomas was the son out Count Aquino and born in Naples near Monte Cassino. Monte Cassino is where the "angelic doctor" began his education. He then studied at the University of Naples. He became a Dominican and then studied under Albertus Magnus at Cologne.
Aquinas had a fuller understanding of Aristotle than other scholastics. He disliked Neo-Platonism, even in the writings of Augustine.
He convinced the Church in the philosophy of Aristotle, despite misinterpretations of Islamic Avveroist Aristotelians.
Thomas' most important work is the Summa Contra Gentiles. Its purpose is to establish the truth of Christianity in arguments to Non-Christians.
Summa Theologica is of almost equal importance, but is addressed to Christians.
This is an abstract of Summa Contra Gentiles
1) Wisdom is concerned with the end of the universe
2) The end of the Universe is the good of the intellect (truth)
3) Natural Reason is deficient in the things of God. It can prove some parts, but not all. It can prove the existence of God and the immortality of the Soul, but not the Trinity, the Incarnation or the Last Judgment.
4) Nothing in revelation (the Scriptures) is contrary to reason
Linehan - Not exactly.
The Summa Contra Gentiles is divided into four parts. The first three do not refer to the Scriptures as arguments.
The first step for Aquinas was to prove the existence of God. He rejected the ontological argument because it requires man to know the essence of God, which is impossible. The existence of God can be proved, but it can also be deduced by faith. Aquinas denies that only faith makes God knowable.
Aristotle proved the existence of God through the argument of the unmoved mover:
1) There are things that are only moved
2) There are things which move and are moved.
3) Whatever is moved, is moved by something
4) An endless series of movers is impossible.
Conclusion: There necessarily exists something that moves without being moved. This unmoved mover is God.
Aquinas gives five proofs for the existence of God in the Summa Theologica
1) the argument of the unmoved mover
2) the argument of the first cause
3) there must be an ultimate source of all necessity
4) the various perfections of this would must have their source in something completely perfect
5) Non-living things have a purpose, but only living things have a purpose and thus something outside of them must have a purpose.
In returning to the Summa Contra Gentiles: after proving the existence of God we can say many things about him in a negative sense.
1) He is unmoved, thus eternal
2) He contains no passive potentiality, thus he is unchanging
3) He is not primary matter (pure passivity) thus he is pure activity
4) God has no composition, thus no body, thus no body parts, thus he must be something other than physical
Since God is not a composite he is his own essence.
God's essence and existence are identical.
There are no accidents in God. He cannot be defined.
It is more proper to state that X is similar to God in such a way than to say that God is similar to X.
God is good. He is the good of every good.
He is intelligent. His act of intelligence is His essence. He understands by His essence and understands himself perfectly.
God understands forms because he created them. He understands the world as being like Him in a way or unlike him in another way. God understand the plant as:
1) like him in that it is alive
2) unlike him in that it is not possessing of knowledge.
A creature always differs from God in some form of negation.
God understand all things at the same instant.
God is literally truth.
Aquinas is now troubled with the question, can God know particular things or does He only know universals and general truths? As a Christian, Aquinas believes in providence and that demands that God must know particular things despite weighty arguments against this view. Aquinas states 7 contrary arguments then refutes them.
1) Singularity being signate matter, nothing immaterial can know it. Refutation God knows singulars as their cause.
2) Singulars do not always exist and cannot be known when they do not exist; therefore they cannot be known by an unchanging being. Refutation God nows things that do not yet exist
3) Singulars are contingent, not necessary. Therefore there can be no certain knowledge of them except when they exist. Refutation He sees all time as present.
4) Some singulars are due to volitions, which can only be known to the person willing the volition. Refutation God knows our minds and secret wills
5) Singulars are infinite in number and the infinite as such is unknown. Refutation God knows an infinity of things
6) Singulars are too petty for God's attention. Refutation Nothing is wholly trivial.
7) IN some singulars there is evil, but God cannot know evil. Refutation God knows evil things because he knows what is good and anything not good must be evil.
God possesses will. His will is His essence. His will is the cause of other things. He does not will necessarily. It is free-will.
God hates nothing. He is happy and is His own happiness.
God create the world out of nothing.
God cannot be a body, change, fail, be weary, forget, repent, be angry or sad, create a man with no soul, make the sum of the angles of a triangle be the sum of two right angles, undo the past, commit sins, make another God or make himself not exist.
Intellectual substances are immaterial and incorruptible.
The intellect is part of the soul.
The soul is not created through sexual reproduction, it is created new in each body.
Linehan - I tentatively reject this view. The soul must be reproduced in sex for the inheritance of sin to happen.
Thomas adopts Aristotle's view on universals. "Universals do no subsist outside the soul, but the intellect, in understanding universals, understands things that are outside the soul" (Russell, 458).
Evil is unintentional, not an essence. It has an accidental cause, which is good.
God is the end of all things so all things tend to be like God.
Man's happiness lies in moral virtue, not bodily pleasures. It consists in the contemplation of God.
Ultimate happiness is unachievable on earth. It only exists in heaven, when we see God face to face (even though God doesn't really have a face).
Divine Providence does not negate evil, contingency, free will, chance or luck.
Evil comes through second causes.
Angels are each individual species.
Astrology is rejected, as well as any notion of fate.
Prayer is useful in spite of Providence being unchangeable.
Miracles are solely performed by God. Magic is demonic.
Divine law:
1) directs us to love God
2) directs us to love our neighbor, but not as vividly
3) it forbids birth control because it is against nature (interestingly it does not forbid celibacy)
4) matrimony is indissoluble
5) not all carnal intercourse is sinful, but continence is a better life than marriage
6) monogamy is demanded
7) incest is forbidden
Mortal sins demand Hell as punishment. No man can be forgiven of sin without grace, yet is condemned if he doesn't convert.
God is not the cause of sin, but chooses to free some from sin and leave others in sin.
Aquinas states God is knowable three ways:
1) Reason
2) Revelation
3) Intuition of previous revelation
He blames the Greek Church for denying the double procession of the Holy Ghost and the supremacy of the pope.
He believes the sacraments are valid even if dispensed by a wicked priest.
Aquinas basically agrees with Aristotle philosophically. He is original in aptly adapting Aristotle to Christian dogma.
He was very innovative and condemned in Paris and Oxford universities.
He was even more remarkable in systematizing then originality. "Even if every one of his doctrines were mistaken, the Summa would remain an imposing intellectual edifice" (Russell, 461).
He is fair to arguments and positions contrary to his own. He then firmly dismantles them.
He does a good job in distinguishing arguments from reason and arguments from revelation.
He thoroughly knows Aristotle.
Russell contends that since Aquinas already knows the outcome of his arguments (revealed by God) that he cannot be regarded as an elite philosopher.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter 13 - St. Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) is the greatest scholastic philosopher of all time.
Catholic philosophies still teach his philosophical system as the only true system.
He has the respect and authority of the Church Fathers in Catholicism.
Thomas was the son out Count Aquino and born in Naples near Monte Cassino. Monte Cassino is where the "angelic doctor" began his education. He then studied at the University of Naples. He became a Dominican and then studied under Albertus Magnus at Cologne.
Aquinas had a fuller understanding of Aristotle than other scholastics. He disliked Neo-Platonism, even in the writings of Augustine.
He convinced the Church in the philosophy of Aristotle, despite misinterpretations of Islamic Avveroist Aristotelians.
Thomas' most important work is the Summa Contra Gentiles. Its purpose is to establish the truth of Christianity in arguments to Non-Christians.
Summa Theologica is of almost equal importance, but is addressed to Christians.
This is an abstract of Summa Contra Gentiles
1) Wisdom is concerned with the end of the universe
2) The end of the Universe is the good of the intellect (truth)
3) Natural Reason is deficient in the things of God. It can prove some parts, but not all. It can prove the existence of God and the immortality of the Soul, but not the Trinity, the Incarnation or the Last Judgment.
4) Nothing in revelation (the Scriptures) is contrary to reason
Linehan - Not exactly.
The Summa Contra Gentiles is divided into four parts. The first three do not refer to the Scriptures as arguments.
The first step for Aquinas was to prove the existence of God. He rejected the ontological argument because it requires man to know the essence of God, which is impossible. The existence of God can be proved, but it can also be deduced by faith. Aquinas denies that only faith makes God knowable.
Aristotle proved the existence of God through the argument of the unmoved mover:
1) There are things that are only moved
2) There are things which move and are moved.
3) Whatever is moved, is moved by something
4) An endless series of movers is impossible.
Conclusion: There necessarily exists something that moves without being moved. This unmoved mover is God.
Aquinas gives five proofs for the existence of God in the Summa Theologica
1) the argument of the unmoved mover
2) the argument of the first cause
3) there must be an ultimate source of all necessity
4) the various perfections of this would must have their source in something completely perfect
5) Non-living things have a purpose, but only living things have a purpose and thus something outside of them must have a purpose.
In returning to the Summa Contra Gentiles: after proving the existence of God we can say many things about him in a negative sense.
1) He is unmoved, thus eternal
2) He contains no passive potentiality, thus he is unchanging
3) He is not primary matter (pure passivity) thus he is pure activity
4) God has no composition, thus no body, thus no body parts, thus he must be something other than physical
Since God is not a composite he is his own essence.
God's essence and existence are identical.
There are no accidents in God. He cannot be defined.
It is more proper to state that X is similar to God in such a way than to say that God is similar to X.
God is good. He is the good of every good.
He is intelligent. His act of intelligence is His essence. He understands by His essence and understands himself perfectly.
God understands forms because he created them. He understands the world as being like Him in a way or unlike him in another way. God understand the plant as:
1) like him in that it is alive
2) unlike him in that it is not possessing of knowledge.
A creature always differs from God in some form of negation.
God understand all things at the same instant.
God is literally truth.
Aquinas is now troubled with the question, can God know particular things or does He only know universals and general truths? As a Christian, Aquinas believes in providence and that demands that God must know particular things despite weighty arguments against this view. Aquinas states 7 contrary arguments then refutes them.
1) Singularity being signate matter, nothing immaterial can know it. Refutation God knows singulars as their cause.
2) Singulars do not always exist and cannot be known when they do not exist; therefore they cannot be known by an unchanging being. Refutation God nows things that do not yet exist
3) Singulars are contingent, not necessary. Therefore there can be no certain knowledge of them except when they exist. Refutation He sees all time as present.
4) Some singulars are due to volitions, which can only be known to the person willing the volition. Refutation God knows our minds and secret wills
5) Singulars are infinite in number and the infinite as such is unknown. Refutation God knows an infinity of things
6) Singulars are too petty for God's attention. Refutation Nothing is wholly trivial.
7) IN some singulars there is evil, but God cannot know evil. Refutation God knows evil things because he knows what is good and anything not good must be evil.
God possesses will. His will is His essence. His will is the cause of other things. He does not will necessarily. It is free-will.
God hates nothing. He is happy and is His own happiness.
God create the world out of nothing.
God cannot be a body, change, fail, be weary, forget, repent, be angry or sad, create a man with no soul, make the sum of the angles of a triangle be the sum of two right angles, undo the past, commit sins, make another God or make himself not exist.
Intellectual substances are immaterial and incorruptible.
The intellect is part of the soul.
The soul is not created through sexual reproduction, it is created new in each body.
Linehan - I tentatively reject this view. The soul must be reproduced in sex for the inheritance of sin to happen.
Thomas adopts Aristotle's view on universals. "Universals do no subsist outside the soul, but the intellect, in understanding universals, understands things that are outside the soul" (Russell, 458).
Evil is unintentional, not an essence. It has an accidental cause, which is good.
God is the end of all things so all things tend to be like God.
Man's happiness lies in moral virtue, not bodily pleasures. It consists in the contemplation of God.
Ultimate happiness is unachievable on earth. It only exists in heaven, when we see God face to face (even though God doesn't really have a face).
Divine Providence does not negate evil, contingency, free will, chance or luck.
Evil comes through second causes.
Angels are each individual species.
Astrology is rejected, as well as any notion of fate.
Prayer is useful in spite of Providence being unchangeable.
Miracles are solely performed by God. Magic is demonic.
Divine law:
1) directs us to love God
2) directs us to love our neighbor, but not as vividly
3) it forbids birth control because it is against nature (interestingly it does not forbid celibacy)
4) matrimony is indissoluble
5) not all carnal intercourse is sinful, but continence is a better life than marriage
6) monogamy is demanded
7) incest is forbidden
Mortal sins demand Hell as punishment. No man can be forgiven of sin without grace, yet is condemned if he doesn't convert.
God is not the cause of sin, but chooses to free some from sin and leave others in sin.
Aquinas states God is knowable three ways:
1) Reason
2) Revelation
3) Intuition of previous revelation
He blames the Greek Church for denying the double procession of the Holy Ghost and the supremacy of the pope.
He believes the sacraments are valid even if dispensed by a wicked priest.
Aquinas basically agrees with Aristotle philosophically. He is original in aptly adapting Aristotle to Christian dogma.
He was very innovative and condemned in Paris and Oxford universities.
He was even more remarkable in systematizing then originality. "Even if every one of his doctrines were mistaken, the Summa would remain an imposing intellectual edifice" (Russell, 461).
He is fair to arguments and positions contrary to his own. He then firmly dismantles them.
He does a good job in distinguishing arguments from reason and arguments from revelation.
He thoroughly knows Aristotle.
Russell contends that since Aquinas already knows the outcome of his arguments (revealed by God) that he cannot be regarded as an elite philosopher.
Renaissance Philosophy - Russell
(Originally written July 29, 2006 in Book 7)
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Book Three (Modern Philosophy)
Pt. 1 From the Renaissance to Hume
Ch. 1 - General Characteristics
'Modern' times differs from the Medieval period in many ways. These are the two most important:
1) The diminishing power of the Church
2) The increasing authority of science
These two led to others:
-Culture becoming less clerical dominated
-State government replacing Church power
Ecclesiastical judgments are pronounced as absolute and unalterable. Scientific judgments are liable to change with new discovery. This produces a different mind set for modern thinkers.
The fall of the Church power led to individualism to the point of anarchy.
The Italian Renaissance was an embracement of anarchy.
The Reformation and counter-reformation put an end to the good and bad components of the Italian Renaissance.
Modern philosophy is individualistic and subjective.
The extreme subjectivism of this period is a form of madness.
Scientific technique is a cure for individualism and subjectivism.
"Unlike religion, it is ethically neutral: it assures men that they can perform wonders, but does not tell them what wonders to perform" (Russell, 494).
Linehan - Thus, as soon as the objective scientific technique is used it becomes subjective to the users desire? Hmmm.
Chapter II - The Italian Renaissance
The Renaissance began in Italy and marked the beginning of the modern mind.
There were five powerful Italian states:
1) Milan
2) Venice
3) Florence
4) the Papal Domain
5) Naples
Florence was the most civilized city in the world and the birth place of the Renaissance.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Book Three (Modern Philosophy)
Pt. 1 From the Renaissance to Hume
Ch. 1 - General Characteristics
'Modern' times differs from the Medieval period in many ways. These are the two most important:
1) The diminishing power of the Church
2) The increasing authority of science
These two led to others:
-Culture becoming less clerical dominated
-State government replacing Church power
Ecclesiastical judgments are pronounced as absolute and unalterable. Scientific judgments are liable to change with new discovery. This produces a different mind set for modern thinkers.
The fall of the Church power led to individualism to the point of anarchy.
The Italian Renaissance was an embracement of anarchy.
The Reformation and counter-reformation put an end to the good and bad components of the Italian Renaissance.
Modern philosophy is individualistic and subjective.
The extreme subjectivism of this period is a form of madness.
Scientific technique is a cure for individualism and subjectivism.
"Unlike religion, it is ethically neutral: it assures men that they can perform wonders, but does not tell them what wonders to perform" (Russell, 494).
Linehan - Thus, as soon as the objective scientific technique is used it becomes subjective to the users desire? Hmmm.
Chapter II - The Italian Renaissance
The Renaissance began in Italy and marked the beginning of the modern mind.
There were five powerful Italian states:
1) Milan
2) Venice
3) Florence
4) the Papal Domain
5) Naples
Florence was the most civilized city in the world and the birth place of the Renaissance.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Romans 1-2
(Originally written July 28, 2006 in Book 7)
Recently I have been paying a lot of attention to philosophy and been completely neglecting any focus on God. I want to be a philosopher so I can reconcile philosophy with faith in God. If I don't pay attention to God I will fail in this quest. I need to spend contemplative time in the Word of God as well as prayer time with Him. I thin a study of the letters of Paul will again inspire me with God's word.
Romans
1:1-6 Paul describes himself as:
1) A slave of Jesus Christ
2) Called to be an apostle
3) set apart for the gospel of God
He describes the Gospel as:
1) Promised through the prophets
2) about Jesus Christ
He describes Jesus Christ as:
1) The son
2) Humanly descendant of David
3) Holy in spirit
4) declared with the power to be the son of God
5) resurrected from the dead
He offers the resurrection as proof for him being the son of God.
The charge of Paul's apostleship is to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith
The Romans are included in those who Paul is charged to call to obedience.
1:7 - Paul's greeting to the Romans
1:8-16 - Paul longs to visit Rome
He thanks God for the Romans and their faith
v. 12 is interesting "that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith". It is interesting because Paul, a man who wrote about half of the New Testament, is able to be encouraged by another person's faith. My minuscule faith can encourage someone who has great faith. That is a testament to faith's power.
v. 14 is also interesting to me and my call. "I am obligated... to the wise and the foolish".
v. 16 The power of faith: "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes". The power of God is at the use of believers in the form of the Gospel.
How should we live? The righteous will live by faith...
1:18-32 "God's wrath against mankind"
Godlessness and wickedness surprise the truth
"What may be known about God is plain to them" v. 20. This means that knowledge of God is in plain sight, but that is only what may be known of Him. Hidden knowledge of God is not possible because what is known of Him is in plain sight because God has made it known to them.
No men have excuses because God can be known solely through creation.
Paul eludes to philosophers in v. 22. "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools". This foolishness caused men to become idolaters.
As punishment for their idolatry God gave them over to their sins. A man's choice of sin can therefore become his own punishment. This is evidence for free will.
v. 24, v. 26, and v. 27 condemns homosexuality, but it is one of many sins that God condemns. It should not be singled out as 'the' mortal sin or worse than any other. It is just another sin in the long list of wicked acts performed by mankind. All sins are equally horrid.
Chapter 2
Everyone is condemned by the judgment they pass on others.
Unrepentant hearts store up judgment against themselves from God.
God does not show favoritism.
Chapter two makes a strong case for innate ideas.
Physical appearances are not what God judges man on. God judges man on the contents of their heart. A heart precedes actions and transcends actions. God judges a man's heart.
Today I read Romans 1 & 2. I need to read more, but I am tired. I need to get back into the habit of reading God's word. Lord help me with this. Let the words sink into my heart. Help me to live by faith.
Recently I have been paying a lot of attention to philosophy and been completely neglecting any focus on God. I want to be a philosopher so I can reconcile philosophy with faith in God. If I don't pay attention to God I will fail in this quest. I need to spend contemplative time in the Word of God as well as prayer time with Him. I thin a study of the letters of Paul will again inspire me with God's word.
Romans
1:1-6 Paul describes himself as:
1) A slave of Jesus Christ
2) Called to be an apostle
3) set apart for the gospel of God
He describes the Gospel as:
1) Promised through the prophets
2) about Jesus Christ
He describes Jesus Christ as:
1) The son
2) Humanly descendant of David
3) Holy in spirit
4) declared with the power to be the son of God
5) resurrected from the dead
He offers the resurrection as proof for him being the son of God.
The charge of Paul's apostleship is to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith
The Romans are included in those who Paul is charged to call to obedience.
1:7 - Paul's greeting to the Romans
1:8-16 - Paul longs to visit Rome
He thanks God for the Romans and their faith
v. 12 is interesting "that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith". It is interesting because Paul, a man who wrote about half of the New Testament, is able to be encouraged by another person's faith. My minuscule faith can encourage someone who has great faith. That is a testament to faith's power.
v. 14 is also interesting to me and my call. "I am obligated... to the wise and the foolish".
v. 16 The power of faith: "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes". The power of God is at the use of believers in the form of the Gospel.
How should we live? The righteous will live by faith...
1:18-32 "God's wrath against mankind"
Godlessness and wickedness surprise the truth
"What may be known about God is plain to them" v. 20. This means that knowledge of God is in plain sight, but that is only what may be known of Him. Hidden knowledge of God is not possible because what is known of Him is in plain sight because God has made it known to them.
No men have excuses because God can be known solely through creation.
Paul eludes to philosophers in v. 22. "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools". This foolishness caused men to become idolaters.
As punishment for their idolatry God gave them over to their sins. A man's choice of sin can therefore become his own punishment. This is evidence for free will.
v. 24, v. 26, and v. 27 condemns homosexuality, but it is one of many sins that God condemns. It should not be singled out as 'the' mortal sin or worse than any other. It is just another sin in the long list of wicked acts performed by mankind. All sins are equally horrid.
Chapter 2
Everyone is condemned by the judgment they pass on others.
Unrepentant hearts store up judgment against themselves from God.
God does not show favoritism.
Chapter two makes a strong case for innate ideas.
Physical appearances are not what God judges man on. God judges man on the contents of their heart. A heart precedes actions and transcends actions. God judges a man's heart.
Today I read Romans 1 & 2. I need to read more, but I am tired. I need to get back into the habit of reading God's word. Lord help me with this. Let the words sink into my heart. Help me to live by faith.
Philosophy and Language - A.J. Ayer
(Originally written July 28, 2006 in Book 7)
Philosophy and Language
An Inaugural Lecture delivered before the University of Oxford on 3 November, 1960
by A.J. Ayer
He thanks H.H. Price and states that all the philosophers of his generation are in his debt.
Philosophy's conception comes from a variety of sources:
1. A legacy of logical positivism
The job of a philosopher is to tell us what statements mean, not to tell us whether or not they are true.
Linehan - what's the point then? Are we merely commentators announcing the game of life?
"A philosopher wh had no mastery of language would be as helpless as a mathematician who could not handle numbers" (Ayer, 7).
Linehan - I'm going to finish this lecture although it is very dry and cumbersome.
How I hate linguistic philosophy!
A point to study: A. Tarski: "The concept of Truth in Formalized Languages"
Based on Tarski's logical theory of language, establishing truth in a sentence is basically establishing a sentence.
Philosophers have attempted to answer the questions of meaning and testability in developing theories of truth.
Point to study: Goodman's paradox (Nelson Goodman)
Reductive analysis is the product of rational empiricism (reductive analysis is breaking everything down to its smallest components, I think?)
Reductionism did not have enough respect for language.
And now the question I've been waiting for!!
"Why should this be of any philosophical interest?" (Ayer, 16).
1) It will free us of any deep perplexities that arise from our misinterpretations of language
2) "A careful examination of the workings of our language will give us an insight into the structure of the world which it describes" (Ayer, 16).
Linehan - I don't see how, All I see is that it will give us is an insight into how we interpret the world.
Analysis of words like 'inadvertently', 'deliberately', 'mistakenly', and 'intentionally' may dispose of the problem of free-will.
Ayer denies that language though can or will solve problems like that of free-will.
"The difficulty here is that the distinction between questions of fact and questions of analysis is not so easily drawn as most philosophers now seem to think" (Ayer, 20).
Logical positivists eliminated metaphysics. (This alone is enough for me to doubt their propositions). They did so by the verification principle.
When philosophy produces facts it becomes an empirical science and thus no longer having anything to do with philosophy (which is purely conceptual).
Linehan - Is philosophy purely conceptual? Have I dedicated my life to something completely devoid of facts? Ayer has a way of making a positive conclusion, the doubting it leaving you with nothing. It is infuriating to attempt to pin down his position on a given point. I feel he admits logical positivism, but is unwilling to follow them as a logical positivist himself. He seems to me to be playing both sides of the fence soon not to step on any toes.
Ayer
The verification principle serves two purposes.
1) Plays an essential part in the vindication of ordinary language
2) Sustains the doctrine that the meaning of an expression is to be identified with its use
12 more pages!! Only 12!
Point to study: G. Ryle "The Concept of the Mind" and "The Myth of the ghost in the machine"
Linehan - Is there really a point to distinguishing between statements like:
1. He intended to do it
2. He meant to do it
3. He designed to do it
If he did it intentionally, (and that it is not disputed) then why study the language usage of someone describing it? Would it not be more fruitful to study the action (whatever it is) or the consequences of the action or why he did it intentionally?
Ayer finally explains a position to me in his final sentence. He vouches for analytic philosophy and warns agains the threat from scholasticism.
Linehan - for my part, I find a study of linguistic philosophy to be completely unfruitful. It seems pointless. A 'hat' would be the same thing even if language calls it a 'shoe'. What difference does it make what we call it? It would be the same thing no matter its title. Language does not constitute what a thing is, it only gives us a tool to facilitate communication about objects. Objects are objects, regardless of language's involvement.
Philosophy and Language
A.J. Ayer
Oxford University Press
London, England 1966
Philosophy and Language
An Inaugural Lecture delivered before the University of Oxford on 3 November, 1960
by A.J. Ayer
He thanks H.H. Price and states that all the philosophers of his generation are in his debt.
Philosophy's conception comes from a variety of sources:
1. A legacy of logical positivism
The job of a philosopher is to tell us what statements mean, not to tell us whether or not they are true.
Linehan - what's the point then? Are we merely commentators announcing the game of life?
"A philosopher wh had no mastery of language would be as helpless as a mathematician who could not handle numbers" (Ayer, 7).
Linehan - I'm going to finish this lecture although it is very dry and cumbersome.
How I hate linguistic philosophy!
A point to study: A. Tarski: "The concept of Truth in Formalized Languages"
Based on Tarski's logical theory of language, establishing truth in a sentence is basically establishing a sentence.
Philosophers have attempted to answer the questions of meaning and testability in developing theories of truth.
Point to study: Goodman's paradox (Nelson Goodman)
Reductive analysis is the product of rational empiricism (reductive analysis is breaking everything down to its smallest components, I think?)
Reductionism did not have enough respect for language.
And now the question I've been waiting for!!
"Why should this be of any philosophical interest?" (Ayer, 16).
1) It will free us of any deep perplexities that arise from our misinterpretations of language
2) "A careful examination of the workings of our language will give us an insight into the structure of the world which it describes" (Ayer, 16).
Linehan - I don't see how, All I see is that it will give us is an insight into how we interpret the world.
Analysis of words like 'inadvertently', 'deliberately', 'mistakenly', and 'intentionally' may dispose of the problem of free-will.
Ayer denies that language though can or will solve problems like that of free-will.
"The difficulty here is that the distinction between questions of fact and questions of analysis is not so easily drawn as most philosophers now seem to think" (Ayer, 20).
Logical positivists eliminated metaphysics. (This alone is enough for me to doubt their propositions). They did so by the verification principle.
When philosophy produces facts it becomes an empirical science and thus no longer having anything to do with philosophy (which is purely conceptual).
Linehan - Is philosophy purely conceptual? Have I dedicated my life to something completely devoid of facts? Ayer has a way of making a positive conclusion, the doubting it leaving you with nothing. It is infuriating to attempt to pin down his position on a given point. I feel he admits logical positivism, but is unwilling to follow them as a logical positivist himself. He seems to me to be playing both sides of the fence soon not to step on any toes.
Ayer
The verification principle serves two purposes.
1) Plays an essential part in the vindication of ordinary language
2) Sustains the doctrine that the meaning of an expression is to be identified with its use
12 more pages!! Only 12!
Point to study: G. Ryle "The Concept of the Mind" and "The Myth of the ghost in the machine"
Linehan - Is there really a point to distinguishing between statements like:
1. He intended to do it
2. He meant to do it
3. He designed to do it
If he did it intentionally, (and that it is not disputed) then why study the language usage of someone describing it? Would it not be more fruitful to study the action (whatever it is) or the consequences of the action or why he did it intentionally?
Ayer finally explains a position to me in his final sentence. He vouches for analytic philosophy and warns agains the threat from scholasticism.
Linehan - for my part, I find a study of linguistic philosophy to be completely unfruitful. It seems pointless. A 'hat' would be the same thing even if language calls it a 'shoe'. What difference does it make what we call it? It would be the same thing no matter its title. Language does not constitute what a thing is, it only gives us a tool to facilitate communication about objects. Objects are objects, regardless of language's involvement.
Philosophy and Language
A.J. Ayer
Oxford University Press
London, England 1966
My beliefs circa July 28, 2006
(Originally written July 28, 2006 in Book 7)
Heart not broken, just bruised.
Love will never fail.
A number of short presuppositions
1. What is philosophy?
Philosophy is the process of discovering innate concepts in this world. It is the formulation of opinions, belief and acquisition of knowledge practiced by all human beings. It is speculation, and a way of thinking. It is necessary for all humans to function properly. It is using the limited faculty of reason and rationality that we all have.
2. What is not philosophy?
A) an exact science
B) An inexhaustible and infinite wealth of knowledge
C) A substitution for faith
D) A tool of suppressions or terror
3. Is there a God?
A god (whatever it is) necessarily exists. I turn to cosmological evidence and the first cause for this conclusion. The existence of a god does not demand the existence of God directly.
But through natural theology and scientific observance I would readily infer that some supreme mind must exist to facilitate the creation of such an orderly universe. A supreme mind infers a Supreme Being God (not yet defined by a religion) is the only being that would be able to possess a Supreme Mind.
My faith bridges the chasm between a God (Supreme Being) necessarily existing and the belief in the Christian God. A true Christian who has truly felt God (a prerequisite) cannot be swayed by any argument that God does not exist. Faith can falter or even be undermined totally, but that is an account of the weakness and fallibility of man, not an argument against God's existence.
4. What is my philosophy of philosophy?
It is a process, a means. It is not an end. If it becomes an end it contradicts itself. (A process cannot be the culmination). Philosophy is a road to Truth. Truth is the goal; philosophy is one of many means. But, philosophy or any other means to Truth is hopeless if it is not supplemented by faith.
5. What then is Truth?
Truth is God. Only through God can we grasp the Truth. The truths we grab from God is fragmentary. Thus, Truth is God, truths are man's comprehensions of bits of that Truth.
6. What is knowledge?
Knowledge is not Truth or truth. Truth exists independently, thus any truth that exists, exists as a piece of the Truth. Knowledge is the comprehension of a truth. Knowledge cannot exist independently; it requires a host to comprehend truth. Absolute knowledge is the comprehension of the Truth in its entirety. Only God (the Truth) has full comprehension of the Truth. Absolute knowledge is unattainable for man, but should be strived for.
7. Philosophy of History
History is cyclical. It isn't because of some reincarnation, but because there are similar variables and one constant. God is the constant. Every individual human being that has existed is unique, but has many familiar characteristics that he or she shares with all other humans. The probability of similar things happening in various cultures or ages is likely because they all contain the same constant (God) and similar variables (humans). While history is cyclical it is not identically cyclical.
8. Philosophy of Language
Language is a universal. It has always existed and will always exist. A particular language is a sub-universal. An individual's usage of any sub-universal (i.e. English, Spanish, etc.) is the particular. Thus language, when used becomes purely subjective. Because no human being is perfectly identical, their subjective use of language causes ambiguities and thus, difficulties. Ambiguity is unavoidable, but clarification should always be used to minimize ambiguity.
9. Philosophy of Religion
Religion is the systematized rules surrounding a belief in a supreme being. It is subjective because it involves an individual's belief in God. Religion is also concerned with Ethics and Morality. While any particular set of religious beliefs is subjective and then subjective to any particular individual it does not follow that religion is relative. Relativism does not have any place in this world.
10. Ethics
Ethics are the primary concern of philosophy because they are the core of every individual human being. Ethics precede (or at least ought to precede) every action. It is for this reason that they are of the utmost importance.
The purpose of Ethics are to provide direction to every individual human being. Since Ethics are to be personal guides they are subjective. But, as in the case of religion, subjectivism does not equate relativism. Some Ethical beliefs are better than others and some systems are wrong. The correctness of an Ethical belief is measured by its close relationship to the teachings of Christ and the nature of God. God is Truth, an objective reality. Thus, any subjective set of ethics can be measured against the Objective Truth for accuracy. The measurement is called morality and immorality. An ethical system is mostly moral when it correlates closely to the nature of God, it is immoral when it contradicts the nature of God.
11. I exist
To doubt my existence is absurd. How I exist is another matter completely.
12. Man
Man is distinct from other individual animals because man was created in the image of God. This gives man a unique balance of responsibility and supremacy.
The image of God is a capacity for rationality. This does not mean that man is a rational being. Man is capable of rationality and reason, but often chooses not to follow it. Man is by nature, irrational. Sin is a testament to the irrationality of man.
13. Evil
Evil is a privation of the Good (God). Without the presence of the Good, man is evil.
Heart not broken, just bruised.
Love will never fail.
A number of short presuppositions
1. What is philosophy?
Philosophy is the process of discovering innate concepts in this world. It is the formulation of opinions, belief and acquisition of knowledge practiced by all human beings. It is speculation, and a way of thinking. It is necessary for all humans to function properly. It is using the limited faculty of reason and rationality that we all have.
2. What is not philosophy?
A) an exact science
B) An inexhaustible and infinite wealth of knowledge
C) A substitution for faith
D) A tool of suppressions or terror
3. Is there a God?
A god (whatever it is) necessarily exists. I turn to cosmological evidence and the first cause for this conclusion. The existence of a god does not demand the existence of God directly.
But through natural theology and scientific observance I would readily infer that some supreme mind must exist to facilitate the creation of such an orderly universe. A supreme mind infers a Supreme Being God (not yet defined by a religion) is the only being that would be able to possess a Supreme Mind.
My faith bridges the chasm between a God (Supreme Being) necessarily existing and the belief in the Christian God. A true Christian who has truly felt God (a prerequisite) cannot be swayed by any argument that God does not exist. Faith can falter or even be undermined totally, but that is an account of the weakness and fallibility of man, not an argument against God's existence.
4. What is my philosophy of philosophy?
It is a process, a means. It is not an end. If it becomes an end it contradicts itself. (A process cannot be the culmination). Philosophy is a road to Truth. Truth is the goal; philosophy is one of many means. But, philosophy or any other means to Truth is hopeless if it is not supplemented by faith.
5. What then is Truth?
Truth is God. Only through God can we grasp the Truth. The truths we grab from God is fragmentary. Thus, Truth is God, truths are man's comprehensions of bits of that Truth.
6. What is knowledge?
Knowledge is not Truth or truth. Truth exists independently, thus any truth that exists, exists as a piece of the Truth. Knowledge is the comprehension of a truth. Knowledge cannot exist independently; it requires a host to comprehend truth. Absolute knowledge is the comprehension of the Truth in its entirety. Only God (the Truth) has full comprehension of the Truth. Absolute knowledge is unattainable for man, but should be strived for.
7. Philosophy of History
History is cyclical. It isn't because of some reincarnation, but because there are similar variables and one constant. God is the constant. Every individual human being that has existed is unique, but has many familiar characteristics that he or she shares with all other humans. The probability of similar things happening in various cultures or ages is likely because they all contain the same constant (God) and similar variables (humans). While history is cyclical it is not identically cyclical.
8. Philosophy of Language
Language is a universal. It has always existed and will always exist. A particular language is a sub-universal. An individual's usage of any sub-universal (i.e. English, Spanish, etc.) is the particular. Thus language, when used becomes purely subjective. Because no human being is perfectly identical, their subjective use of language causes ambiguities and thus, difficulties. Ambiguity is unavoidable, but clarification should always be used to minimize ambiguity.
9. Philosophy of Religion
Religion is the systematized rules surrounding a belief in a supreme being. It is subjective because it involves an individual's belief in God. Religion is also concerned with Ethics and Morality. While any particular set of religious beliefs is subjective and then subjective to any particular individual it does not follow that religion is relative. Relativism does not have any place in this world.
10. Ethics
Ethics are the primary concern of philosophy because they are the core of every individual human being. Ethics precede (or at least ought to precede) every action. It is for this reason that they are of the utmost importance.
The purpose of Ethics are to provide direction to every individual human being. Since Ethics are to be personal guides they are subjective. But, as in the case of religion, subjectivism does not equate relativism. Some Ethical beliefs are better than others and some systems are wrong. The correctness of an Ethical belief is measured by its close relationship to the teachings of Christ and the nature of God. God is Truth, an objective reality. Thus, any subjective set of ethics can be measured against the Objective Truth for accuracy. The measurement is called morality and immorality. An ethical system is mostly moral when it correlates closely to the nature of God, it is immoral when it contradicts the nature of God.
11. I exist
To doubt my existence is absurd. How I exist is another matter completely.
12. Man
Man is distinct from other individual animals because man was created in the image of God. This gives man a unique balance of responsibility and supremacy.
The image of God is a capacity for rationality. This does not mean that man is a rational being. Man is capable of rationality and reason, but often chooses not to follow it. Man is by nature, irrational. Sin is a testament to the irrationality of man.
13. Evil
Evil is a privation of the Good (God). Without the presence of the Good, man is evil.
Machiavelli
(Originally written July 28, 2006 in Book 7)
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter 3 - Machiavelli
The Renaissance didn't produce any important theoretical philosophers.
Niccolò Machiavelli was an important and preeminent political philosopher of the Renaissance. His political philosophy is empirical and scientific aimed at assigning the means to the ends. He was unconcerned as to if the ends were good or bad.
Machiavelli (1476 - 1527) was a middle class Florentine.
He opposed the Medici family and had a post in the government until they acquired power in 1512.
The Prince is his most famous work and was written in 1513. It deals with how principalities are won, governed and lost.
Machiavelli advocates that religion should play a prominent role in the State because of its cement-type quality in society, not because of its truthfulness.
He blasts the Church for two reasons:
1) The corruption undermines religious beliefs
2) It prevents the unification of Italy
He held that rulers must be cunning but must appear to be virtuous and religious.
The Discourses is a book that runs contra to The Prince and was written to please the Medici. The Discourses was written from Machiavelli's own interest.
He advocated for a political system of checks and balance.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter 3 - Machiavelli
The Renaissance didn't produce any important theoretical philosophers.
Niccolò Machiavelli was an important and preeminent political philosopher of the Renaissance. His political philosophy is empirical and scientific aimed at assigning the means to the ends. He was unconcerned as to if the ends were good or bad.
Machiavelli (1476 - 1527) was a middle class Florentine.
He opposed the Medici family and had a post in the government until they acquired power in 1512.
The Prince is his most famous work and was written in 1513. It deals with how principalities are won, governed and lost.
Machiavelli advocates that religion should play a prominent role in the State because of its cement-type quality in society, not because of its truthfulness.
He blasts the Church for two reasons:
1) The corruption undermines religious beliefs
2) It prevents the unification of Italy
He held that rulers must be cunning but must appear to be virtuous and religious.
The Discourses is a book that runs contra to The Prince and was written to please the Medici. The Discourses was written from Machiavelli's own interest.
He advocated for a political system of checks and balance.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
The 12th Century (B)
(Originally written July 27, 2006 in Book 5)
What a shitty day and week this has been.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter XI - The 12th Century
The crusades shifted culture beyond religion in Europe. The trade in the East, which had been a Jewish monopoly shifted to Christian merchants. The Crusades also facilitated learning of Constantinople to be translated from the Greek into Latin and thus transferred to the West.
Scholasticism began in the 12th century. Scholasticism has a number of distant characteristics:
1) It is confined by the limits of orthodoxy
2) Aristotelian doctrines within the limits of orthodoxy are supreme
3) Dialect and syllogistic reasoning
4) Universals become important
The dialectic approach of scholasticism hampered it by:
1) making it indifferent to science and facts
2) belief in reasoning over observation
3) too much emphasis on verbal distinctions and subtleties
The first strictly scholastic philosopher was Roscelin. Roscelin was born at Compiegne about 1050. He taught at Loches in Brittany, where he taught Abelard. He was accused of heresy at the council of Rheims in 1092.
What a shitty day and week this has been.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter XI - The 12th Century
The crusades shifted culture beyond religion in Europe. The trade in the East, which had been a Jewish monopoly shifted to Christian merchants. The Crusades also facilitated learning of Constantinople to be translated from the Greek into Latin and thus transferred to the West.
Scholasticism began in the 12th century. Scholasticism has a number of distant characteristics:
1) It is confined by the limits of orthodoxy
2) Aristotelian doctrines within the limits of orthodoxy are supreme
3) Dialect and syllogistic reasoning
4) Universals become important
The dialectic approach of scholasticism hampered it by:
1) making it indifferent to science and facts
2) belief in reasoning over observation
3) too much emphasis on verbal distinctions and subtleties
The first strictly scholastic philosopher was Roscelin. Roscelin was born at Compiegne about 1050. He taught at Loches in Brittany, where he taught Abelard. He was accused of heresy at the council of Rheims in 1092.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
The 12th Century (A)
(Originally written July 26, 2006 in Book 5)
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter XI - The 12th Century
Four aspects of the 12th century are of special interest to Russell:
1) The continued conflict of empire and papacy
2) The rise of the Lombard cities
3) The Crusades
4) The growth of scholasticism
Conflict of Empire & Papacy
The Popes gained more power over the kings in the 12th century. They consolidated power in the Church and Church officials were better behaved than before the reform.
The Lombard cities achieved a sense of independence through wars against Frederick Barbarossa of the Holy Roman Empire.
The cities of Northern Italy rose through trade, not through the Church.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter XI - The 12th Century
Four aspects of the 12th century are of special interest to Russell:
1) The continued conflict of empire and papacy
2) The rise of the Lombard cities
3) The Crusades
4) The growth of scholasticism
Conflict of Empire & Papacy
The Popes gained more power over the kings in the 12th century. They consolidated power in the Church and Church officials were better behaved than before the reform.
The Lombard cities achieved a sense of independence through wars against Frederick Barbarossa of the Holy Roman Empire.
The cities of Northern Italy rose through trade, not through the Church.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Mohammedan Culture B
(Originally written July 25, 2006 in Book 5)
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter X - Mohammedan Culture
The Muslim Empire gradually split into four main factions:
1) Spain
2) Persia
3) N. Africa
4) Egypt
All these four were basically independent of one another.
The Arabs preferred Aristotle to Plato, but it was a sort of Platonic Aristotle.
Al-Kindi (died ca. 873) was the first philosopher to write in Arabic.
Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi translated Indian Sanskrit astronomy and mathematical books into Arabic around 830. It was translated into Latin in the 11th century along with an algebra book he wrote. This is when the West learned Arabic numerals. (But since the Arabians adopted them from India they ought to have been labeled Indian numerals).
Omar Ahayyám reformed the calendar in 1079. He was a Persian poet and mathematician. The Persians were great poets.
Firdowsi (941) wrote Shahlnama and is said to be an equal of Homer.
Persians were also superior mystics to the rest of the Mohammedans. The Sufi sect (still existent) came from Persian mystic interpretation of the Koran in a mystical, Neoplatonic way.
Greek influenced entered the Muslim world through the Syrain Nestorians. The Nestorians only valued Aristotle for his logic.
Arabic philosophers placed logic as the highest point and importance, but gradually accepted Aristotelian metaphysics.
Arabic philosophers were primarily concerned with:
1) Alchemy
2) Astrology
3) Astronomy
4) Zoology
Philosophers were looked on suspiciously by the bigoted public Arabs.
Avicenna (Ibn Sina) lived from 980 -1037 and traveled extensively, finally settling in Tehran. He taught philosophy and medicine. His medicine techniques were used widespread in Europe from the 12th - 17th century. He was not a saint, easily entrapped by wine and women. He was not favored in the East because of the Orthodoxy but the West admired him and his work. His psychology was empirical of a sort. His philosophy was closer to Aristotle and less Platonic than his Muslim predecessors.
He was concerned with the problem of universals. He believed that universals were at the same time:
1) before things
2) in things
3) after things
They are before in God's understanding. They are in things when particulars exist. They are after things in the thoughts of man.
Averroes (Ibn Rushd) lived from 1126-1198. He was born in Cordova, Spain. he was a Cadi in Seville and then in Cordova. He studied theology, jurisprudence, medicine, mathematics and philosophy (in that order). He practiced medicine for the Spanish ruler but was exiled by the ruler's son for "cultivating the philosophy of the ancients at the expense of the true faith" (Russell, 425). He was exiled to Morocco.
The books of logic and metaphysics were burnt because the Orthodox Muslims believed that God damned men for believing truth could be found through undirected reason.
After the death of Averroes the Moorish territory in Spain was diminished by Christian conquests.
Aver roes sought to purge the Arabic understanding of Aristotle of the Neoplatonic influence. He believed that the existence of God could be proved without divine revelation.
Like most Mohammedan philosophers, Averroes was a believer, but not Orthodox.
A sect of completely orthodox theologians condemned all philosophical thought outright. Algazel pointed out that all Truth necessary was to be found in the Koran, so speculation was unnecessary.
Averroes believed religion was a wealth of philosophical truth displayed in allegorical form.
Averroes is more important in Christian philosophy than in Islamic.
Despite writing in the 12th century, he was surprisingly translated into Latin in the 13th century, very quick for that age.
Arabic philosophy was not original; philosophers were more like commentators.
Between ancient Europe and Modern Europe the Dark Ages virtually killed intellectualism in Europe. The Byzantines and Arabs, while not innovators, preserved the ancient philosophy and learning which served as the foundation for modern thought.
The integration of Arabic thought into Europe produced scholasticism in the 13th century. The integration of Byzantine thought (and other causes) produced the Renaissance in the 15th century.
The Jews served as a go between between the Christians and the Spanish Moors. Knowing both Arabic and Latin, they supplied translations.
The Spanish Jews produced one important philosopher: Maimonides. Maimonides was born in Cordova in 1135. He went to Cairo in 1165 and lived out his life there. He wrote in Arabic, which was immediately translated into Hebrew and translated into Latin a few decades after his death. He wrote a book called Guide to Wanderers which was a book for philosophers who lost their faith. The book reconciled Aristotelianism to Judaism. The Jews hated Maimonides and elicited the Christian ecclesiastics to stop him.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter X - Mohammedan Culture
The Muslim Empire gradually split into four main factions:
1) Spain
2) Persia
3) N. Africa
4) Egypt
All these four were basically independent of one another.
The Arabs preferred Aristotle to Plato, but it was a sort of Platonic Aristotle.
Al-Kindi (died ca. 873) was the first philosopher to write in Arabic.
Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi translated Indian Sanskrit astronomy and mathematical books into Arabic around 830. It was translated into Latin in the 11th century along with an algebra book he wrote. This is when the West learned Arabic numerals. (But since the Arabians adopted them from India they ought to have been labeled Indian numerals).
Omar Ahayyám reformed the calendar in 1079. He was a Persian poet and mathematician. The Persians were great poets.
Firdowsi (941) wrote Shahlnama and is said to be an equal of Homer.
Persians were also superior mystics to the rest of the Mohammedans. The Sufi sect (still existent) came from Persian mystic interpretation of the Koran in a mystical, Neoplatonic way.
Greek influenced entered the Muslim world through the Syrain Nestorians. The Nestorians only valued Aristotle for his logic.
Arabic philosophers placed logic as the highest point and importance, but gradually accepted Aristotelian metaphysics.
Arabic philosophers were primarily concerned with:
1) Alchemy
2) Astrology
3) Astronomy
4) Zoology
Philosophers were looked on suspiciously by the bigoted public Arabs.
Avicenna (Ibn Sina) lived from 980 -1037 and traveled extensively, finally settling in Tehran. He taught philosophy and medicine. His medicine techniques were used widespread in Europe from the 12th - 17th century. He was not a saint, easily entrapped by wine and women. He was not favored in the East because of the Orthodoxy but the West admired him and his work. His psychology was empirical of a sort. His philosophy was closer to Aristotle and less Platonic than his Muslim predecessors.
He was concerned with the problem of universals. He believed that universals were at the same time:
1) before things
2) in things
3) after things
They are before in God's understanding. They are in things when particulars exist. They are after things in the thoughts of man.
Averroes (Ibn Rushd) lived from 1126-1198. He was born in Cordova, Spain. he was a Cadi in Seville and then in Cordova. He studied theology, jurisprudence, medicine, mathematics and philosophy (in that order). He practiced medicine for the Spanish ruler but was exiled by the ruler's son for "cultivating the philosophy of the ancients at the expense of the true faith" (Russell, 425). He was exiled to Morocco.
The books of logic and metaphysics were burnt because the Orthodox Muslims believed that God damned men for believing truth could be found through undirected reason.
After the death of Averroes the Moorish territory in Spain was diminished by Christian conquests.
Aver roes sought to purge the Arabic understanding of Aristotle of the Neoplatonic influence. He believed that the existence of God could be proved without divine revelation.
Like most Mohammedan philosophers, Averroes was a believer, but not Orthodox.
A sect of completely orthodox theologians condemned all philosophical thought outright. Algazel pointed out that all Truth necessary was to be found in the Koran, so speculation was unnecessary.
Averroes believed religion was a wealth of philosophical truth displayed in allegorical form.
Averroes is more important in Christian philosophy than in Islamic.
Despite writing in the 12th century, he was surprisingly translated into Latin in the 13th century, very quick for that age.
Arabic philosophy was not original; philosophers were more like commentators.
Between ancient Europe and Modern Europe the Dark Ages virtually killed intellectualism in Europe. The Byzantines and Arabs, while not innovators, preserved the ancient philosophy and learning which served as the foundation for modern thought.
The integration of Arabic thought into Europe produced scholasticism in the 13th century. The integration of Byzantine thought (and other causes) produced the Renaissance in the 15th century.
The Jews served as a go between between the Christians and the Spanish Moors. Knowing both Arabic and Latin, they supplied translations.
The Spanish Jews produced one important philosopher: Maimonides. Maimonides was born in Cordova in 1135. He went to Cairo in 1165 and lived out his life there. He wrote in Arabic, which was immediately translated into Hebrew and translated into Latin a few decades after his death. He wrote a book called Guide to Wanderers which was a book for philosophers who lost their faith. The book reconciled Aristotelianism to Judaism. The Jews hated Maimonides and elicited the Christian ecclesiastics to stop him.
An early attempt at proving the existence of God
(Originally written July 25, 2006 in Book 5)
At this break (end of chapter X of Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy) I have a thought.
The existence of God is taken by most people who believe in it only on face value. Is it correct to assume the existence of God? What proofs, real evidence do we have for accepting it? I find the ontological proof for God as thoroughly lacking. It does not convince me at all.
I can state that I have felt His presence overwhelm me in Church, but since I deny that all men who speak in tongues are doing so through the Holy Spirit physically overwhelming them, I leave myself open to the same attack. Speaking in tongues (gibberish, non-sensical language) is a point of contention with me. I interpret the events of a Pentecost as a group of preachers speaking in their own language until the Holy Spirit entered them. At this point they began speaking real, human languages that they had not learned. Thus, men (Jews) from all over the world witnessed a group of mostly uneducated Hebrews speaking in a bunch of different, yet real human languages.
This view leads me to believe that the spiritual gift of tongues is a gift of linguistics. Some individuals are naturally gifted in learning foreign languages. All men and women can learn a number of languages, but I believe that certain individuals possess a natural capability to learn them with more ease, just like a gifted athlete can work on his body to produce an enormous, incredible sport talent.
But, Paul writes about how he can speak in the tongue (language) of men and angels. Paul, was an educated Jew and a Roman citizen. This leads me to believe that he knew at least Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek/Latin. His knowledge and disputation/rhetoric while in Athens strengthens my belief that he knew Greek. i do not know what other languages or dialects were spoken in Tarsus or other areas, but I believe that through his travels and education he probably achieved some level of fluency in other human languages as well. This covers the tongues of man, but what about the tongues of angels?
I believe that when one, who is full of the Holy Spirit, has meditated in prayer and focused wholly on God, that the Holy Spirit's groans and utterances can be focused on. If the Holy Spirit truly dwells in the heart or soul of a man then I would find it hard to believe that it is not in constant dialogue with the Father.
But as the Holy Spirit does not fully overwhelm man's own soul (ad body and mind) men even with the Holy Spirit are constantly distracted and cannot audibly or mentally hear the groans of the Holy Spirit. But when a man focuses to hear this dialogue I believe that the experience must be neck-hair raising and cause chills over the whole body.
The realization of having such immense and unimaginable power inside you and advocating to the Almighty God on your behalf must be awe inspiring. Mentally every Christians 'knows' this is happening, but to vividly experience it is beyond merely knowing it. This leads me to the conclusion that the gift of tongues is two gifts:
1) A predisposition to linguistics which must be cultivated except in rare, miraculous instances.
2) A spiritual awareness or experience of the Holy Spirit's dialogue with the Almighty God.
The first can lead to many consequences. It can produce pride in the individual's own mind, a sense of accomplishment. It can be used for their own gain or it can be used for God. The second can only lead to one consequence: an emotional, spiritual, mental and physical sensation of God. in the moment of experience the senses of the mind, body and soul all experience the same thing: God. It is overwhelming. I believe that this happens legitimately (actually an experience of God) and can produce a vocal or mental utterances of seemingly gibberish. But, that does not mean that whenever one speaks gibberish in church that individual is experiencing the phenomena of mind, body and soul simultaneously experiencing God.
Honestly, I think some people fake it, but not most people. The power of seeing a person legitimately speak in tongues is very likely to trigger a response in the mind, body or soul of an onlooker. The power of seeing an entire congregation or charismatic leader speak in tongues (legitimate or fake) is likely to produce an overwhelming psychological response in indoctrinated individuals or individuals who are familiar with speaking in tongues or in individual who have a mind-set that can be easily seduced into a hypnotic trance like states. I believe that the majority of people who speak in tongues in large settings do so because of an overwhelming psychological response. They utter gibberish and believe truly and sincerely that it is at the prompt and control of the Holy Spirit.
This attack on organized speaking in tongues leaves me open to attacks on my experiences of God. On an irregular, but noticeably consistent basis I feel an overwhelming tingling sensation during musical praises to God. By my own argument I can state that these experiences are one of three situations:
1) I am lying, that is I fake it.
2) I am being overwhelmed by a purely psychological or emotional response.
3) I am truly experiencing God in body, soul and mind simultaneously.
The first is ridiculous. I am not lying. Though, if I could fake the sensation I gladly would. The spine tingling feeling is very pleasant. I feel at peace with myself and my surroundings. That is a rare occurrence because the majority of the time I am engaged in a civil war with myself. If I could elicit that feeling at will, even if it were a lie, I would gladly do so. Sadly (and thankfully) I cannot. Since I am not faking it, it must be legitimate. it is either a subconscious mechanism producing the sensation or God. This implies God exists.
Why do I accept that God exists? On face value I have accepted He exists from a very early age. My training and education and parental guidance has always assumed the existence of God. Philosophically, I can't accept it on face value.
I am not far enough into my studies or learning of philosophy to accept the existence of God from a purely philosophical viewpoint. I reject the ontological argument because I do not see the validity of it. Whether that is because it is not valid or I cannot fully understand it I do not know. But from a purely philosophical viewpoint I must accept the existence of a god and cannot deny the possibility that this god is the Christian God. I affirm the existence of a god for a number of reasons.
First, something must have brought existence as we know it into existence. Philosophically, I cannot demand that this be God, Allah or space gas. But, something, anything, had to create this world and me. This does not affirm God or Allah or any other deity, and it does not deny evolution or the big bang theory or even that the universe is itself an eternal god. It merely affirms that in order for existence at this current moment to be the way it is a god must exist. The first cause/unmoved mover is enough for me to state that some god exists.
Now, my biases will come to the forefront. I want this god to be benevolent and personal. if it is not then I am purposelessness. I am meaningless and so is every other human being. Thus every other man is a means to every other man. This would cause chaos. While the world (universe) is not a perfectly oiled machine as was once thought, it does operate with some resemblance of order and purpose. The earth rotates around the sun; it spins on its axis; the phases of the moon happen in a consistent way; gravity works and other natural laws are consistent. Those facts lead me to believe that the god, who most certainly exists is an orderly one.
Since the world is orderly (for the most part) I can eliminate the possibility of gods who are chaotic intentionally or at random. This is enough evidence for me to deny any origin theory that calls earth or the universe the sum of any accidents. No accidental collision of gases could create such order. I can cross off any god who is chaotic or accidental. Thus, I cannot accept the Big Bang Theory or that the god who exists is some collection of gases.
What do I have left? Orderly deities and the universe exist. The fact of the matter is that most humans and all animals enjoy order. Sure, even the obsessive compulsive neat freak are excited by chaos occasionally but even people who love chaos are agitated when nothing seems to be working properly. If I were to attempt to say table and the word television came out of my mouth every time, even if I thrived in chaos, I would be infuriated. Man's love for order makes me believe that the god who exists is benevolent.
The Universe is, for the most part, an orderly place. Man, for the most part, loves order. The fact that the god who created an orderly universe (even if it is the universe itself) and that human beings (and all other lower beings) love order creates two possibilities for me:
1) Man (and other animals) were purposefully designed for an orderly existence.
2) Man evolved in such a way to adapt to an orderly environment
At this point it pains me as an absolute creationist to state that both possibilities are as plausible as the other. I do in fact believe in creation, but I do believe microevolution is possible and has taken place. This process is a natural occurrence and unnatural occurrence. i.e. Dogs in the wild will breed with others creating a new pieces of dogs. Man can interbreed dogs and create new species. This process over years could create a bunch of new species.
An orderly god could easily create order through macroevolution or microevolution or another process. This leaves me still with equally plausible outcomes.
So far we know that god exists. This god is orderly and purposeful. Accidents cannot create purpose. Chaos cannot create order. The god must be benevolent because man exists (either through divine command or an evolutionary process) in a universe he is suited to.
This leads me to another question. Can a benevolent being be mindless? I do not believe so. In order for anything to be benevolent it must have the intent of pleasing something else. It would be absurd for me to state that this table is so benevolent for allowing me to use it. It is equally absurd to me to state that the universe is so benevolent for arranging itself in such a way for me to enjoy it. An arguer would state that it did not arrange itself, it was caused by gases or other 'accidental' causes. But we have already ruled out accidental causes due to the sheer miraculous nature of the possibility of the universe forming in such a way to facilitate life and the enjoyment of life. The purposeful order of the universe demands something more for an explanation than accidental causes. It could be said that the universe has always existed in this way, but that defies cosmological evidence. It could be argued then that the universe did in fact organize itself in this way purposefully. I would accept that, but it implies that the universe is benevolent, which in turn implies that the universe has a mind. That is absurd.
Thus, we can scratch off the universe in our list of gods. What is left? The god who caused the universe (created it) is benevolent, has a mind, is orderly and is purposeful. The fact that it is benevolent leads me to conclude that it is personal as well. If it or anything is benevolent it must have a personal interest in what it is showing benevolence to. All that we have left is the possibility of the god being a Supreme Being or God.
This argument does not come anywhere close to concluding that God is who Christians or Muslims or any other religion says he or she is. Nor does it deny the possibility of evolution. All it states is that god necessarily exists and that through elimination, that god must be the God.
The very definition of God demands that there is only one God. This throws out any religion based on equal Gods. Polytheism has not been eliminated because it does not require all gods to be God. Pantheism is not eliminated because we have no reason to believe yet that everything isn't just a part of God.
Could Pantheism be the correct interpretation of God? I will reject this quickly for a number of reasons. We know (from this argument) that God must have a mind. God is benevolent. God is orderly and purposeful. Combine these attributes for a moment and attempt to ponder the mind of God. The mind of God must be unimaginably incredible. The way a single organism sustains its existence is far beyond full comprehension of most scientists or human minds. Now there are billions of organisms that somehow sustain their life. The mind needed to design that is undoubtedly incredible. Then factor in all the non-living things and the natural laws that govern Earth. A mind capable of devising all the necessary things to have earth function in an orderly (or even functionally disorderly way) is incomprehensible. The design of the whole universe to be a functioning entity is so far beyond the scope of any human's mind that we cannot even truly to begin to comprehend it.
Basically this shows that God is smart. If Pantheism holds true then why would God design anything that in order to live it would have to destroy another thing? Think about it, basically if everything is a mere part of God overtime something eats God is cannibalizing himself only to defecate himself. Now a pantheist could argue that the consumption and defecation of himself is merely an illusion. But, if God is all things then who is he trying to fool?
Also take war or murder in human history. If every man is merely an extension of God then why would a smart God fight against himself? It would be like an educated man having a fistfight between his left and right arms.
For me, pantheism seems defeated. There is a god, that god is the Supreme Being, God. The order of the universe and its inhabitants being suitable for it implies benevolence, which in turn implies mind. The order of everything also implies that mind is undeniably intelligent. If God is an intelligent mind there would be no reason for any part of God to fight another part.
All we have left for God then is any form of monotheism or polytheism that has one Supreme God and a hierarchy of lower gods. But, I'm done for now.
At this break (end of chapter X of Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy) I have a thought.
The existence of God is taken by most people who believe in it only on face value. Is it correct to assume the existence of God? What proofs, real evidence do we have for accepting it? I find the ontological proof for God as thoroughly lacking. It does not convince me at all.
I can state that I have felt His presence overwhelm me in Church, but since I deny that all men who speak in tongues are doing so through the Holy Spirit physically overwhelming them, I leave myself open to the same attack. Speaking in tongues (gibberish, non-sensical language) is a point of contention with me. I interpret the events of a Pentecost as a group of preachers speaking in their own language until the Holy Spirit entered them. At this point they began speaking real, human languages that they had not learned. Thus, men (Jews) from all over the world witnessed a group of mostly uneducated Hebrews speaking in a bunch of different, yet real human languages.
This view leads me to believe that the spiritual gift of tongues is a gift of linguistics. Some individuals are naturally gifted in learning foreign languages. All men and women can learn a number of languages, but I believe that certain individuals possess a natural capability to learn them with more ease, just like a gifted athlete can work on his body to produce an enormous, incredible sport talent.
But, Paul writes about how he can speak in the tongue (language) of men and angels. Paul, was an educated Jew and a Roman citizen. This leads me to believe that he knew at least Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek/Latin. His knowledge and disputation/rhetoric while in Athens strengthens my belief that he knew Greek. i do not know what other languages or dialects were spoken in Tarsus or other areas, but I believe that through his travels and education he probably achieved some level of fluency in other human languages as well. This covers the tongues of man, but what about the tongues of angels?
I believe that when one, who is full of the Holy Spirit, has meditated in prayer and focused wholly on God, that the Holy Spirit's groans and utterances can be focused on. If the Holy Spirit truly dwells in the heart or soul of a man then I would find it hard to believe that it is not in constant dialogue with the Father.
But as the Holy Spirit does not fully overwhelm man's own soul (ad body and mind) men even with the Holy Spirit are constantly distracted and cannot audibly or mentally hear the groans of the Holy Spirit. But when a man focuses to hear this dialogue I believe that the experience must be neck-hair raising and cause chills over the whole body.
The realization of having such immense and unimaginable power inside you and advocating to the Almighty God on your behalf must be awe inspiring. Mentally every Christians 'knows' this is happening, but to vividly experience it is beyond merely knowing it. This leads me to the conclusion that the gift of tongues is two gifts:
1) A predisposition to linguistics which must be cultivated except in rare, miraculous instances.
2) A spiritual awareness or experience of the Holy Spirit's dialogue with the Almighty God.
The first can lead to many consequences. It can produce pride in the individual's own mind, a sense of accomplishment. It can be used for their own gain or it can be used for God. The second can only lead to one consequence: an emotional, spiritual, mental and physical sensation of God. in the moment of experience the senses of the mind, body and soul all experience the same thing: God. It is overwhelming. I believe that this happens legitimately (actually an experience of God) and can produce a vocal or mental utterances of seemingly gibberish. But, that does not mean that whenever one speaks gibberish in church that individual is experiencing the phenomena of mind, body and soul simultaneously experiencing God.
Honestly, I think some people fake it, but not most people. The power of seeing a person legitimately speak in tongues is very likely to trigger a response in the mind, body or soul of an onlooker. The power of seeing an entire congregation or charismatic leader speak in tongues (legitimate or fake) is likely to produce an overwhelming psychological response in indoctrinated individuals or individuals who are familiar with speaking in tongues or in individual who have a mind-set that can be easily seduced into a hypnotic trance like states. I believe that the majority of people who speak in tongues in large settings do so because of an overwhelming psychological response. They utter gibberish and believe truly and sincerely that it is at the prompt and control of the Holy Spirit.
This attack on organized speaking in tongues leaves me open to attacks on my experiences of God. On an irregular, but noticeably consistent basis I feel an overwhelming tingling sensation during musical praises to God. By my own argument I can state that these experiences are one of three situations:
1) I am lying, that is I fake it.
2) I am being overwhelmed by a purely psychological or emotional response.
3) I am truly experiencing God in body, soul and mind simultaneously.
The first is ridiculous. I am not lying. Though, if I could fake the sensation I gladly would. The spine tingling feeling is very pleasant. I feel at peace with myself and my surroundings. That is a rare occurrence because the majority of the time I am engaged in a civil war with myself. If I could elicit that feeling at will, even if it were a lie, I would gladly do so. Sadly (and thankfully) I cannot. Since I am not faking it, it must be legitimate. it is either a subconscious mechanism producing the sensation or God. This implies God exists.
Why do I accept that God exists? On face value I have accepted He exists from a very early age. My training and education and parental guidance has always assumed the existence of God. Philosophically, I can't accept it on face value.
I am not far enough into my studies or learning of philosophy to accept the existence of God from a purely philosophical viewpoint. I reject the ontological argument because I do not see the validity of it. Whether that is because it is not valid or I cannot fully understand it I do not know. But from a purely philosophical viewpoint I must accept the existence of a god and cannot deny the possibility that this god is the Christian God. I affirm the existence of a god for a number of reasons.
First, something must have brought existence as we know it into existence. Philosophically, I cannot demand that this be God, Allah or space gas. But, something, anything, had to create this world and me. This does not affirm God or Allah or any other deity, and it does not deny evolution or the big bang theory or even that the universe is itself an eternal god. It merely affirms that in order for existence at this current moment to be the way it is a god must exist. The first cause/unmoved mover is enough for me to state that some god exists.
Now, my biases will come to the forefront. I want this god to be benevolent and personal. if it is not then I am purposelessness. I am meaningless and so is every other human being. Thus every other man is a means to every other man. This would cause chaos. While the world (universe) is not a perfectly oiled machine as was once thought, it does operate with some resemblance of order and purpose. The earth rotates around the sun; it spins on its axis; the phases of the moon happen in a consistent way; gravity works and other natural laws are consistent. Those facts lead me to believe that the god, who most certainly exists is an orderly one.
Since the world is orderly (for the most part) I can eliminate the possibility of gods who are chaotic intentionally or at random. This is enough evidence for me to deny any origin theory that calls earth or the universe the sum of any accidents. No accidental collision of gases could create such order. I can cross off any god who is chaotic or accidental. Thus, I cannot accept the Big Bang Theory or that the god who exists is some collection of gases.
What do I have left? Orderly deities and the universe exist. The fact of the matter is that most humans and all animals enjoy order. Sure, even the obsessive compulsive neat freak are excited by chaos occasionally but even people who love chaos are agitated when nothing seems to be working properly. If I were to attempt to say table and the word television came out of my mouth every time, even if I thrived in chaos, I would be infuriated. Man's love for order makes me believe that the god who exists is benevolent.
The Universe is, for the most part, an orderly place. Man, for the most part, loves order. The fact that the god who created an orderly universe (even if it is the universe itself) and that human beings (and all other lower beings) love order creates two possibilities for me:
1) Man (and other animals) were purposefully designed for an orderly existence.
2) Man evolved in such a way to adapt to an orderly environment
At this point it pains me as an absolute creationist to state that both possibilities are as plausible as the other. I do in fact believe in creation, but I do believe microevolution is possible and has taken place. This process is a natural occurrence and unnatural occurrence. i.e. Dogs in the wild will breed with others creating a new pieces of dogs. Man can interbreed dogs and create new species. This process over years could create a bunch of new species.
An orderly god could easily create order through macroevolution or microevolution or another process. This leaves me still with equally plausible outcomes.
So far we know that god exists. This god is orderly and purposeful. Accidents cannot create purpose. Chaos cannot create order. The god must be benevolent because man exists (either through divine command or an evolutionary process) in a universe he is suited to.
This leads me to another question. Can a benevolent being be mindless? I do not believe so. In order for anything to be benevolent it must have the intent of pleasing something else. It would be absurd for me to state that this table is so benevolent for allowing me to use it. It is equally absurd to me to state that the universe is so benevolent for arranging itself in such a way for me to enjoy it. An arguer would state that it did not arrange itself, it was caused by gases or other 'accidental' causes. But we have already ruled out accidental causes due to the sheer miraculous nature of the possibility of the universe forming in such a way to facilitate life and the enjoyment of life. The purposeful order of the universe demands something more for an explanation than accidental causes. It could be said that the universe has always existed in this way, but that defies cosmological evidence. It could be argued then that the universe did in fact organize itself in this way purposefully. I would accept that, but it implies that the universe is benevolent, which in turn implies that the universe has a mind. That is absurd.
Thus, we can scratch off the universe in our list of gods. What is left? The god who caused the universe (created it) is benevolent, has a mind, is orderly and is purposeful. The fact that it is benevolent leads me to conclude that it is personal as well. If it or anything is benevolent it must have a personal interest in what it is showing benevolence to. All that we have left is the possibility of the god being a Supreme Being or God.
This argument does not come anywhere close to concluding that God is who Christians or Muslims or any other religion says he or she is. Nor does it deny the possibility of evolution. All it states is that god necessarily exists and that through elimination, that god must be the God.
The very definition of God demands that there is only one God. This throws out any religion based on equal Gods. Polytheism has not been eliminated because it does not require all gods to be God. Pantheism is not eliminated because we have no reason to believe yet that everything isn't just a part of God.
Could Pantheism be the correct interpretation of God? I will reject this quickly for a number of reasons. We know (from this argument) that God must have a mind. God is benevolent. God is orderly and purposeful. Combine these attributes for a moment and attempt to ponder the mind of God. The mind of God must be unimaginably incredible. The way a single organism sustains its existence is far beyond full comprehension of most scientists or human minds. Now there are billions of organisms that somehow sustain their life. The mind needed to design that is undoubtedly incredible. Then factor in all the non-living things and the natural laws that govern Earth. A mind capable of devising all the necessary things to have earth function in an orderly (or even functionally disorderly way) is incomprehensible. The design of the whole universe to be a functioning entity is so far beyond the scope of any human's mind that we cannot even truly to begin to comprehend it.
Basically this shows that God is smart. If Pantheism holds true then why would God design anything that in order to live it would have to destroy another thing? Think about it, basically if everything is a mere part of God overtime something eats God is cannibalizing himself only to defecate himself. Now a pantheist could argue that the consumption and defecation of himself is merely an illusion. But, if God is all things then who is he trying to fool?
Also take war or murder in human history. If every man is merely an extension of God then why would a smart God fight against himself? It would be like an educated man having a fistfight between his left and right arms.
For me, pantheism seems defeated. There is a god, that god is the Supreme Being, God. The order of the universe and its inhabitants being suitable for it implies benevolence, which in turn implies mind. The order of everything also implies that mind is undeniably intelligent. If God is an intelligent mind there would be no reason for any part of God to fight another part.
All we have left for God then is any form of monotheism or polytheism that has one Supreme God and a hierarchy of lower gods. But, I'm done for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)