(Originally written June 26, 2007 in Book 15)
The Birth of Tragedy
Friedrich Nietzsche
Section 10
Dionysus was himself the original and only hero in stage and the other heroes who gradually emerged - Prometheus, Oedipus, etc. are really mere masks of Dionysus.
The sufferings of Dionysus is the agonizing experience of individuation.
Dionysus was torn to pieces by the Titans according to Greek mythology. The true Dionysian suffering is the dismemberment of an individual and a transformation into the elements.
The world out to be as one, but the tearing of Dionysus made the world individualized. The rebirth of Dionysus is the coming together and re-harmonizing of all individuals into a oneness.
Oneness is the fundamental part of existence. Individuation is the primary cause of evil. Art is the joyous hope that individuation may be broken and a openness can be restored.
[page 75] an attack on religion.
Section 11
As Hellenism aged tragedy died out. Euripides discarded Dionysian elements and thus the Apollonian counterpart as well. He replaced the god-like hers with the every man character and the New Comedy emerged out of the suicide of tragedy.
Euripides brought the spectator onto the stage.
But, Euripides felt himself better than the public he put on stage.
Euripides relied on himself as a critic. That is Euripides the thinker, not Euripides the poet. HE did not understand the tragedy and that is why he sought to reform drama.
Euripides found one other person who shared his opinion.
Section 12
Euripides attempted to reconstruct Greek tragedy on the basis of an un-Dionysian art and morality.
Socrates shared Euripides view of the tragedy.
The art of Greek tragedy was shipwrecked by Socratic thinking. The Dionysian and the Socratic were enemies.
The combination of Euripides the actor and Euripides the thinker is the combination of cool rational thoughts and fiery passionate portrayals of emotion. Euripides is a paradox.
Euripides reduced tragedy to aesthetic Socratism: "To be beautiful everything must be intelligible" (Nietzsche, 83-84).
Euripides dramas in following the Socratic maxim that "knowledge is virtue" became naturalistic and inartistic.
Euripidean plays rested on rhetorical features that lead the groundwork for pathos, not action.
Euripides found suspense made audiences so anxious to solve the mystery that it distracted from the pathos of the play and thus was removed from his plays.
"Euripides as a poet is essentially an echo of his own conscious knowledge" (Nietzsche, 85).
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
The Birth of Tragedy Section 8-9
(Originally written June 25, 2007 in Book 15)
The Birth of Tragedy
Friedrich Nietzsche
Section 8
The Greek chorus is a living wall against the reality. The Satyr Chorus represents existence more truthfully, really and completely than the cultured man.
Poetry is not an outside fantastic non-reality; its very intention is to be a complete expression of truth.
"The satyr chorus proclaims the primordial relationship between the thing-in-itself and appearance" (Nietzsche, 62).
The chorus is how the Dionysian man contemplates himself.
To the poet, metaphor is not some abstract rhetorical figure about an image which takes place of the concepts. The character is a real, live being.
The poet is anyone who has the ability to live constantly surrounded by hosts of spirits. The dramatist is anyone with the ability to transform himself and speak out of other bodies and souls. This process is Dionysian because one must forsake their individuality.
The Greek tragedy is the Dionysian chorus which is ever-changing, discharging itself in an Apollonian world of images.
Section 9
The Apollonian part of the Greek Tragedy looks simple, transparent and beautiful.
The Apollonian plainness is a necessary consequence of gazing into the brightness of the Dionysian elements. It is similar to staring at the sun and then looking away and seeing black spots.
Myths, such as Oedipus, tell us that wisdom, particularly Dionysian wisdom is an unnatural abomination and must be brought about by unnatural causes.
"The best and highest possession mankind can acquire is obtained by sacrilege and must be paid for with consequences that involve the whole flood of sufferings and sorrows with which the offended divinities have to afflict the nobly aspiring race of men" (Nietzsche, 71).
Active sin is a Promethean virtue and this is the ethical basis for pessimistic tragedy; it is the justification of human evil.
Prometheus' nature is both Dionysian and Apollonian and therefore, "All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both" (Nietzsche, 72).
The Birth of Tragedy
Friedrich Nietzsche
Section 8
The Greek chorus is a living wall against the reality. The Satyr Chorus represents existence more truthfully, really and completely than the cultured man.
Poetry is not an outside fantastic non-reality; its very intention is to be a complete expression of truth.
"The satyr chorus proclaims the primordial relationship between the thing-in-itself and appearance" (Nietzsche, 62).
The chorus is how the Dionysian man contemplates himself.
To the poet, metaphor is not some abstract rhetorical figure about an image which takes place of the concepts. The character is a real, live being.
The poet is anyone who has the ability to live constantly surrounded by hosts of spirits. The dramatist is anyone with the ability to transform himself and speak out of other bodies and souls. This process is Dionysian because one must forsake their individuality.
The Greek tragedy is the Dionysian chorus which is ever-changing, discharging itself in an Apollonian world of images.
Section 9
The Apollonian part of the Greek Tragedy looks simple, transparent and beautiful.
The Apollonian plainness is a necessary consequence of gazing into the brightness of the Dionysian elements. It is similar to staring at the sun and then looking away and seeing black spots.
Myths, such as Oedipus, tell us that wisdom, particularly Dionysian wisdom is an unnatural abomination and must be brought about by unnatural causes.
"The best and highest possession mankind can acquire is obtained by sacrilege and must be paid for with consequences that involve the whole flood of sufferings and sorrows with which the offended divinities have to afflict the nobly aspiring race of men" (Nietzsche, 71).
Active sin is a Promethean virtue and this is the ethical basis for pessimistic tragedy; it is the justification of human evil.
Prometheus' nature is both Dionysian and Apollonian and therefore, "All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both" (Nietzsche, 72).
Friday, June 22, 2007
The Birth of Tragedy Section 6-7
(Originally written June 22, 2007 in Book 15)
The Birth of Tragedy
Frederich Nietzsche
Section 6
Folk songs occur after being violently stirred by Dionysian currents
[pg 53] - Essay on the 1960's could use this as a thesis
Melody is primary and universal; it is also regarded as the essential element of the folk song.
The poetry that accompanies the melody of the folk song is "strained to its utmost that it may imitate music" (Nietzsche, 53).
"To be will it would have to be wholly banished from the realm of art for the will is the unaesthetic-in-itself; but it appears as will" (Nietzsche, 55).
The lyricist is an Apollonian genius that interprets music through the image of the will while himself is completely void of the greed of the will.
Lyric poetry is dependent on the spirit of music. Music is absolutely sovereign and does not need images of concepts. Music merely endures images and concepts as accompaniments.
Poetic lyrisch cannot express anything that is not already implicitly present in the music itself. "Language can never adequately render the cosmic symbolism of music, because music stands in symbolic relation to the primordial contradiction and primordial pain in the heart of primal unity, and therefore, symbolizes a sphere which is beyond and prior to all phenomena".
Section 7
Tragedy arose from the tragic chorus.
Tragedy arose out of religious origins, not politico-social origins.
Tragedy bridges the gaps between man and man creating a unity - a metaphysical comfort.
Tragedy arose out of a fictitious natural state and fictitious natural beings.
Tragedy in its Dionysian quest to obliterate individual will brings nearly about its end when art rescues the viewer. Then the viewer can see with clarity the horrible absurdity of reality. By entering into the obliteration of individuality in Dionysian reality only to be rescued out of it by art the viewer can have knowledge of the true reality.
The Birth of Tragedy
Frederich Nietzsche
Section 6
Folk songs occur after being violently stirred by Dionysian currents
[pg 53] - Essay on the 1960's could use this as a thesis
Melody is primary and universal; it is also regarded as the essential element of the folk song.
The poetry that accompanies the melody of the folk song is "strained to its utmost that it may imitate music" (Nietzsche, 53).
"To be will it would have to be wholly banished from the realm of art for the will is the unaesthetic-in-itself; but it appears as will" (Nietzsche, 55).
The lyricist is an Apollonian genius that interprets music through the image of the will while himself is completely void of the greed of the will.
Lyric poetry is dependent on the spirit of music. Music is absolutely sovereign and does not need images of concepts. Music merely endures images and concepts as accompaniments.
Poetic lyrisch cannot express anything that is not already implicitly present in the music itself. "Language can never adequately render the cosmic symbolism of music, because music stands in symbolic relation to the primordial contradiction and primordial pain in the heart of primal unity, and therefore, symbolizes a sphere which is beyond and prior to all phenomena".
Section 7
Tragedy arose from the tragic chorus.
Tragedy arose out of religious origins, not politico-social origins.
Tragedy bridges the gaps between man and man creating a unity - a metaphysical comfort.
Tragedy arose out of a fictitious natural state and fictitious natural beings.
Tragedy in its Dionysian quest to obliterate individual will brings nearly about its end when art rescues the viewer. Then the viewer can see with clarity the horrible absurdity of reality. By entering into the obliteration of individuality in Dionysian reality only to be rescued out of it by art the viewer can have knowledge of the true reality.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
The Birth of Tragedy Section 1-5
(Originally written June 21, 2007 in Book 15)
New State, New Topic: The Month of Nietzsche!
The Birth of Tragedy
Out of the Spirit of Music
Friedrich Nietzsche
The Basic Writings of Nietzsche
Trans. Walter Kaufmann
The Modern Library: NY, NY
2000 A.D.
Preface to Richard Wagner
"I am convinced that art represents the highest task of the truly metaphysical activity of this life, in the sense of that man to whom, as my sublime predecessor on this path, I wish to dedicate this essay"
Is Nietzsche claiming to be evolved beyond man?
Section 1
The continuous development of art is bound up with the Apollonian and Dionysian duality.
Apollonian art: sculpture
Dionysian art: music
Each is opposed to the other but drives the other to evolve.
The marriage of the two gave birth to the Attic tragedy.
Dreams are the inspiration of all art.
Every man is an artist in their own dreams.
But even in vivid dreams man is aware that he is seeing but mere appearances.
Dreams are "joyous necessity".
This "joyous necessity" is embodied in the Greek god Apollo.
Apollo was the god of light and the ruler of fantasy.
Dreams must not be allowed to step beyond mere appearance and trick us into believing that it is a crude reality.
Apollo is the divine image of the principium individuationis (principle of individuation).
Dionysian is intoxication.
As Dionysian emotions stir all subjective things vanish into a complete self-forgetfulness.
Man becomes united with man and nature in Dionysian server.
Dionysian is song and dance.
In Dionysian ferver man feels as if he were a god.
In Dionysian ferver man is no longer the artist, but the work of art itself.
Section 2
Apollonian and Dionysian artistic energies burst forth from nature without the mediation of the human artist.
Dionysian energy seeks to destroy the individual and create a mystical oneness of all things.
Every artist is an imitator of either Apollonian or Dionysian energy.
In ancient Dionysian festivals, "the most savage natural instincts were unleashed" (Nietzsche, 39).
Dionysian music excited both awe and terror.
Section 3
Apollo is the father of the Olympic gods.
The olympic gods were neither moral nor good, but full of excesses.
The Greeks created the Olympian gods to fulfill a profound need. The Apollonian impulse toward beauty moved the greek religion from the horror of the Titans to the beauty of the Olympiads.
Section 4
Eternal contradiction is the father of things.
Redemption of reality comes through mere appearance. Our longing for redemption constitutes a primordial need for mere appearance (art).
The suffering of waking life is necessary so that the individual may realize the redeeming vision of dreams.
Apollo requires self-knowledge of his disciples.
Apollonian life requires prudence and excess is a most demonic device in its culture.
It is for this reason that Dionysian life as excessive intoxication is seen as barbaric and evil by the Apollonian.
The Apollonian world was built on moderation and mere appearance.
The Apollonian art world could not drown out the sounds of the excesses of the Dionysian. "The muses of the arts of 'illusion' paled before an art that, in its intoxication, spoke the truth" (Nietzsche, 46).
"Excess revealed itself as truth" (Nietzsche, 46).
Wherever the Dionysian overtook the Apollonian, the Apollonian was completely destroyed. But where the Apollonian withstood the onslaught, the Apollonian became more power and more menacing.
The Homeric world developed under the Apollonian atmosphere.
Section 5
The Dionysian artist identifies himself with a primal unity and its pain and contradiction.
The subjective and objective opposition of Schopenhauer is irrelevant in aesthetics because the willing individual that furthers his own egoistic ends is merely the antagonist and not the origin of art.
If the subject is an artist he has already been released from his individual will and has become a medium through which the true subject celebrates his release in appearances.
Man is not the true author of the art world. "On the contrary, we may assume that we are merely images and artistic projections for the true author and that we have our highest dignity in our significance as works of art - for it is only as an aesthetic phenomenon that existence and the world are eternally justified - while of course our consciousness of our own significance hardly differs from that which the holding painted on canvas have of the Cattle represented on it" (Nietzsche, 52).
All our knowledge of art is illusory, only through the process of creating art does one know the eternal truth of art as the creator becomes one with the primordial truth of the true artist.
New State, New Topic: The Month of Nietzsche!
The Birth of Tragedy
Out of the Spirit of Music
Friedrich Nietzsche
The Basic Writings of Nietzsche
Trans. Walter Kaufmann
The Modern Library: NY, NY
2000 A.D.
Preface to Richard Wagner
"I am convinced that art represents the highest task of the truly metaphysical activity of this life, in the sense of that man to whom, as my sublime predecessor on this path, I wish to dedicate this essay"
Is Nietzsche claiming to be evolved beyond man?
Section 1
The continuous development of art is bound up with the Apollonian and Dionysian duality.
Apollonian art: sculpture
Dionysian art: music
Each is opposed to the other but drives the other to evolve.
The marriage of the two gave birth to the Attic tragedy.
Dreams are the inspiration of all art.
Every man is an artist in their own dreams.
But even in vivid dreams man is aware that he is seeing but mere appearances.
Dreams are "joyous necessity".
This "joyous necessity" is embodied in the Greek god Apollo.
Apollo was the god of light and the ruler of fantasy.
Dreams must not be allowed to step beyond mere appearance and trick us into believing that it is a crude reality.
Apollo is the divine image of the principium individuationis (principle of individuation).
Dionysian is intoxication.
As Dionysian emotions stir all subjective things vanish into a complete self-forgetfulness.
Man becomes united with man and nature in Dionysian server.
Dionysian is song and dance.
In Dionysian ferver man feels as if he were a god.
In Dionysian ferver man is no longer the artist, but the work of art itself.
Section 2
Apollonian and Dionysian artistic energies burst forth from nature without the mediation of the human artist.
Dionysian energy seeks to destroy the individual and create a mystical oneness of all things.
Every artist is an imitator of either Apollonian or Dionysian energy.
In ancient Dionysian festivals, "the most savage natural instincts were unleashed" (Nietzsche, 39).
Dionysian music excited both awe and terror.
Section 3
Apollo is the father of the Olympic gods.
The olympic gods were neither moral nor good, but full of excesses.
The Greeks created the Olympian gods to fulfill a profound need. The Apollonian impulse toward beauty moved the greek religion from the horror of the Titans to the beauty of the Olympiads.
Section 4
Eternal contradiction is the father of things.
Redemption of reality comes through mere appearance. Our longing for redemption constitutes a primordial need for mere appearance (art).
The suffering of waking life is necessary so that the individual may realize the redeeming vision of dreams.
Apollo requires self-knowledge of his disciples.
Apollonian life requires prudence and excess is a most demonic device in its culture.
It is for this reason that Dionysian life as excessive intoxication is seen as barbaric and evil by the Apollonian.
The Apollonian world was built on moderation and mere appearance.
The Apollonian art world could not drown out the sounds of the excesses of the Dionysian. "The muses of the arts of 'illusion' paled before an art that, in its intoxication, spoke the truth" (Nietzsche, 46).
"Excess revealed itself as truth" (Nietzsche, 46).
Wherever the Dionysian overtook the Apollonian, the Apollonian was completely destroyed. But where the Apollonian withstood the onslaught, the Apollonian became more power and more menacing.
The Homeric world developed under the Apollonian atmosphere.
Section 5
The Dionysian artist identifies himself with a primal unity and its pain and contradiction.
The subjective and objective opposition of Schopenhauer is irrelevant in aesthetics because the willing individual that furthers his own egoistic ends is merely the antagonist and not the origin of art.
If the subject is an artist he has already been released from his individual will and has become a medium through which the true subject celebrates his release in appearances.
Man is not the true author of the art world. "On the contrary, we may assume that we are merely images and artistic projections for the true author and that we have our highest dignity in our significance as works of art - for it is only as an aesthetic phenomenon that existence and the world are eternally justified - while of course our consciousness of our own significance hardly differs from that which the holding painted on canvas have of the Cattle represented on it" (Nietzsche, 52).
All our knowledge of art is illusory, only through the process of creating art does one know the eternal truth of art as the creator becomes one with the primordial truth of the true artist.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
An equivocating essay on Doubt
(Originally written June 2, 2007 in Book 14)
Doubt
Chris Linehan
Can any one doubt, truly doubt the existence of God? Can anyone be so convinced that this is our ultimate, our pinnacle of existence? Is it truly possible to disbelieve in what is ultimately real?
Can anyone doubt, truly doubt their own existence? Can we truly escape our own mind to postulate that we are not here? Is it even possible to claim that our own existence is not a necessary one?
Can I doubt that I have a headache? Can I doubt that I am writing? Can I doubt any part of my physical existence? Can I doubt that my body is composed of parts or that these parts are composed of cells or those cells are composed of smaller things still?
It is easy to doubt that which we cannot perceive immediately. It's easier for me to make claims that I have no atoms rather than I have no hands though both are equally absurd. Would we consider a man that certainly, visibly had two hands, but doubted that he had two hands capable of rationality? Not likely, we would doubt that he possessed the faculties of a sound mind to make him capable of doubt.
Doubt can be therefore rational or irrational. If I were to doubt that the woman in front of me was actually real then many would question that as a rational doubt. But if I doubted that my cell phone would work in the remote areas of North Dakota, people would consider that a rational doubt.
But, in a shocking and fantastic scenario it would be found out that the woman in front of me was actually a hologram and that Verizon Wireless had been secretly testing underground stations throughout the Dakotas my irrational doubt would prove true and my rational doubt would prove false. What then of doubt?
It seems as if we treat doubt as being based on consequences prior to testing them but not so after testing them. I do not believe that means people would consider my doubts to be reversed once proven true and false. Doubting a woman's reality would still be an irrational doubt and doubting cell phone reception in unpopulated areas would still be considered rational.
Doubt and belief are similar here. In spite of rare, fantastic occurrences that prove the irrational true and the rational false, we are not abandoning reason altogether because of chance circumstances. Doubt and belief are further interconnected when it is applied to higher more ultimate things, namely religion and God. Is it rational to doubt God's existence? We cannot perceive God via the five senses, at least not directly. And for some this is sufficient to claim that doubting his existence is rational.
Others claim that rational proofs of his non-exisnetence are required to suffice rational doubt of the existence of God. Others point to the existence of evil as a sufficient condition of doubting the existence of God.
I feel that any sufficient reason for doubting the existence of an ultimate reality is purely subjective and totally arbitrary, There must be a supreme existence that is ultimate, otherwise we are no more real than Huck Finn or Hamlet. Without claiming some ultimate reality we cannot claim that our physical existence is any more real than the mental existence these characters enjoy.
So to doubt the existence of God, as defined as ultimate reality is completely irrational. Bud do not for one instance feel comfortable as a theist in stating that this proves the existence of a theistic, let alone Christian God. For this argument can claim that we are all our own God and we are ultimate existence unto ourselves.
However, I think here we can apply easy, fundamental notions to show that we are not in fact ultimate reality unto ourselves. The very notion of ultimate demands singularity. The fact that humanity is a multiplicity denies that each human being can be itself the God.
What then of all humanity? Can the aggregate of all humanity be this singular God? No series or multiplicity can be a unity. If humanity were the God then we would be all one mind, which is absurd. The same argument can be used against the totality of the universe. The universe itself is an aggregate and cannot in any way be construed as the God or ultimate reality.
Therefore, since we know that it is irrational to doubt the existence of God or ultimate reality and that, no single human or combination of humans or combination or totality of this universe can be called God then God whom we cannot rationally doubt to exist must exist outside this universe.
Whether or not to believe in the Christian, deistic or theistic God is another topic. For now it is clear and simple enough to demand that if we are rational in our thought process we cannot doubt that God, an ultimate reality exists. And in continuing with being rational in thought we cannot claim that any part or sum of this universe can claim ultimate reality or God-status. Thus, God, whose existence is rationally doubtless must exist beyond this universe.
End of Book XIV
02/15/07 - 06/02/07
Doubt
Chris Linehan
Can any one doubt, truly doubt the existence of God? Can anyone be so convinced that this is our ultimate, our pinnacle of existence? Is it truly possible to disbelieve in what is ultimately real?
Can anyone doubt, truly doubt their own existence? Can we truly escape our own mind to postulate that we are not here? Is it even possible to claim that our own existence is not a necessary one?
Can I doubt that I have a headache? Can I doubt that I am writing? Can I doubt any part of my physical existence? Can I doubt that my body is composed of parts or that these parts are composed of cells or those cells are composed of smaller things still?
It is easy to doubt that which we cannot perceive immediately. It's easier for me to make claims that I have no atoms rather than I have no hands though both are equally absurd. Would we consider a man that certainly, visibly had two hands, but doubted that he had two hands capable of rationality? Not likely, we would doubt that he possessed the faculties of a sound mind to make him capable of doubt.
Doubt can be therefore rational or irrational. If I were to doubt that the woman in front of me was actually real then many would question that as a rational doubt. But if I doubted that my cell phone would work in the remote areas of North Dakota, people would consider that a rational doubt.
But, in a shocking and fantastic scenario it would be found out that the woman in front of me was actually a hologram and that Verizon Wireless had been secretly testing underground stations throughout the Dakotas my irrational doubt would prove true and my rational doubt would prove false. What then of doubt?
It seems as if we treat doubt as being based on consequences prior to testing them but not so after testing them. I do not believe that means people would consider my doubts to be reversed once proven true and false. Doubting a woman's reality would still be an irrational doubt and doubting cell phone reception in unpopulated areas would still be considered rational.
Doubt and belief are similar here. In spite of rare, fantastic occurrences that prove the irrational true and the rational false, we are not abandoning reason altogether because of chance circumstances. Doubt and belief are further interconnected when it is applied to higher more ultimate things, namely religion and God. Is it rational to doubt God's existence? We cannot perceive God via the five senses, at least not directly. And for some this is sufficient to claim that doubting his existence is rational.
Others claim that rational proofs of his non-exisnetence are required to suffice rational doubt of the existence of God. Others point to the existence of evil as a sufficient condition of doubting the existence of God.
I feel that any sufficient reason for doubting the existence of an ultimate reality is purely subjective and totally arbitrary, There must be a supreme existence that is ultimate, otherwise we are no more real than Huck Finn or Hamlet. Without claiming some ultimate reality we cannot claim that our physical existence is any more real than the mental existence these characters enjoy.
So to doubt the existence of God, as defined as ultimate reality is completely irrational. Bud do not for one instance feel comfortable as a theist in stating that this proves the existence of a theistic, let alone Christian God. For this argument can claim that we are all our own God and we are ultimate existence unto ourselves.
However, I think here we can apply easy, fundamental notions to show that we are not in fact ultimate reality unto ourselves. The very notion of ultimate demands singularity. The fact that humanity is a multiplicity denies that each human being can be itself the God.
What then of all humanity? Can the aggregate of all humanity be this singular God? No series or multiplicity can be a unity. If humanity were the God then we would be all one mind, which is absurd. The same argument can be used against the totality of the universe. The universe itself is an aggregate and cannot in any way be construed as the God or ultimate reality.
Therefore, since we know that it is irrational to doubt the existence of God or ultimate reality and that, no single human or combination of humans or combination or totality of this universe can be called God then God whom we cannot rationally doubt to exist must exist outside this universe.
Whether or not to believe in the Christian, deistic or theistic God is another topic. For now it is clear and simple enough to demand that if we are rational in our thought process we cannot doubt that God, an ultimate reality exists. And in continuing with being rational in thought we cannot claim that any part or sum of this universe can claim ultimate reality or God-status. Thus, God, whose existence is rationally doubtless must exist beyond this universe.
End of Book XIV
02/15/07 - 06/02/07
An essay against agnosticism
(Originally written June 2, 2007 in Book 14)
Against Agnosticism
Christopher Linehan
The Atheist and the religious man are two in the same, yet opposed of every end. They are but men of thought and faint. One has faint that this is all that is and as such is paramount of the pinnacle. The other has faith that this is but the base and the summit is attainable only by pursuit. Both confuse their faith with indubitable knowledge, if only subconsciously.
The atheist views the world through a green-colored lens whereas the religious man sees the world through his red-tinted spectacles. The atheist swears the beach is green and the religious man swears it is red. There can be no agreement reached and arguments or proofs are futile, though readily offered.
The religious man must forsake his entire memory of existence to become an atheist. No single event can trigger a conversion. Likewise, the atheist must deny his entire history to bow before a God. It is rare and unlikely for a man of green sight to change to red or a man of red sight to change to green. Here I am speaking of critical examining men and women, and not those who take the fables of the corner Darwinist or priest as the ultimate say on all subjects. Those who blindly accept "truths" of other men are foolish infants not deserving of the title of maturity. Of these I will speak no further because they are neither of value nor significance in intellectual pursuit.
The atheist exclaims with avowed power and insight that there is no God because of some continued personal experience. The religious man exclaims that there is God with equal force because of their experience. They are common because they first rely on experience.
From that they choose their arguments. There are admittedly forceful arguments of rational quality on both sides. But, I believe that no proofs have been offered to rationally rule out the possibility of God whereas numerous proofs of God can stand the test of rationality. But in today's atmosphere the rational is not always considered the real.
What then are we to do? As thinkers we must pursue this question of God's existence because it is not one that can be ignored. Our posture and stance on this question precedes and colors our entire perception and comprehension of the phenomenal world. If we be Atheist then the phenomenal is ultimate, if we be religious men and women then the phenomenal i not the ultimate. It is plain and simple, we cannot in good intellectual conscience be neutral on this point.
The atheist may despise the religious man and regard him as superstitious. The religious man may loathe the atheist as a usurper guilty of treason and hubris. But in favor of both they have owned up to their responsibility and duty. The agnostic, however, is rightly hated for his lack of courage.
In the scope of things, the agnostics are worse than the intellectual infants. The infants may be lazy or unequipped to render an intellectual effort to come to a decision, but the agnostic is studied enough to render a decision and lacks the wherewithal to make such a decision.
The agnostic chooses his position in the guise of intellectual honesty. We know not whether God exists nor can we prove or disprove his existence. Therefore, we shall abstain from judgment. Seemingly a good course of action, agnosticism is the greatest type of lie. It is a lie that seems as plausible or more plausible than the truth. It however renders them completely and utterly intellectual impotent.
The atheist grounds their worldview in the phenomenal world. While this may provide ample philosophical problems for the religious to attack them on, they at least find a grounding. The religious man grounds his truth ultimately beyond the phenomenal world. Again this provides groins and an attack for their opposite. While grounding can be disputed amongst them, the agnostic is left with no grounding whatsoever.
The agnostic cannot ground his claim int he phenomenal world because he readily admits that there may or may not be something more. But, he cannot ground his truth in something beyond this world because he knows not if it is real or not. The agnostic's claims are merely conjectural and hypothetical which can find no basis in reality because he is impotent in discerning what reality is.
In summation I offer a challenge and a plea to all of those who seek to be intellectually virtuous. Find grounding somewhere. There is too much at stake to render yourself completely useless in the search for truth. Reflect upon yourself on the question of God's existence. Consult experience and rational arguments from both sides and earnestly seek the truth. Do not be swayed by charisma, eloquence, or emotive utterances. Truth is not without such things, but it is not its sum either.
Seek the truth and you shall find Glory. Seek wisdom and you shall find the Wise. Seek with patience and virtue, abstain from rashness and hubris. Abstain from ignorant fools, pompous critics and infantile obsessions. Abstain from wicked practices and evil follies. But do not abstain from judgment on this issue or the Truth will surely abstain from you.
Against Agnosticism
Christopher Linehan
The Atheist and the religious man are two in the same, yet opposed of every end. They are but men of thought and faint. One has faint that this is all that is and as such is paramount of the pinnacle. The other has faith that this is but the base and the summit is attainable only by pursuit. Both confuse their faith with indubitable knowledge, if only subconsciously.
The atheist views the world through a green-colored lens whereas the religious man sees the world through his red-tinted spectacles. The atheist swears the beach is green and the religious man swears it is red. There can be no agreement reached and arguments or proofs are futile, though readily offered.
The religious man must forsake his entire memory of existence to become an atheist. No single event can trigger a conversion. Likewise, the atheist must deny his entire history to bow before a God. It is rare and unlikely for a man of green sight to change to red or a man of red sight to change to green. Here I am speaking of critical examining men and women, and not those who take the fables of the corner Darwinist or priest as the ultimate say on all subjects. Those who blindly accept "truths" of other men are foolish infants not deserving of the title of maturity. Of these I will speak no further because they are neither of value nor significance in intellectual pursuit.
The atheist exclaims with avowed power and insight that there is no God because of some continued personal experience. The religious man exclaims that there is God with equal force because of their experience. They are common because they first rely on experience.
From that they choose their arguments. There are admittedly forceful arguments of rational quality on both sides. But, I believe that no proofs have been offered to rationally rule out the possibility of God whereas numerous proofs of God can stand the test of rationality. But in today's atmosphere the rational is not always considered the real.
What then are we to do? As thinkers we must pursue this question of God's existence because it is not one that can be ignored. Our posture and stance on this question precedes and colors our entire perception and comprehension of the phenomenal world. If we be Atheist then the phenomenal is ultimate, if we be religious men and women then the phenomenal i not the ultimate. It is plain and simple, we cannot in good intellectual conscience be neutral on this point.
The atheist may despise the religious man and regard him as superstitious. The religious man may loathe the atheist as a usurper guilty of treason and hubris. But in favor of both they have owned up to their responsibility and duty. The agnostic, however, is rightly hated for his lack of courage.
In the scope of things, the agnostics are worse than the intellectual infants. The infants may be lazy or unequipped to render an intellectual effort to come to a decision, but the agnostic is studied enough to render a decision and lacks the wherewithal to make such a decision.
The agnostic chooses his position in the guise of intellectual honesty. We know not whether God exists nor can we prove or disprove his existence. Therefore, we shall abstain from judgment. Seemingly a good course of action, agnosticism is the greatest type of lie. It is a lie that seems as plausible or more plausible than the truth. It however renders them completely and utterly intellectual impotent.
The atheist grounds their worldview in the phenomenal world. While this may provide ample philosophical problems for the religious to attack them on, they at least find a grounding. The religious man grounds his truth ultimately beyond the phenomenal world. Again this provides groins and an attack for their opposite. While grounding can be disputed amongst them, the agnostic is left with no grounding whatsoever.
The agnostic cannot ground his claim int he phenomenal world because he readily admits that there may or may not be something more. But, he cannot ground his truth in something beyond this world because he knows not if it is real or not. The agnostic's claims are merely conjectural and hypothetical which can find no basis in reality because he is impotent in discerning what reality is.
In summation I offer a challenge and a plea to all of those who seek to be intellectually virtuous. Find grounding somewhere. There is too much at stake to render yourself completely useless in the search for truth. Reflect upon yourself on the question of God's existence. Consult experience and rational arguments from both sides and earnestly seek the truth. Do not be swayed by charisma, eloquence, or emotive utterances. Truth is not without such things, but it is not its sum either.
Seek the truth and you shall find Glory. Seek wisdom and you shall find the Wise. Seek with patience and virtue, abstain from rashness and hubris. Abstain from ignorant fools, pompous critics and infantile obsessions. Abstain from wicked practices and evil follies. But do not abstain from judgment on this issue or the Truth will surely abstain from you.
Preface to the New Essays
(Originally written June 2, 2007 in Book 14)
Preface to the New Essays (1703-1705)
G.W. Leibniz
The senses are necessary for all actual knowledge, but they are not sufficient to five us all of it because they merely provide particular or individual truths.
Proof for general or eternal truths cannot be acquired by the senses because no matter how many instances of particular truths are combined, their totality will never equal the sum of an eternal truth. The proof of such eternal truths (like those of mathematics, morality, logic and metaphysics) must come a priori or innately.
The ideas in us are innate. They are natural inclinations, dispositions, habits or potentialities.
Insensible perceptions are perceptions too minute or too similar for us to notice and yet effect us so greatly.
These insensible perceptions rule out the notion of the soul as tabula rasa, souls without thoughts, substances without action and void space.
All spiritualized beings, all souls, all simple created substances are always joined to a body and souls are never completely separated from the body.
God can do what goes beyond our understanding. "There may be inconceivable mysteries in the articles of faith" (Leibniz, 61).
Preface to the New Essays (1703-1705)
G.W. Leibniz
The senses are necessary for all actual knowledge, but they are not sufficient to five us all of it because they merely provide particular or individual truths.
Proof for general or eternal truths cannot be acquired by the senses because no matter how many instances of particular truths are combined, their totality will never equal the sum of an eternal truth. The proof of such eternal truths (like those of mathematics, morality, logic and metaphysics) must come a priori or innately.
The ideas in us are innate. They are natural inclinations, dispositions, habits or potentialities.
Insensible perceptions are perceptions too minute or too similar for us to notice and yet effect us so greatly.
These insensible perceptions rule out the notion of the soul as tabula rasa, souls without thoughts, substances without action and void space.
All spiritualized beings, all souls, all simple created substances are always joined to a body and souls are never completely separated from the body.
God can do what goes beyond our understanding. "There may be inconceivable mysteries in the articles of faith" (Leibniz, 61).
On the Ultimate Origination of Things
(Originally written June 2, 2007 in Book 14)
On the Ultimate Origination of Things
November 23, 1697
Gottfried Leibniz
Beyond the scope of all finite things exists some One Being who rules the universe which he fashioned and created.
This One Being is the ultimate reason for things.
The present world is physically or hypothetically, but not absolutely or metaphysically necessary.
Ultimate ground must be found in something metaphysically necessary.
Temporal, contingent or physical truths arise from eternal, essential or metaphysical truths.
A certain "Divine Mathematics" or "Metaphysical Mechanism" is used in the origination of things.
Possibility is the foundation of essence. Perfection (degree of essence) is the foundation of existence.
The Author of the World (God) can therefore be free and yet everything happens determinately because He acts from a principle of perfect wisdom.
Whatever exists must be grounded ultimately in metaphysical necessity because any thing or series of things cannot provide its own grounding (unless it is metaphysically necessary). But physical things are not metaphysically necessary. Furthermore only existing things can produce/ground existing things. Therefore, metaphysically necessary truths actually exist, if only in the mind of God.
The ultimate reason for the reality of both essences and existences lie in one source, namely God.
The world is physically, metaphysically and morally the most perfect it could be.
But yet, our experience leads us to doubt this fact. "In the end, the world appears to be a certain confused chaos rather than a thing ordered by some supreme wisdom, especially if one takes note of the conduct of the human race... it is unjust to make judgment unless one has examined the entire law... We know but a small part of the eternity which extends without measure, for how short is the memory of several thousand years which history gives us. But yet, from such meager experience we rashly make judgments about the immense and eternal" (Leibniz, 46).
On the Ultimate Origination of Things
November 23, 1697
Gottfried Leibniz
Beyond the scope of all finite things exists some One Being who rules the universe which he fashioned and created.
This One Being is the ultimate reason for things.
The present world is physically or hypothetically, but not absolutely or metaphysically necessary.
Ultimate ground must be found in something metaphysically necessary.
Temporal, contingent or physical truths arise from eternal, essential or metaphysical truths.
A certain "Divine Mathematics" or "Metaphysical Mechanism" is used in the origination of things.
Possibility is the foundation of essence. Perfection (degree of essence) is the foundation of existence.
The Author of the World (God) can therefore be free and yet everything happens determinately because He acts from a principle of perfect wisdom.
Whatever exists must be grounded ultimately in metaphysical necessity because any thing or series of things cannot provide its own grounding (unless it is metaphysically necessary). But physical things are not metaphysically necessary. Furthermore only existing things can produce/ground existing things. Therefore, metaphysically necessary truths actually exist, if only in the mind of God.
The ultimate reason for the reality of both essences and existences lie in one source, namely God.
The world is physically, metaphysically and morally the most perfect it could be.
But yet, our experience leads us to doubt this fact. "In the end, the world appears to be a certain confused chaos rather than a thing ordered by some supreme wisdom, especially if one takes note of the conduct of the human race... it is unjust to make judgment unless one has examined the entire law... We know but a small part of the eternity which extends without measure, for how short is the memory of several thousand years which history gives us. But yet, from such meager experience we rashly make judgments about the immense and eternal" (Leibniz, 46).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)