(Originally Written Feb. 28, 2008 in the Journal)
Baumgarten (the founder of aesthetics) states the object of logical knowledge is truth and the object of aesthetic or sensual knowledge is beauty.
"Beauty is the perfect recognized through the senses; truth is the perfect perceived through reason; goodness is the perfect reached by moral will" (Maude, 92).
Baumgarten sees beauty as a correspondence of the relations of the parts to the parts and of the parts to the whole.
The aim of beauty he states, is to excite a desire.
Baumgarten's followers did nothing more than separate the pleasant from the beautiful.
Sulzer, Mendelssohn and Moritz claimed that the aim of art is not beauty, but goodness.
Johann Georg Sulzer held that which contains goodness can be called beautiful. He contended that the aim of humanity was welfare in social life. He intended to achieve this through moral education; and art, serves this purpose only.
Moses Mendelssohn held that art is the development of beauty until it becomes true and good. He held that the end of art is therefore, moral perfection.
While Baumgarten was concerned with the Perfect or the Absolute, Mendelssohn and Sulzer divided into three forms: truth, goodness and beauty. Beauty then merges back into both the good and the true.
Johann Winckelmann (a German art historian) said that only external beauty is the aim of art. Winckelmann separated beauty from goodness and divided it into three categories:
1. Beauty of form
2. Beauty of idea
3. Beauty of expression
He claimed that beauty of expression could only happen after both beauty of form and beauty of idea had first been accomplished. Winckelmann held that beauty of expression is the highest aim of art. He claimed that it was attained in antique art and therefore, modern art should be aimed at imitating ancient art.
The German aestheticians like Lessing, Herder, and Goethe understood beauty in the way of Winckelmann until Immanuel Kant changed it all.
Aesthetic theories arose in England, France, Italy and Holland that were also equally cloudy and contradictory The started their theories with a conception of the beautiful as existing absolutely and somehow it intermingled with goodness or at least had the same roots as it.
Shaftsbury held that which is beautiful is harmonious and proportionable, that which is harmonious and proportionable is true, and what is beautiful and true is agreeable and good. Shaftsbury held that beauty is only recognized by the mind. He held that God is the fundamental beauty and that beauty and goodness proceed from the same fount.
Hutchenson held that the aim of art is beauty. Beauty's essence consists in evoking a perception of uniformity and variety in us. Hutchenson held we are guided by an internal sense to what art is. He also held that in this internal sense one could contradict the ethical sense and that beauty does not always correspond with goodness and could actually run contrary to it.
Lord Kanes held that beauty is what is pleasant. Therefore, for him, beauty rests solely in taste.
Burke held that the sublime and the beautiful were the aim of art and have their origin in self-preservation and society. He also claimed that art is a means for the maintenance of the race through the individual. The first self-preservation (and the preservation of the individual) is through 1) nourishment, 2) defense, and 3) war. The second self-preservation (the preservation of the society) is achieved through 1) sex and 2) propagation. Self-defense and war are the source of the sublime. Sociability and the sex instinct are the source of beauty.
Yves Marie André held that there are three types of beauty:
1. Divine
2. Natural
3. Artificial
Charles Batteux held that art consists in imitating the beauty of nature. The end of art is enjoyment.
The French and the English held that taste decides what is beautiful. They also hold that the laws of taste cannot be determined.
Pagano held that art consists of uniting the beauties dispersed in nature. He held that the capacity to perceive these beauties is taste and the capacity to bring them together is artistic genius. He held that beauty is goodness made visible and that goodness is inner beauty.
Muratori stated that art is an egotistical sensation founded on the desire for the preservation of self and society.
Hemsterhuis, the Dutch writer, influenced the Germans, particularly Goethe. He held that beauty is that which gives the most pleasure. He held that enjoyment of the beautiful is the highest form of cognition to which men can attain.
Kant held that:
1. Man has a knowledge of nature outside him and himself in nature.
2. He seeks truth outside himself. He seeks goodness inside himself.
3. Seeking truth is pure reason. Seeking goodness is practical reason.
4. Aesthetic feeling is a judging capacity without reason and produces pleasure without desire.
5. Beauty is in subjective meaning. It is that which without reasoning and without practical advantages, nonetheless pleases.
Schiller held that the aim of art is beauty, which is the source of pleasure without practical advantage.
Fichte held that the perception of the beautiful proceeds from nature. Nature has two sides; 1) the sum of our limitations and 2) the sum of our free idealistic activity. In the sum of our limitations we see deformity. In the sum of our free idealistic activity we see beauty. He held that beauty therefore does not exist in the world, but in the beautiful soul (Schöner Geist). He also held that art is the manifestation of this beautiful soul and that the aim of art is the education of the whole man.
Schlegel held that beauty is understood too incompletely. He held that beauty is in art, nature and love. The truly beautiful is expressed by the union of art, nature and love.
Adam Müller held that there are two types of beauty:
1. General beauty which attracts people as the sun attracts the planets
2. Individual beauty which consists in the observer becoming like the sun and attracting beauty.
Thus, a world which harmonizes all contradictions is the highest beauty. He held that art is a reproduction of this universal harmony and that the highest art is the art of life.
Schelling held "art is the production or result of that conception of things by which the subject becomes its own object, or the object its own subject" (Maude, 99). He held that beauty is the perception of the infinite in the finite. The chief characteristic of works of art is unconscious infinity. Art unites the subjective and the objective, nature with reason and the unconscious with the conscious. He held that because of this, art is the highest means of knowledge. "Beauty is the contemplation of things in themselves as they exist in the prototype" (Maude, 99). The artist does not produce the beautiful by knowledge or skill, but by the beauty inside himself.
Krause held that positive beauty is the manifestation of the idea in an individual form; art is the actualization of the beauty existent in man's free spirit.
Hegel held that God manifests himself in nature and art as beauty. God manifests himself in two ways: on the object in nature and in the subject in spirit. Only the soul and what pertains to it is truly beautiful. The beauty of nature is only the reflection of a spiritual content. The sensuous manifestation of spirit is only appearance and this is the only reality of the beautiful. Art, religion and philosophy are means of being and expressing to the consciousness the deepest problems of humanity and the highest truths of the spirit. Hegel held that truth and beauty are one and the same. The idea as itself is truth. The idea, manifested externally, is beauty.
Weisse held that art is the introduction of the absolute spiritual reality of beauty into the external, dead, indifferent matter. Weisse held that the idea of truth entails a contradiction between the subjective and the objective and then the individual ego discerns the universal. Beauty is a reconciled truth.
In addition to Hegelian aesthetic theories there were contemporary and contradictory German theories like Herbart's and Schopenhauer's.
Hebart denied that there can be such a thing as beauty in itself. He held that there are certain relations we call beautiful and that art consists of finding these relations.
Schopenhauer held that the will objectifies itself in the world on various planes. The highest plane has the highest beauty but, each plane contains its own beauty.
Hartmann held that beauty lies in the seeming or "schien" produced by the artist. "The thing in itself is not beautiful, but it is transformed into beauty by the artist".
Schnaase held that there is no beauty in the world. Art gives what nature cannot. Beauty is disclosed then in art.
Kirchmann held there are six realms of history:
1. Knowledge
2. Wealth
3. Morality
4. Faith
5. Politics
6. Beauty - this is art.
Helmholtz held that beauty is manifested by the artist unconsciously and therefore cannot be analyzed.
Bergmann denied defining beauty objectively is possible. He held that beauty is held subjectively and therefore the job of aesthetics is to define what pleases whom.
Jungmann held that:
1. Beauty is a suprasensible quality of things.
2. Beauty produces pleasure by contemplation
3. Beauty is the foundation of love.
Cousin held beauty always has a moral foundation.
Jouffrey held that the visible world is the clothing by means of which we see beauty.
Lévêque held that beauty was a force behind nature and revealed itself in ordered energy.
Ravaisson held that beauty was the ultimate aim and purpose of the world.
Showing posts with label Schopenhauer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Schopenhauer. Show all posts
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Beyond Good and Evil 11-19
(Originally written August 7, 2007 in Book 16)
Beyond Good & Evil
Friedrich Nietzsche
11
Kant asked, "How are synthetic judgments a priori possible" and he replied by "virtue of a faculty".
His answer is circular and equivalent to "How does opium induce sleep? By a faculty of sleepiness"/
The question we ought to ask is "why is belief in such judgments necessary?" (Nietzsche, 209).
These judgments can be false but belief in them as true is necessary as a perspective for life.
12
We must rid ourselves of atomism especially soul atomism and the belief in the indestructible, indivisible and eternal soul.
But we need not throw out the soul entirely. We can use a "moral soul" hypothesis.
13
All living things seek first and foremost to discharge its strength.
"Life itself is will to power" (Nietzsche, 211).
Self-preservation is only a frequent result of the will to power.
14
Physics is merely an interpretation and exegesis of the world to suit us, not a world-explanation.
15
Our sense organs cannot be phenomena in physiology otherwise we would be left with the absurd thought that:
1) the world is a product of our organs
2) our body is part of the world
3) our organs are a product of our body
4) our organs are products of our organs
5) Our organs are self-caused
(which is absurd)
16
We should free ourselves of the seduction of words and phrases like, "I think" (Descartes), "I will" (Schopenhauer), "immediate certainty", "absolute knowledge", and "the thing itself" because they involve a contradiction in adjecto (contradiction between the noun and the adjective).
17
We cannot say "I think" because a thought comes when it wishes not when I wish it.
We cannot say "it thinks" because this involves interpretation of the process, not the process itself.
18
Refutations of theories add charm to the theory and therefore, make it more appealing.
19
We speak of the will as if it is the most easily known thing to us, but willing is, above all else, something complicated.
The will is a complex of thinking and sensation. It is also an affect. It is the affect of command.
Beyond Good & Evil
Friedrich Nietzsche
11
Kant asked, "How are synthetic judgments a priori possible" and he replied by "virtue of a faculty".
His answer is circular and equivalent to "How does opium induce sleep? By a faculty of sleepiness"/
The question we ought to ask is "why is belief in such judgments necessary?" (Nietzsche, 209).
These judgments can be false but belief in them as true is necessary as a perspective for life.
12
We must rid ourselves of atomism especially soul atomism and the belief in the indestructible, indivisible and eternal soul.
But we need not throw out the soul entirely. We can use a "moral soul" hypothesis.
13
All living things seek first and foremost to discharge its strength.
"Life itself is will to power" (Nietzsche, 211).
Self-preservation is only a frequent result of the will to power.
14
Physics is merely an interpretation and exegesis of the world to suit us, not a world-explanation.
15
Our sense organs cannot be phenomena in physiology otherwise we would be left with the absurd thought that:
1) the world is a product of our organs
2) our body is part of the world
3) our organs are a product of our body
4) our organs are products of our organs
5) Our organs are self-caused
(which is absurd)
16
We should free ourselves of the seduction of words and phrases like, "I think" (Descartes), "I will" (Schopenhauer), "immediate certainty", "absolute knowledge", and "the thing itself" because they involve a contradiction in adjecto (contradiction between the noun and the adjective).
17
We cannot say "I think" because a thought comes when it wishes not when I wish it.
We cannot say "it thinks" because this involves interpretation of the process, not the process itself.
18
Refutations of theories add charm to the theory and therefore, make it more appealing.
19
We speak of the will as if it is the most easily known thing to us, but willing is, above all else, something complicated.
The will is a complex of thinking and sensation. It is also an affect. It is the affect of command.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Mixed Opinions and Maxims B
(Originally written July 16, 2007 in Book 25)
Mixed Opinions and Maxims (continued)
157: Sharpest Criticism
We criticize those who picture our ideal the sharpest
168: Praise of Aphorisms
Aphorisms never lose their savor and are unaffected by time
200: Original
Truly original minds do not see things that are new, but see what is old as new. Those who see the new first normally do so by accident
201 Philosopher's Error
The philosopher believes the value of his work lies in the whole structure, but in reality it is valuable because it can be torn down and rebuilt better. A philosophy is most valuable as building material.
206: Why scholars are nobler than artists
Science requires a sobriety and a simplicity that poetry does not. The scholar must willingly submit to a loss of posthumous fame and therefore is nobler than a poet.
251: In parting
How a soul moves away from another, not how two come together, show how much they belong together.
298: Virtue has not been invented by the Germans
The nobility and lack of envy of Goethe, the noble hermit resignation of Beethoven, the charm and grace of Mozart's heart, the manliness of Handel, and confidence and transfigurement of inner life of Bach do not find it necessary to renounce splendor and success. If these are not German qualities, "it at least shows for what Germans should strive and what they can attain" (157).
309: Siding against oneself
Siding against oneself is unforgivable by our adherents because it is rejection of their love.
325: Opinions
People are nothing without general convictions and public opinions. But the exceptional person rises above this and opinions cease to become public.
341: Loving the monster
Monsters love monsters as apprentices cannot
346: Being Misunderstood
When one is misunderstood completely he must realize it is impossible to remove completely a single misunderstanding. If he does not realize this he will waste all of his energy on defending himself.
404: How duty acquires splendor
"The means for changing your iron duty to gold in everyone's eyes is this: always keep a little more than you promise" (158).
405: Prayer to man
Forgive us our virtues, thus one should pray to man.
408: The journey to Hades
I have spoken to the dead. 8 Men do I always keep my eyes upon: Epicurus and Montaigne, Goethe and Spinoza, Plato and Rousseau, Pascal and Schopenhauer. These men, though dead appear to me lusting for life. Eternal aliveness is what counts.
Mixed Opinions and Maxims (continued)
157: Sharpest Criticism
We criticize those who picture our ideal the sharpest
168: Praise of Aphorisms
Aphorisms never lose their savor and are unaffected by time
200: Original
Truly original minds do not see things that are new, but see what is old as new. Those who see the new first normally do so by accident
201 Philosopher's Error
The philosopher believes the value of his work lies in the whole structure, but in reality it is valuable because it can be torn down and rebuilt better. A philosophy is most valuable as building material.
206: Why scholars are nobler than artists
Science requires a sobriety and a simplicity that poetry does not. The scholar must willingly submit to a loss of posthumous fame and therefore is nobler than a poet.
251: In parting
How a soul moves away from another, not how two come together, show how much they belong together.
298: Virtue has not been invented by the Germans
The nobility and lack of envy of Goethe, the noble hermit resignation of Beethoven, the charm and grace of Mozart's heart, the manliness of Handel, and confidence and transfigurement of inner life of Bach do not find it necessary to renounce splendor and success. If these are not German qualities, "it at least shows for what Germans should strive and what they can attain" (157).
309: Siding against oneself
Siding against oneself is unforgivable by our adherents because it is rejection of their love.
325: Opinions
People are nothing without general convictions and public opinions. But the exceptional person rises above this and opinions cease to become public.
341: Loving the monster
Monsters love monsters as apprentices cannot
346: Being Misunderstood
When one is misunderstood completely he must realize it is impossible to remove completely a single misunderstanding. If he does not realize this he will waste all of his energy on defending himself.
404: How duty acquires splendor
"The means for changing your iron duty to gold in everyone's eyes is this: always keep a little more than you promise" (158).
405: Prayer to man
Forgive us our virtues, thus one should pray to man.
408: The journey to Hades
I have spoken to the dead. 8 Men do I always keep my eyes upon: Epicurus and Montaigne, Goethe and Spinoza, Plato and Rousseau, Pascal and Schopenhauer. These men, though dead appear to me lusting for life. Eternal aliveness is what counts.
Friday, July 6, 2007
Notes on Human, all too human
(Originally written July 6, 2007 in Book 25)
Basic Writings of Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
translated: Walter Kaufmann
The Modern Library Classics, New York, 2000
Seventy-Five Aphorisms
From Five Volumes
Human, All too Human (1878)
45.
The concept of good and evil as a dual prehistory
1. In the soul of ruling tribes and castes
2. In the soul of the oppressed, the powerless
Those who are powerful enough to repay good for good and evil for evil are good. The weak are bad.
The enemy is not evil because he can repay good for good or evil for evil.
"Trojan and Greek are both good in Homer. Not he that does us harm but he that is contemptible is considered bad" (147).
Goodness is inherited; a bad man cannot grow out of good soil.
Those who are powerless are bad and all the seemingly "good" things they do are refined malice.
"Our current morality has grown on the soil of the ruling tribes and castes" (148).
92.
Origin of justice
Justice originates among those who are approximately equal in power.
The foundational character of justice is trade.
Revenge and gratitude also grow out of the foundation of trade.
Justice derives from concerns of self-persecution, from egoism.
Justice is so esteemed because it has been forgotten that its roots are egoistic. "A poet might say that God made forgetfulness the guard he placed at the threshold of human dignity" (149).
96.
Mores and Moral
"Being moral or ethical means obeying ancient established law or custom. Whether one submits to it with difficulty or gladly, that is immaterial, it is enough that one does it" (149).
Evil is immoral. To be evil is to be immoral. Being evil is resisting tradition, no matter how reasonable or stupid that tradition is.
This tradition however arose with no regard to good and evil.
Tradition arose to preserve a community, a people. "Every superstitious custom that originated on the basis of some misinterpreted accident involves a tradition that it is moral to follow; for detaching oneself from it is dangerous, even more dangerous for the community than for the individual (because the deity punishes the community - and the individual only indirectly - for the sacrilege and the violation of divine privileges)" (150).
All traditions become more venerable the more time has passed.
136
On Christian Asceticism and Holiness
The nature of asceticism and holiness is complicated.
The marvelors of ascetics and holy men do not wish for science to attempt to explain this phenomena. Much to their fancy when science has attempted it has failed. They revel in the maxim "the unexplained should by all means be unexplainable" (150).
137
Asceticism arises out of man's lust to rule. When they cannot rule others they oppress their own nature, becoming ascetic.
Asceticism is actually a high degree of vanity. For the ascetic is proud of being scorned.
"In every ascetic morality man adores part of Himself as God and to that and needs to diabolicize the rest" (152).
142
Asceticism is merely the religious form that certain "bad" characteristics of man manifests itself.
143
The holy man is what he makes himself appear to be to unholy men. It is this false distinction that leads normal men to view the holy men as superhuman.
"He was not an especially good person, even less an especially wise person; but, he signified something that exceeded all human measure of goodness and wisdom" (153).
The signification of symbol that the holy man has come to represent has become so powerful that even in the age where no one believes in God anymore some (i.e. Schopenhauer) still believe in the Holy man.
144
Jesus Christ, the father of Christianity felt himself the inborn son of God and thus felt himself without sin. This illusion should not be judged too harshly because the complete freedom from sin is a virtuous goal which "is now available to everybody by means of science!" (154).
Basic Writings of Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche
translated: Walter Kaufmann
The Modern Library Classics, New York, 2000
Seventy-Five Aphorisms
From Five Volumes
Human, All too Human (1878)
45.
The concept of good and evil as a dual prehistory
1. In the soul of ruling tribes and castes
2. In the soul of the oppressed, the powerless
Those who are powerful enough to repay good for good and evil for evil are good. The weak are bad.
The enemy is not evil because he can repay good for good or evil for evil.
"Trojan and Greek are both good in Homer. Not he that does us harm but he that is contemptible is considered bad" (147).
Goodness is inherited; a bad man cannot grow out of good soil.
Those who are powerless are bad and all the seemingly "good" things they do are refined malice.
"Our current morality has grown on the soil of the ruling tribes and castes" (148).
92.
Origin of justice
Justice originates among those who are approximately equal in power.
The foundational character of justice is trade.
Revenge and gratitude also grow out of the foundation of trade.
Justice derives from concerns of self-persecution, from egoism.
Justice is so esteemed because it has been forgotten that its roots are egoistic. "A poet might say that God made forgetfulness the guard he placed at the threshold of human dignity" (149).
96.
Mores and Moral
"Being moral or ethical means obeying ancient established law or custom. Whether one submits to it with difficulty or gladly, that is immaterial, it is enough that one does it" (149).
Evil is immoral. To be evil is to be immoral. Being evil is resisting tradition, no matter how reasonable or stupid that tradition is.
This tradition however arose with no regard to good and evil.
Tradition arose to preserve a community, a people. "Every superstitious custom that originated on the basis of some misinterpreted accident involves a tradition that it is moral to follow; for detaching oneself from it is dangerous, even more dangerous for the community than for the individual (because the deity punishes the community - and the individual only indirectly - for the sacrilege and the violation of divine privileges)" (150).
All traditions become more venerable the more time has passed.
136
On Christian Asceticism and Holiness
The nature of asceticism and holiness is complicated.
The marvelors of ascetics and holy men do not wish for science to attempt to explain this phenomena. Much to their fancy when science has attempted it has failed. They revel in the maxim "the unexplained should by all means be unexplainable" (150).
137
Asceticism arises out of man's lust to rule. When they cannot rule others they oppress their own nature, becoming ascetic.
Asceticism is actually a high degree of vanity. For the ascetic is proud of being scorned.
"In every ascetic morality man adores part of Himself as God and to that and needs to diabolicize the rest" (152).
142
Asceticism is merely the religious form that certain "bad" characteristics of man manifests itself.
143
The holy man is what he makes himself appear to be to unholy men. It is this false distinction that leads normal men to view the holy men as superhuman.
"He was not an especially good person, even less an especially wise person; but, he signified something that exceeded all human measure of goodness and wisdom" (153).
The signification of symbol that the holy man has come to represent has become so powerful that even in the age where no one believes in God anymore some (i.e. Schopenhauer) still believe in the Holy man.
144
Jesus Christ, the father of Christianity felt himself the inborn son of God and thus felt himself without sin. This illusion should not be judged too harshly because the complete freedom from sin is a virtuous goal which "is now available to everybody by means of science!" (154).
Thursday, July 5, 2007
The Birth of Tragedy Section 20-25
(Originally written July 5, 2007 in Book 15)
The Birth of Tragedy
Friedrich Nietzsche
Section 20
The Journalist has replaced the professor in matters of culture.
The culture fears art because it is in a feeble state because it has realized its limitations and true art could fully destroy the Socratic-Alexandrian culture in its weakened state.
Schopenhauer was a man without hope but he nonetheless desired truth.
Dare to be tragic. Dare to be Dionysian for the age of the Socratic man is ending. "Prepare yourselves for hard strife, but believe in the miracles of your god" (Nietzsche, 124).
Section 21
We cannot learn from the Greeks without a rebirth of tragedy.
Tragedy is the stitching that held together the paradoxical nature of the Greeks. They were passionate individuals (Apollo) and yet whole-heartedly patriotic (Dionysian). They were their own men and one with the State. Tragedy served to keep these tendencies from tearing each other apart and leaving the Grecian ripped to pieces.
The tragedy produces the giant Dionysian weight of burden but in the same instance lifts it off our shoulders to that of the hero's.
The music creates the myth and yet shields us from its terrible power. The tragedy leads us to the comforting metaphysical illusion and brings about the "highest pleasure" through destruction and negation of the individual. We rejoice in the destruction, not the triumph of the hero and we are then at one, the Dionysian mystical oneness.
Only through music can we comprehend the most universal facts. Through music we hear the world will longing for existence and destruction.
Just as we have been completely destroyed of individuality by the Dionysian we are redeemed by the Apollonian in tragedy.
"The Apollonian tears us out of the Dionysian universality and lets us find delight in individuals" (Nietzsche, 128).
Music compels us to see most profoundly than ever before.
It is the Apollonian illusion that the Dionysian music serves the Apollonian concepts that saves us, but in reality, music is the real idea of the world and drama in the mere reflection of it.
In the total effect of tragedy is predominated by the Dionysians no matter how powerful the Apollonian image and illusion.
Section 22
The apex and climax of the Apollonian art is the justification of the individual through contemplation.
"The tragic myth is to be understood only as a symbolization of Dionysian wisdom through Apollonian artifices" (Nietzsche, 131).
Those who view tragedy as strictly a morality issue have had no experience of tragedy as the supreme art and thus they are not all together aesthetically sensitive.
The deepest pathos can be merely an aesthetic play.
The aesthetic listener is reborn anew with the rebirth of tragedy.
Art, when used as a moral-religious tool of propaganda or as a socio-political tool dupes the audience and fosters emotions that only occur naturally outside of aesthetic scenarios. But, as with all artificial arts there is a rapid degeneration.
The theater is not a place for the moral education of the public.
Section 23
Without myth, "every culture loses the healthy natural power of its creativity" (Nietzsche, 135). Myth unifies culture.
Myth hayers man to interpret his life and struggles.
The Socratic seeks to destroy myth, but the myth less man stands, "eternally hungry" (Nietzsche, 136).
We must be aware of the necessary connotations of art and man, myth and customs, and tragedy and the state. The demise of one is the demise of all.
Section 24
The aesthetic spectator experiences seeing the myth and transcending all seeing at the same time. The coexistence of these two things is one of the most remarkable effects of tragedy.
Art is not so much an imitation of nature as a "metaphysical supplement of the reality of nature, placed beside it for its overcoming" (Nietzsche, 140).
To define tragedy (and all art) one must primarily seek its pleasure in the purely aesthetic sphere. Whatever further qualities it may have (i.e. moral qualities) are merely secondary.
Existence and the world are justified only as an aesthetic phenomenon.
The rebirth of tragedy will come from music and the German spirit will be born anew and no longer will the German genius live in prolonged degradation, in servitude to 'vicious dwarfs' (Christian Priests).
Section 25
Music and tragic myth are Dionysian and beyond the Apollonian.
The Dionysian and Apollonian must unfold their powers proportionately according to the law of eternal justice.
Fin
The Birth of Tragedy
Friedrich Nietzsche
Section 20
The Journalist has replaced the professor in matters of culture.
The culture fears art because it is in a feeble state because it has realized its limitations and true art could fully destroy the Socratic-Alexandrian culture in its weakened state.
Schopenhauer was a man without hope but he nonetheless desired truth.
Dare to be tragic. Dare to be Dionysian for the age of the Socratic man is ending. "Prepare yourselves for hard strife, but believe in the miracles of your god" (Nietzsche, 124).
Section 21
We cannot learn from the Greeks without a rebirth of tragedy.
Tragedy is the stitching that held together the paradoxical nature of the Greeks. They were passionate individuals (Apollo) and yet whole-heartedly patriotic (Dionysian). They were their own men and one with the State. Tragedy served to keep these tendencies from tearing each other apart and leaving the Grecian ripped to pieces.
The tragedy produces the giant Dionysian weight of burden but in the same instance lifts it off our shoulders to that of the hero's.
The music creates the myth and yet shields us from its terrible power. The tragedy leads us to the comforting metaphysical illusion and brings about the "highest pleasure" through destruction and negation of the individual. We rejoice in the destruction, not the triumph of the hero and we are then at one, the Dionysian mystical oneness.
Only through music can we comprehend the most universal facts. Through music we hear the world will longing for existence and destruction.
Just as we have been completely destroyed of individuality by the Dionysian we are redeemed by the Apollonian in tragedy.
"The Apollonian tears us out of the Dionysian universality and lets us find delight in individuals" (Nietzsche, 128).
Music compels us to see most profoundly than ever before.
It is the Apollonian illusion that the Dionysian music serves the Apollonian concepts that saves us, but in reality, music is the real idea of the world and drama in the mere reflection of it.
In the total effect of tragedy is predominated by the Dionysians no matter how powerful the Apollonian image and illusion.
Section 22
The apex and climax of the Apollonian art is the justification of the individual through contemplation.
"The tragic myth is to be understood only as a symbolization of Dionysian wisdom through Apollonian artifices" (Nietzsche, 131).
Those who view tragedy as strictly a morality issue have had no experience of tragedy as the supreme art and thus they are not all together aesthetically sensitive.
The deepest pathos can be merely an aesthetic play.
The aesthetic listener is reborn anew with the rebirth of tragedy.
Art, when used as a moral-religious tool of propaganda or as a socio-political tool dupes the audience and fosters emotions that only occur naturally outside of aesthetic scenarios. But, as with all artificial arts there is a rapid degeneration.
The theater is not a place for the moral education of the public.
Section 23
Without myth, "every culture loses the healthy natural power of its creativity" (Nietzsche, 135). Myth unifies culture.
Myth hayers man to interpret his life and struggles.
The Socratic seeks to destroy myth, but the myth less man stands, "eternally hungry" (Nietzsche, 136).
We must be aware of the necessary connotations of art and man, myth and customs, and tragedy and the state. The demise of one is the demise of all.
Section 24
The aesthetic spectator experiences seeing the myth and transcending all seeing at the same time. The coexistence of these two things is one of the most remarkable effects of tragedy.
Art is not so much an imitation of nature as a "metaphysical supplement of the reality of nature, placed beside it for its overcoming" (Nietzsche, 140).
To define tragedy (and all art) one must primarily seek its pleasure in the purely aesthetic sphere. Whatever further qualities it may have (i.e. moral qualities) are merely secondary.
Existence and the world are justified only as an aesthetic phenomenon.
The rebirth of tragedy will come from music and the German spirit will be born anew and no longer will the German genius live in prolonged degradation, in servitude to 'vicious dwarfs' (Christian Priests).
Section 25
Music and tragic myth are Dionysian and beyond the Apollonian.
The Dionysian and Apollonian must unfold their powers proportionately according to the law of eternal justice.
Fin
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
The Birth of Tragedy Section 13-19
(Originally written July 4, 2007 in Book 15)
The Birth of Tragedy
Friedrich Nietzsche
Section 13
Through Socrates and Euripides the Greek culture placed greater emphasis on enlightenment and knowledge.
Socrates found that the 'wisest' of all Greeks really know nothing and only operated by instinct.
Socrates is the anti-mystic. Rather than relying on instinctive wisdom as the mystic does he uses consciousness to develop a hyper logical system.
The dying Socrates replaced all the old hero of Greece and became the image to which every young Grecian strived for.
Section 14
Socrates and his followers despised tragedy, but found solace and joy in the fables of Aesop.
"Poems are useful: they can tell the truth by means of parable to those who are not very bright" (Nietzsche, 90).
Socrates saw that tragedy did not tell the truth and that it was aimed at those who were not very bright. For these reasons it is doubly contemptible.
Plato also held tragedy in contempt, but his own artistic impulses necessitated him to create an art that was borne of the old ones.
Plato saw art as an imitation of a shadow and thus lower than even the contemptible empirical world.
Plato's dialogues blended narrative, lyric, drama, prose and poetry. He broke the strict law of uniformity of linguistics and created a whole new genre of art.
Plato's dialogues served as the savior of old poetry and the template for the novel.
The Apollonian tendency withdrew to logical schematism and the Dionysian transformed into Naturalism.
The optimistic maxims of
1) Virtue is knowledge
2) Man sins only from ignorance
3) The virtuous man is happy man served to fully kill tragedy.
Optimism destroys the essence of tragedy.
Though harsh against art in life at death Socrates obeyed the divine call to music asking, "Perhaps art is even a necessary correlative of, and supplement for science" (Nietzsche, 93).
Section 15
The Socratic way of life which exists today prompts a constant regeneration of art. The infinite of Socrates guarantees the infinity of art.
Socrates, to be recognized as truthful, must be viewed as the "theoretical man whose significance and aim it is our task to try and understand" (Nietzsche, 94).
The artist clings to the mystery while the theoretical man clings to what was once mystery and is non-known.
Lessing [who is Lessing?] is the most honest theoretical man because he announced that he cared more for the search for truth then for truth itself.
With Socrates, a profound illusion was born. This illusion holds that through unshakeable through using causality one can penetrate the deepest abyss of being and can furthermore correct the errors in being.
This metaphysical illusion accompanies science as an instinct and leads science time and time again to its limits where it must transform into art.
Socrates was the first man to live and die by the instinct of science. The dying Socrates is admired because he has absolved all fear of death through knowledge and reason.
Socrates stands as the turning point of history.
Pessimism in a practical sense will take over wherever art does not appear, especially as religion or science.
Socrates is the anti-pessimist. His optimistic faith that nature is intelligible and that sin is error, which is correctible denies pessimism a foothold.
Science needs art to protect it from its own boundaries. At the boundaries of science man becomes pessimistic if not reminded by art.
Section 16
There is a dichotomy between an insatiable lust for optimistic knowledge and the tragic need for art.
Apollo is the genius of the principium individuationis in which redemption through illusion is truly obtained. Dionysus is the mystical union in which the Apollonian principle is broken. It is from these two sources in which all art is born.
We may regard nature and music as two different expressions of the same thing.
Music is a universal language. It resembles geometrical figures and numbers as a definitive universalism. Music as a universal language is experienced a priori.
Music is not a copy of the physical world, but a copy of the will itself. As such, it stands in relation to the world as the will stands in relation to the world.
The world is embodied music as the world is embodied will.
Music, according to Schopenhauer, is the immediate language of the will.
Image and concept attain a higher significance under the influence of a truly corresponding music.
Music incites to the symbolic intuition of Dionysian Universality and music allows the symbolic image to emerge in its highest significance.
Music gives birth to the myth, most importantly the tragic myth: "the myth which expresses Dionysian knowledge in symbols" (Nietzsche, 103).
It is only through music that individuals can understand the joy of the annihilation of the individual.
Apollonian art triumphs the joys of this life by overshadowing suffering with beauty. Dionysian art overcomes the suffering of this life through the belief in the eternal life of the unified will.
Section 17
Dionysian art seeks to convince of us of the eternal joy of existence. But as Apollonian art does this through phenomena, Dionysian art seeks this from behind phenomena.
Myth was annihilated by the faith in science. Music is the way for myth to be reborn.
Aristophanes saw Socrates, Euripides and the music of the New Dithyrambic poets which mirrored phenomena, not the will itself, as enemies and destroyers of art.
By setting music to be descriptive of phenomena, music has been robbed of its power to create myth.
Music which merely represents phenomena is wretchedly poorer than the phenomena itself.
In Euripides, we see the triumph of scientific knowledge and the demise of artistic reflection. The phenomenal particulars win out over the universals.
Tragedy revealed a metaphysical comfort through music. But with music stripped of its myth-bearing power there is no metaphysical comfort and knowledge leaves us rawer than before we knew. There is no solace in science apart from art.
The new spirit of Greek art, deprived of myth, was to seek comfort in an earthly, phenomenal dissolution of tragedy. The hated deus ex machina replaced the metaphysical comfort.
The Dionysian spirit having been banished from the stage fled into the degenerate form of cult.
With the deus ex machina the Dionysian spirit was driven underground and individualism heralded the deus ex machina as the true comfort.
Metaphysical, universal comfort was lost and replaced by momentary particular comforts.
Section 18
There are three cultures:
1. Socratic (Alexandrian)
2. Hellenic (Artistic)
3. Tragic (Buddhistic)
The Alexandrian culture idolizes the theoretical man, reason, knowledge and science above all else.
The Socratic culture is delusional optimistic in believing that it possesses limitless power.
Myth is the necessary prerequisite of religion.
The tragic (Buddhistic) culture replaces science with wisdom at its highest end.
The Socratic culture will tremble with fear once its optimism has been shattered by learning of its power limitations.
Section 19
The Socratic culture is the culture of the opera.
The Socratic culture endures the music of opera to hear the words. All the while he trembles at the thought of giving the music too much appreciation and undoing the base of his culture.
The art of the opera responds to a powerful need, but it is a non-aesthetic need. It responds to the need for faith in the existence of the artistic and good man.
The origin of opera is the fulfillment of a non-aesthetic need: the glorification of man. It stands contra to the dogma of the inherently corrupt and lost man.
Opera is a birthing of the theoretical man, not the artist. The non-musical heroes of Opera demand t hat words are nobler than the tones as the soul is nobler than the body.
The opera is a crude unmusical combination of image, music and words.
"The premise of the opera is a false belief concerning the artistic process: the idyllic belief that every sentient man is an artist" (Nietzsche, 117).
The cultured Renaissance man let himself be led back to the primitive artistic man by imitation of Greek tragedy.
The opera does not touch sorrow as art ought to, but rather emphasizes the cheery optimism of eternal rediscovery.
Those who seek to destroy the unmusical opera would have to destroy the whole of the Socratic culture.
Art in the Socratic culture is empty because it is void of its true purpose: "to save the eye from gazing into the horrors of night and to deliver the subject by the healing balm of illusion from the spasms of the agitation of the will" (Nietzsche, 118).
Music is powerless when it is alienated from its true dignity as the Dionysian mirror of the world and as an expression of the will itself.
Music cannot be a slave to the phenomena or be a mere imitation of the formal characteristics of phenomena.
The Socratic culture cannot explain nor tolerate the reemergence of the Dionysian spirit which has taken place in music from Bach to Beethoven to Wagner.
The Dionysian spirit of this German music is the sole purifying fire in the Alexandrian culture of knowledge lust.
"All that we now call culture, education, civilization must some day appear before the unerring judge, Dionysus" (Nietzsche, 120).
Kant and Schopenhauer made it possible for the spirit of German philosophy to destroy Socratic scientific optimism.
The oneness of German music and philosophy points to the emergence of a Hellenic society. The Alexandrian age seems to be receding backwards to the Dawn of a new tragic age.
The Birth of Tragedy
Friedrich Nietzsche
Section 13
Through Socrates and Euripides the Greek culture placed greater emphasis on enlightenment and knowledge.
Socrates found that the 'wisest' of all Greeks really know nothing and only operated by instinct.
Socrates is the anti-mystic. Rather than relying on instinctive wisdom as the mystic does he uses consciousness to develop a hyper logical system.
The dying Socrates replaced all the old hero of Greece and became the image to which every young Grecian strived for.
Section 14
Socrates and his followers despised tragedy, but found solace and joy in the fables of Aesop.
"Poems are useful: they can tell the truth by means of parable to those who are not very bright" (Nietzsche, 90).
Socrates saw that tragedy did not tell the truth and that it was aimed at those who were not very bright. For these reasons it is doubly contemptible.
Plato also held tragedy in contempt, but his own artistic impulses necessitated him to create an art that was borne of the old ones.
Plato saw art as an imitation of a shadow and thus lower than even the contemptible empirical world.
Plato's dialogues blended narrative, lyric, drama, prose and poetry. He broke the strict law of uniformity of linguistics and created a whole new genre of art.
Plato's dialogues served as the savior of old poetry and the template for the novel.
The Apollonian tendency withdrew to logical schematism and the Dionysian transformed into Naturalism.
The optimistic maxims of
1) Virtue is knowledge
2) Man sins only from ignorance
3) The virtuous man is happy man served to fully kill tragedy.
Optimism destroys the essence of tragedy.
Though harsh against art in life at death Socrates obeyed the divine call to music asking, "Perhaps art is even a necessary correlative of, and supplement for science" (Nietzsche, 93).
Section 15
The Socratic way of life which exists today prompts a constant regeneration of art. The infinite of Socrates guarantees the infinity of art.
Socrates, to be recognized as truthful, must be viewed as the "theoretical man whose significance and aim it is our task to try and understand" (Nietzsche, 94).
The artist clings to the mystery while the theoretical man clings to what was once mystery and is non-known.
Lessing [who is Lessing?] is the most honest theoretical man because he announced that he cared more for the search for truth then for truth itself.
With Socrates, a profound illusion was born. This illusion holds that through unshakeable through using causality one can penetrate the deepest abyss of being and can furthermore correct the errors in being.
This metaphysical illusion accompanies science as an instinct and leads science time and time again to its limits where it must transform into art.
Socrates was the first man to live and die by the instinct of science. The dying Socrates is admired because he has absolved all fear of death through knowledge and reason.
Socrates stands as the turning point of history.
Pessimism in a practical sense will take over wherever art does not appear, especially as religion or science.
Socrates is the anti-pessimist. His optimistic faith that nature is intelligible and that sin is error, which is correctible denies pessimism a foothold.
Science needs art to protect it from its own boundaries. At the boundaries of science man becomes pessimistic if not reminded by art.
Section 16
There is a dichotomy between an insatiable lust for optimistic knowledge and the tragic need for art.
Apollo is the genius of the principium individuationis in which redemption through illusion is truly obtained. Dionysus is the mystical union in which the Apollonian principle is broken. It is from these two sources in which all art is born.
We may regard nature and music as two different expressions of the same thing.
Music is a universal language. It resembles geometrical figures and numbers as a definitive universalism. Music as a universal language is experienced a priori.
Music is not a copy of the physical world, but a copy of the will itself. As such, it stands in relation to the world as the will stands in relation to the world.
The world is embodied music as the world is embodied will.
Music, according to Schopenhauer, is the immediate language of the will.
Image and concept attain a higher significance under the influence of a truly corresponding music.
Music incites to the symbolic intuition of Dionysian Universality and music allows the symbolic image to emerge in its highest significance.
Music gives birth to the myth, most importantly the tragic myth: "the myth which expresses Dionysian knowledge in symbols" (Nietzsche, 103).
It is only through music that individuals can understand the joy of the annihilation of the individual.
Apollonian art triumphs the joys of this life by overshadowing suffering with beauty. Dionysian art overcomes the suffering of this life through the belief in the eternal life of the unified will.
Section 17
Dionysian art seeks to convince of us of the eternal joy of existence. But as Apollonian art does this through phenomena, Dionysian art seeks this from behind phenomena.
Myth was annihilated by the faith in science. Music is the way for myth to be reborn.
Aristophanes saw Socrates, Euripides and the music of the New Dithyrambic poets which mirrored phenomena, not the will itself, as enemies and destroyers of art.
By setting music to be descriptive of phenomena, music has been robbed of its power to create myth.
Music which merely represents phenomena is wretchedly poorer than the phenomena itself.
In Euripides, we see the triumph of scientific knowledge and the demise of artistic reflection. The phenomenal particulars win out over the universals.
Tragedy revealed a metaphysical comfort through music. But with music stripped of its myth-bearing power there is no metaphysical comfort and knowledge leaves us rawer than before we knew. There is no solace in science apart from art.
The new spirit of Greek art, deprived of myth, was to seek comfort in an earthly, phenomenal dissolution of tragedy. The hated deus ex machina replaced the metaphysical comfort.
The Dionysian spirit having been banished from the stage fled into the degenerate form of cult.
With the deus ex machina the Dionysian spirit was driven underground and individualism heralded the deus ex machina as the true comfort.
Metaphysical, universal comfort was lost and replaced by momentary particular comforts.
Section 18
There are three cultures:
1. Socratic (Alexandrian)
2. Hellenic (Artistic)
3. Tragic (Buddhistic)
The Alexandrian culture idolizes the theoretical man, reason, knowledge and science above all else.
The Socratic culture is delusional optimistic in believing that it possesses limitless power.
Myth is the necessary prerequisite of religion.
The tragic (Buddhistic) culture replaces science with wisdom at its highest end.
The Socratic culture will tremble with fear once its optimism has been shattered by learning of its power limitations.
Section 19
The Socratic culture is the culture of the opera.
The Socratic culture endures the music of opera to hear the words. All the while he trembles at the thought of giving the music too much appreciation and undoing the base of his culture.
The art of the opera responds to a powerful need, but it is a non-aesthetic need. It responds to the need for faith in the existence of the artistic and good man.
The origin of opera is the fulfillment of a non-aesthetic need: the glorification of man. It stands contra to the dogma of the inherently corrupt and lost man.
Opera is a birthing of the theoretical man, not the artist. The non-musical heroes of Opera demand t hat words are nobler than the tones as the soul is nobler than the body.
The opera is a crude unmusical combination of image, music and words.
"The premise of the opera is a false belief concerning the artistic process: the idyllic belief that every sentient man is an artist" (Nietzsche, 117).
The cultured Renaissance man let himself be led back to the primitive artistic man by imitation of Greek tragedy.
The opera does not touch sorrow as art ought to, but rather emphasizes the cheery optimism of eternal rediscovery.
Those who seek to destroy the unmusical opera would have to destroy the whole of the Socratic culture.
Art in the Socratic culture is empty because it is void of its true purpose: "to save the eye from gazing into the horrors of night and to deliver the subject by the healing balm of illusion from the spasms of the agitation of the will" (Nietzsche, 118).
Music is powerless when it is alienated from its true dignity as the Dionysian mirror of the world and as an expression of the will itself.
Music cannot be a slave to the phenomena or be a mere imitation of the formal characteristics of phenomena.
The Socratic culture cannot explain nor tolerate the reemergence of the Dionysian spirit which has taken place in music from Bach to Beethoven to Wagner.
The Dionysian spirit of this German music is the sole purifying fire in the Alexandrian culture of knowledge lust.
"All that we now call culture, education, civilization must some day appear before the unerring judge, Dionysus" (Nietzsche, 120).
Kant and Schopenhauer made it possible for the spirit of German philosophy to destroy Socratic scientific optimism.
The oneness of German music and philosophy points to the emergence of a Hellenic society. The Alexandrian age seems to be receding backwards to the Dawn of a new tragic age.
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.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Ontological Arguments and Objections
(Originally written March 7, 2007 in Book 13)
Anselm's Debate with Gaunilo
Gaunilo objected to Anselm's argument on a few grounds:
1. It is built on the false premise that whatever exists in the mind must exist outside the mind.
2. If God's non-existence were really inconceivable then no one could doubt his existence.
3. We cannot even form the concept of the most perfect being possible.
4. The existence of God cannot be inferred from the idea of a perfect Being anymore than the existence of a perfect island can be inferred from the idea of a perfect island.
5. God's nonexistence is no more inconceivable than my own nonexistence. I can conceive of my own nonexistence so I can conceive of God's nonexistence too.
6. God's existence must be proved before we can discuss his essence. Otherwise there is no basis for saying he is the most perfect Being possible.
Anselm's replies:
1. The argument only applies to an absolute perfect Being.
2. God's nonexistence is affirmable, but not conceivable.
3. We do understand the word because of 6 facts:
- It is a common word
- It is a familiar word
- Our faith and conscience provide content for it
- Conceptions do not have to be in terms of sensible images
- God can be understood indirectly
- Those who deny that they can have a conception of God must have a conception of what they cannot conceive
4. The idea of an absolutely perfect Being cannot lack anything, especially being; whereas, the idea of anything else can lack being.
5. If it is possible for a necessary being a necessary being must exist. It's nonexistence is inconceivable.
6. We can compare ideal characteristics prior to ascertaining their reality.
Anselm charged Gaunilo with misunderstanding the argument as:
1. God is the greatest of all Beings
2. It is greater to exist in reality then merely in the understanding.
3. Therefore, God must exist in reality.
Anselm states this argument confuses the greatest actual Being with the greatest possible being.
Aquinas' objection to the ontological argument
Aquinas understood Anselm to mean:
1. God is by definition that then which nothing greater can be conceived
2. What exists actually and mentally is greater than that with exists only mentally.
3. Therefore, God must exist actually.
Aquinas had 3 objections to the argument:
1. Not everyone understands the term "God" to mean that then which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. Even if everyone did understand that the term God meant this, it does not follow that God exists actually.
3. The proposition "God exists" is self-evident, but not self-evident to us.
Descartes' formulation of the Ontological Argument
Descartes' argument (2nd form)
1. It is logically necessary to affirm of a concept whatever is essential to the nature of that concept.
2. Existence is a logically necessary part of the concept of a necessary Existent.
3. Therefore, it is logically necessary to affirm that a necessary Existent does exist.
"If God by definition cannot exist, then he must exist" (128).
Descartes' argument (1st form)
1. Whatever we clearly and distinctly perceive of something is true.
2. We clearly and distinctly perceive that the conception of an absolutely perfect Being necessitates the existence of that Being.
3. Therefore, it is true that an absolutely perfect Being cannot lack existence.
Descartes qualified his argument in three ways:
1. This argument applies only to an absolutely perfect or necessary being.
2. It is not necessary for anyone to think of God, but if and when he does he must conceive of God as necessarily existing.
3. To conceive of God as a necessary Being is not imaginary, but necessary. The concept of a necessary being must be what it is and cannot be any other way. Thus, the concept of a necessary Being cannot be the product of one's imagination.
The debate between Caters and Descartes
Caters the priest agreed with Thomas Aquinas in that he felt the Ontological Argument proved only a conceptual and not a real existence of God.
Caters contended that the words "existent lion" is conceptually necessary, but it does not prove that a lion exists.
Descartes stated that Aquinas refuted an argument that stated existence is concluded from the meaning of God, not his own argument.
Other reactions to Descartes' proofs
Other 17th century philosophers reacted negatively to Descartes' arguments. They restated his argument this way.
1. If it is not contradictory that God exists, then it is certain that He exists.
2. It is not contradictory that God exists.
3. Therefore, it is certain that God exists.
They objected to Descartes' argument in two ways:
1. The minor premise can be doubted or denied.
2. Descartes admitted that his idea of God was inadequate and thus unclear. By Descartes definition of truth as "clear and distinct" then it is untrue.
Descartes' replies:
1. God's nonexistence is noncontradictory in either of two senses of the word:
- Whatever does not disagree with human thought (God is noncontradictory)
- What cannot be known by the human mind (no one could know anything, thus God's existence is noncontradictory)
2. Even if our concept of God is inadequate it does not follow that it is contradictory. God's necessary existence is a clear concept, thus the argument is unaffected by lack of clarity in other aspects of God's nature.
The debate between Gassendi and Descartes.
Pierre Gassendi, a skeptic, contended that Descartes confused existence with a property. He argued with 7 points:
1. The essence of a thing can be thought of apart from its existence.
2. Existence is not a property.
3. Essence and existence can be distinguished only in thought, not in reality.
4. We are just as free to think of God as not existing as we are to think of Pegasus as not existing.
5. We need demonstration that God exists, not merely the assumption that it does.
6. Descartes did not really prove that nonexistence is incompatible with God.
Descartes replied to Gassendi with four points:
1. Existence is a property in that it is attributable to something. Necessary existence is a necessary property of a necessary being.
2. We cannot compare the existence of that which is contingent to the existence of what is necessary.
3. It is not begging the question to include existence among the attributes of a necessary Existent.
4. God's existence and essence are inseparable.
Leibniz's Consideration of the Ontological Argument
Leibniz held that the ontological argument was valid but sensed that it was necessary to demonstrate the concept of God was not contradictory.
He stated
1. If it is possible for an absolutely perfect Being to exist, then it is necessary that it exists.
2. It is possible (noncontradictory) for an absolutely perfect being to exist.
3. Therefore, it is necessary that an absolutely perfect Being exist.
To support his minor premise Leibniz argued that:
1. A perfection is a simple and irreducible quality without any essential limitations.
2. Whatever is simple cannot conflict with other irresolvably simple qualities (they differ in kind).
3. Whatever differs in kind with another cannot conflict with it.
4. Therefore, it is possible for on Being (God) to possess all possible perfections.
Three objections to Leibniz's arg.
1. It assumes that some qualities are essentially positive and others negative, but this may not be the case.
2. Leibniz assumes that some qualities are intrinsically simple, but Wittgenstein showed that what is simple in one conceptual system may be complex in another.
3. It depends on the principle of the actual identity which is conceptually indiscernible.
Spinoza's Ontological Proof
Like Descartes, Spinoza held that God was mathematically demonstrable.
Spinoza's argument:
1. There must be a cause for everything, either for its existence or for its nonexistence.
2. A necessary Being (God) necessarily exists, unless there is an adequate cause to explain why he does not exist.
3. There is no adequate cause to explain why he does not exist.
4. Therefore, a necessary Being, necessarily exists.
One may object to Spinoza's insistence that there must be a cause for nothing because it appears contradictory.
Spinoza's second form:
1. Something necessarily exists.
2. This necessary existence is either finite or infinite.
3. It is possible for this necessary existence to be infinite.
4. There must be a cause as to why this is not an infinite existence.
5. No finite existence can hinder this being (an infinite existence).
6. Therefore, this must be an infinite existence
Spinoza's arguments borrow from the premise that something exists from the cosmological argument.
Spinoza's God is not the theistic God of Leibniz or Anselm, it is a pantheistic God.
The Objections of Hume and Kant
Hume's Objection:
1. Nothing is rationally demonstrable unless the contrary implies a contradictory
2. Nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction
3. Whatever we conceive to exist we can conceive as nonexistent
4. There is no being whose existence implies a contradiction
5. Therefore, there is no being whose existence is rationally demonstrable.
Hume argues that no argument for God is rationally inescapable because it always contains premises that are logically deniable.
Kant's critique of the Ontological proof
Kant objected to the fact that we have no positive concept of a necessary Being (that which cannot be).
He also contended that necessity applied only to propositions, not existence.
Also, what is logically possible is not always ontologically possible.
Existence (Kant held) is not a predicate of a thing. It is not a perfection.
Supposed Causes of the Ontological Mistake
Opponents of the Ontological argument have blamed many sources of the ontological 'mistake'
1) Platonic Philosophy - Platonic epistemology holds that one can directly and intuitively know essences.
2) Metaphysical thinking - some argue that "is" or "exists" is only logical, not ontological.
3) Confusion of cause and reason - Causes need something outside of itself where a reason can be itself (Schopenhauer)
4) Use of a proper name - the use of a proper name implies existence (Russell)
5) The use of the English conditional. Alvin Plantinga claimed that "If Jones is a bachelor, then he is necessarily not married" does not imply "Jones is a bachelor". There may be no Jones. Likewise, "If God exists, then he Necessarily exists" does not imply "God exists" There may be no God at all.
Linehan - Unfair analogy!
"IF Jones is a bachelor, then he is necessarily not married" may not imply "Jones is a bachelor". There may be no Jones. But there is a bachelor. Likewise, "If God exists, then he necessarily exists" may not imply "God exists" But, there is a necessary existence which must be filled by a necessary Existent, which is God.
Findlay's Ontological Disproof of God.
The ontological argument has been widely rejected in modern times.
J. N. Findlay used the ontological proof against itself:
1. God must be thought of as a necessary Being, for anything else short of this would be unworthy of worship.
2. But existential necessary propositions cannot be true for necessity is merely a logical characteristic of propositions, not of reality.
3. Therefore, God cannot exist.
A simpler, proper form of this argument:
1. The only way a necessary Being could exist is to exist necessarily.
2. The proposition "God exists necessarily" is an existentially necessary proposition.
3. No existentially necessary propositions can be true.
4. Therefore, the proposition "God exists necessarily" cannot be true.
A theist can object to this in 4 ways:
1. Change the proposition "God exists necessarily" to "God exists". Then holding the proposition "God exists" as a logically necessary proposition to hold.
2. Deny that necessity applied to existential propositions makes them untrue. (Existentially necessary propositions can be true). Examples of existentially necessary propositions: "I am I". "There is an infinite number of prime numbers". "Square circles do not exist".
3. "God necessarily exists" is a special case (Anselm and Descartes).
4. Findlay's statement "there are no existentially necessary propositions" is an existentially necessary proposition.
Hartshorne's Restatement of the Ontological Proof.
Charles Hartshorne is one of the most ardent defenders of the ontological argument and states it like this:
1. The existence of a necessary being is either:
a) Impossible, and there is no example of it
b) Possible, but there is no example of it
c) Possible, and there is an example of it
2. Possible, but there is no example of it is meaningless because a necessary Being cannot be a possible being.
3. Impossible, and there is no example of it is not eliminated by the ontological argument, but the meaningfulness of the term 'necessary Being' is a justifiable assumption that may be defeated on other grounds.
Hartshorne's Argument:
1. All thought must refer to something beyond itself which is at least possible
2. The necessary existence of a necessary Being is at least possible.
3. With a necessary Being an "at-least-possible" existence is indistinguishable from a "possible and actual" existence. A necessary Being cannot have a "merely possible" existence.
4. Therefore, a necessary Being necessarily has both a possible and an actual existence.
Hartshorne's view of God is neither theistic and pantheistic. It is panentheistic.
Hartshorne states, "Either God is a meaningless term or there exists a divine Being" (141).
All versions of the ontological argument contain the implicit premise that what is rationally inescapable is the real.
Malcolm's restatement of the ontological proof
Malcolm believes that Kant invalidated Anselm's first form, but the second form is immune to all criticism.
Malcolm's restatement of Anselm's 2nd form:
1. The existence of a necessary being must be either:
a) a necessary existence
b) an impossible existence
c) a possible existence
2. The existence of a necessary Being is not an impossible existence
a) No one has ever shown the concept of a necessary being to be contradictory
b) there is a basis in human experience for "a greater than which cannot be thought"
c) Leibniz's attempt to prove that there is no contradiction fails. We cannot show that there cannot be one.
3. The existence of a necessary Being cannot be a possible being because:
a) it is contradictory to the very nature of a necessary being
b) a possible being is dependent, a necessary Being is independent
4. Therefore, A necessary Being Necessarily exists
Plantinga's Critique of the Ontological Argument
Plantinga argues that God could exist without his existence being a necessary one. His existence could be logically contingent but not ontologically so.
Planting states that it is logically possible that God never existed at all. It is logically possible that nothing ever existent including God.
All that proponents of the ontological argument have to do invalidate Plantinga's objections too.
Planting offers an ontological argument that is very cosmological. It has left the a priori realm and moved into the a posteriori realm.
Planting uses modal logic in his argument:
1. The property "has maximal greatness" entails the property "has maximal excellence in every possible world"
2. Maximal excellence entails omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection.
3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified.
4. There is a world "W" and an essence "E" such that "E" is exemplified in "W" and "E" entails the property "has maximal greatness in W"
5. For any object X, if X, exemplifies E then X exemplifies the property "has maximal excellence in every possible world".
6. E entails the property "has maximal excellence in every possible world".
7. If W had been actual, it would be impossible that E fail to be exemplified.
8. What is impossible does not vary from world to world.
9. There exists a being that has maximal excellence in every world.
10 Therefore, the being that has maximal excellence exists in the actual world.
Plantinga's argument is tight and compelling. It avoids many of the traditional criticism of the ontological argument. However there are a few criticisms:
1. The use of modal logic assumes existence of an actual world. Thus, it is a posteriori, not a priori.
2. Defining a perfect being in theistic terms is gratuitous.
3. The essence E is supposed by Plantinga to havre a real existence.
The ontological argument to be valid must assume that something exists and thus it rests on a cosmological principle.
The ontological argument has not proven God exists by itself. It has in fact yielded four types of God and a possible atheistic conception:
1. Leibniz & Descartes - theistic God
2. Spinoza - pantheistic God
3. Hartshorne - panentheistic God
4. Henle - polytheistic gods
5. Atheism - the universe is necessary, but does not include God
Anselm's Debate with Gaunilo
Gaunilo objected to Anselm's argument on a few grounds:
1. It is built on the false premise that whatever exists in the mind must exist outside the mind.
2. If God's non-existence were really inconceivable then no one could doubt his existence.
3. We cannot even form the concept of the most perfect being possible.
4. The existence of God cannot be inferred from the idea of a perfect Being anymore than the existence of a perfect island can be inferred from the idea of a perfect island.
5. God's nonexistence is no more inconceivable than my own nonexistence. I can conceive of my own nonexistence so I can conceive of God's nonexistence too.
6. God's existence must be proved before we can discuss his essence. Otherwise there is no basis for saying he is the most perfect Being possible.
Anselm's replies:
1. The argument only applies to an absolute perfect Being.
2. God's nonexistence is affirmable, but not conceivable.
3. We do understand the word because of 6 facts:
- It is a common word
- It is a familiar word
- Our faith and conscience provide content for it
- Conceptions do not have to be in terms of sensible images
- God can be understood indirectly
- Those who deny that they can have a conception of God must have a conception of what they cannot conceive
4. The idea of an absolutely perfect Being cannot lack anything, especially being; whereas, the idea of anything else can lack being.
5. If it is possible for a necessary being a necessary being must exist. It's nonexistence is inconceivable.
6. We can compare ideal characteristics prior to ascertaining their reality.
Anselm charged Gaunilo with misunderstanding the argument as:
1. God is the greatest of all Beings
2. It is greater to exist in reality then merely in the understanding.
3. Therefore, God must exist in reality.
Anselm states this argument confuses the greatest actual Being with the greatest possible being.
Aquinas' objection to the ontological argument
Aquinas understood Anselm to mean:
1. God is by definition that then which nothing greater can be conceived
2. What exists actually and mentally is greater than that with exists only mentally.
3. Therefore, God must exist actually.
Aquinas had 3 objections to the argument:
1. Not everyone understands the term "God" to mean that then which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. Even if everyone did understand that the term God meant this, it does not follow that God exists actually.
3. The proposition "God exists" is self-evident, but not self-evident to us.
Descartes' formulation of the Ontological Argument
Descartes' argument (2nd form)
1. It is logically necessary to affirm of a concept whatever is essential to the nature of that concept.
2. Existence is a logically necessary part of the concept of a necessary Existent.
3. Therefore, it is logically necessary to affirm that a necessary Existent does exist.
"If God by definition cannot exist, then he must exist" (128).
Descartes' argument (1st form)
1. Whatever we clearly and distinctly perceive of something is true.
2. We clearly and distinctly perceive that the conception of an absolutely perfect Being necessitates the existence of that Being.
3. Therefore, it is true that an absolutely perfect Being cannot lack existence.
Descartes qualified his argument in three ways:
1. This argument applies only to an absolutely perfect or necessary being.
2. It is not necessary for anyone to think of God, but if and when he does he must conceive of God as necessarily existing.
3. To conceive of God as a necessary Being is not imaginary, but necessary. The concept of a necessary being must be what it is and cannot be any other way. Thus, the concept of a necessary Being cannot be the product of one's imagination.
The debate between Caters and Descartes
Caters the priest agreed with Thomas Aquinas in that he felt the Ontological Argument proved only a conceptual and not a real existence of God.
Caters contended that the words "existent lion" is conceptually necessary, but it does not prove that a lion exists.
Descartes stated that Aquinas refuted an argument that stated existence is concluded from the meaning of God, not his own argument.
Other reactions to Descartes' proofs
Other 17th century philosophers reacted negatively to Descartes' arguments. They restated his argument this way.
1. If it is not contradictory that God exists, then it is certain that He exists.
2. It is not contradictory that God exists.
3. Therefore, it is certain that God exists.
They objected to Descartes' argument in two ways:
1. The minor premise can be doubted or denied.
2. Descartes admitted that his idea of God was inadequate and thus unclear. By Descartes definition of truth as "clear and distinct" then it is untrue.
Descartes' replies:
1. God's nonexistence is noncontradictory in either of two senses of the word:
- Whatever does not disagree with human thought (God is noncontradictory)
- What cannot be known by the human mind (no one could know anything, thus God's existence is noncontradictory)
2. Even if our concept of God is inadequate it does not follow that it is contradictory. God's necessary existence is a clear concept, thus the argument is unaffected by lack of clarity in other aspects of God's nature.
The debate between Gassendi and Descartes.
Pierre Gassendi, a skeptic, contended that Descartes confused existence with a property. He argued with 7 points:
1. The essence of a thing can be thought of apart from its existence.
2. Existence is not a property.
3. Essence and existence can be distinguished only in thought, not in reality.
4. We are just as free to think of God as not existing as we are to think of Pegasus as not existing.
5. We need demonstration that God exists, not merely the assumption that it does.
6. Descartes did not really prove that nonexistence is incompatible with God.
Descartes replied to Gassendi with four points:
1. Existence is a property in that it is attributable to something. Necessary existence is a necessary property of a necessary being.
2. We cannot compare the existence of that which is contingent to the existence of what is necessary.
3. It is not begging the question to include existence among the attributes of a necessary Existent.
4. God's existence and essence are inseparable.
Leibniz's Consideration of the Ontological Argument
Leibniz held that the ontological argument was valid but sensed that it was necessary to demonstrate the concept of God was not contradictory.
He stated
1. If it is possible for an absolutely perfect Being to exist, then it is necessary that it exists.
2. It is possible (noncontradictory) for an absolutely perfect being to exist.
3. Therefore, it is necessary that an absolutely perfect Being exist.
To support his minor premise Leibniz argued that:
1. A perfection is a simple and irreducible quality without any essential limitations.
2. Whatever is simple cannot conflict with other irresolvably simple qualities (they differ in kind).
3. Whatever differs in kind with another cannot conflict with it.
4. Therefore, it is possible for on Being (God) to possess all possible perfections.
Three objections to Leibniz's arg.
1. It assumes that some qualities are essentially positive and others negative, but this may not be the case.
2. Leibniz assumes that some qualities are intrinsically simple, but Wittgenstein showed that what is simple in one conceptual system may be complex in another.
3. It depends on the principle of the actual identity which is conceptually indiscernible.
Spinoza's Ontological Proof
Like Descartes, Spinoza held that God was mathematically demonstrable.
Spinoza's argument:
1. There must be a cause for everything, either for its existence or for its nonexistence.
2. A necessary Being (God) necessarily exists, unless there is an adequate cause to explain why he does not exist.
3. There is no adequate cause to explain why he does not exist.
4. Therefore, a necessary Being, necessarily exists.
One may object to Spinoza's insistence that there must be a cause for nothing because it appears contradictory.
Spinoza's second form:
1. Something necessarily exists.
2. This necessary existence is either finite or infinite.
3. It is possible for this necessary existence to be infinite.
4. There must be a cause as to why this is not an infinite existence.
5. No finite existence can hinder this being (an infinite existence).
6. Therefore, this must be an infinite existence
Spinoza's arguments borrow from the premise that something exists from the cosmological argument.
Spinoza's God is not the theistic God of Leibniz or Anselm, it is a pantheistic God.
The Objections of Hume and Kant
Hume's Objection:
1. Nothing is rationally demonstrable unless the contrary implies a contradictory
2. Nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction
3. Whatever we conceive to exist we can conceive as nonexistent
4. There is no being whose existence implies a contradiction
5. Therefore, there is no being whose existence is rationally demonstrable.
Hume argues that no argument for God is rationally inescapable because it always contains premises that are logically deniable.
Kant's critique of the Ontological proof
Kant objected to the fact that we have no positive concept of a necessary Being (that which cannot be).
He also contended that necessity applied only to propositions, not existence.
Also, what is logically possible is not always ontologically possible.
Existence (Kant held) is not a predicate of a thing. It is not a perfection.
Supposed Causes of the Ontological Mistake
Opponents of the Ontological argument have blamed many sources of the ontological 'mistake'
1) Platonic Philosophy - Platonic epistemology holds that one can directly and intuitively know essences.
2) Metaphysical thinking - some argue that "is" or "exists" is only logical, not ontological.
3) Confusion of cause and reason - Causes need something outside of itself where a reason can be itself (Schopenhauer)
4) Use of a proper name - the use of a proper name implies existence (Russell)
5) The use of the English conditional. Alvin Plantinga claimed that "If Jones is a bachelor, then he is necessarily not married" does not imply "Jones is a bachelor". There may be no Jones. Likewise, "If God exists, then he Necessarily exists" does not imply "God exists" There may be no God at all.
Linehan - Unfair analogy!
"IF Jones is a bachelor, then he is necessarily not married" may not imply "Jones is a bachelor". There may be no Jones. But there is a bachelor. Likewise, "If God exists, then he necessarily exists" may not imply "God exists" But, there is a necessary existence which must be filled by a necessary Existent, which is God.
Findlay's Ontological Disproof of God.
The ontological argument has been widely rejected in modern times.
J. N. Findlay used the ontological proof against itself:
1. God must be thought of as a necessary Being, for anything else short of this would be unworthy of worship.
2. But existential necessary propositions cannot be true for necessity is merely a logical characteristic of propositions, not of reality.
3. Therefore, God cannot exist.
A simpler, proper form of this argument:
1. The only way a necessary Being could exist is to exist necessarily.
2. The proposition "God exists necessarily" is an existentially necessary proposition.
3. No existentially necessary propositions can be true.
4. Therefore, the proposition "God exists necessarily" cannot be true.
A theist can object to this in 4 ways:
1. Change the proposition "God exists necessarily" to "God exists". Then holding the proposition "God exists" as a logically necessary proposition to hold.
2. Deny that necessity applied to existential propositions makes them untrue. (Existentially necessary propositions can be true). Examples of existentially necessary propositions: "I am I". "There is an infinite number of prime numbers". "Square circles do not exist".
3. "God necessarily exists" is a special case (Anselm and Descartes).
4. Findlay's statement "there are no existentially necessary propositions" is an existentially necessary proposition.
Hartshorne's Restatement of the Ontological Proof.
Charles Hartshorne is one of the most ardent defenders of the ontological argument and states it like this:
1. The existence of a necessary being is either:
a) Impossible, and there is no example of it
b) Possible, but there is no example of it
c) Possible, and there is an example of it
2. Possible, but there is no example of it is meaningless because a necessary Being cannot be a possible being.
3. Impossible, and there is no example of it is not eliminated by the ontological argument, but the meaningfulness of the term 'necessary Being' is a justifiable assumption that may be defeated on other grounds.
Hartshorne's Argument:
1. All thought must refer to something beyond itself which is at least possible
2. The necessary existence of a necessary Being is at least possible.
3. With a necessary Being an "at-least-possible" existence is indistinguishable from a "possible and actual" existence. A necessary Being cannot have a "merely possible" existence.
4. Therefore, a necessary Being necessarily has both a possible and an actual existence.
Hartshorne's view of God is neither theistic and pantheistic. It is panentheistic.
Hartshorne states, "Either God is a meaningless term or there exists a divine Being" (141).
All versions of the ontological argument contain the implicit premise that what is rationally inescapable is the real.
Malcolm's restatement of the ontological proof
Malcolm believes that Kant invalidated Anselm's first form, but the second form is immune to all criticism.
Malcolm's restatement of Anselm's 2nd form:
1. The existence of a necessary being must be either:
a) a necessary existence
b) an impossible existence
c) a possible existence
2. The existence of a necessary Being is not an impossible existence
a) No one has ever shown the concept of a necessary being to be contradictory
b) there is a basis in human experience for "a greater than which cannot be thought"
c) Leibniz's attempt to prove that there is no contradiction fails. We cannot show that there cannot be one.
3. The existence of a necessary Being cannot be a possible being because:
a) it is contradictory to the very nature of a necessary being
b) a possible being is dependent, a necessary Being is independent
4. Therefore, A necessary Being Necessarily exists
Plantinga's Critique of the Ontological Argument
Plantinga argues that God could exist without his existence being a necessary one. His existence could be logically contingent but not ontologically so.
Planting states that it is logically possible that God never existed at all. It is logically possible that nothing ever existent including God.
All that proponents of the ontological argument have to do invalidate Plantinga's objections too.
Planting offers an ontological argument that is very cosmological. It has left the a priori realm and moved into the a posteriori realm.
Planting uses modal logic in his argument:
1. The property "has maximal greatness" entails the property "has maximal excellence in every possible world"
2. Maximal excellence entails omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection.
3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified.
4. There is a world "W" and an essence "E" such that "E" is exemplified in "W" and "E" entails the property "has maximal greatness in W"
5. For any object X, if X, exemplifies E then X exemplifies the property "has maximal excellence in every possible world".
6. E entails the property "has maximal excellence in every possible world".
7. If W had been actual, it would be impossible that E fail to be exemplified.
8. What is impossible does not vary from world to world.
9. There exists a being that has maximal excellence in every world.
10 Therefore, the being that has maximal excellence exists in the actual world.
Plantinga's argument is tight and compelling. It avoids many of the traditional criticism of the ontological argument. However there are a few criticisms:
1. The use of modal logic assumes existence of an actual world. Thus, it is a posteriori, not a priori.
2. Defining a perfect being in theistic terms is gratuitous.
3. The essence E is supposed by Plantinga to havre a real existence.
The ontological argument to be valid must assume that something exists and thus it rests on a cosmological principle.
The ontological argument has not proven God exists by itself. It has in fact yielded four types of God and a possible atheistic conception:
1. Leibniz & Descartes - theistic God
2. Spinoza - pantheistic God
3. Hartshorne - panentheistic God
4. Henle - polytheistic gods
5. Atheism - the universe is necessary, but does not include God
Monday, May 1, 2006
More notes on Schopenhauer
(Originally written May 1, 2006 in Book 3)
Schopenhauer
Life's three greatest blessings are youth, freedom and health; but, we only appreciate them once we have lost them.
Time is only noticed when we are bored, not when we are amused.
Existence is happiest when it is least noticed.
Despite Schopenhauer's pessimistic outlook, he still believes life should be lived as long as possible.
Art plays a central role in Schopenhauer's philosophy.
Schopenhauer
Life's three greatest blessings are youth, freedom and health; but, we only appreciate them once we have lost them.
Time is only noticed when we are bored, not when we are amused.
Existence is happiest when it is least noticed.
Despite Schopenhauer's pessimistic outlook, he still believes life should be lived as long as possible.
Art plays a central role in Schopenhauer's philosophy.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Notes on Schopenhauer
(Originally written April 30, 2006 in Book 3)
Written/Read by street light
Schopenhauer
by Michael Tanner
Arthur Schopenhauer - 1788 - 1860
- Apessimistic view of life
- the will is intrinsically evil
- the arts are vital to life, especially music
-Schopenhauer used many of Kant's fundamental arguments but rejected Kant's limitation of science to save room for faith
-Shopenhauer vehemently denied the categorical imperative
-Shopenhauer's book The World as Will and Representation follows Kant in book 1, but departs in book 2 because (like most philosophers) he cannot agree with Kant's view of the phenomenal world (the world we experience) and the noumenal world (the real world)
- believes that our bodies are the phenomenal representation of the will
- The will is not subject to reason. It is impatient, imperious and egoistic
The world is will and appears as representation.
The will is used to get what we lack. If we lacked nothing we would will nothing, but since we will things constantly, we are in a state of "perfect discontent".
This condition is incurable because as soon as we satisfy a deficiency, we find a new thing we lack. Thus, it is a never-ending cycle.
Life (the will) is 'endless flux'.
The will to live is the most absurd form of willing that man does. We love life in spite of the fact that existence is full of pain, want, misery, trouble and anxiety. If we were to look at it objectively we would not will to live, we would will-to-die. Yet, death (our biggest fear) is abhorred, when actually life should be detestable and death anticipated.
Life can either be lived by ceaseless wanting (which is painful) or by achieving what we want only to be bored by it.
Willing comes from a deficiency and thus, from suffering.
Pleasure is merely the absence of pain.
Even when we become satisfied with bodily needs (hunger, thirst, shelter, etc.) we begin to have imaginative needs, that is our minds are free to create speculative horrors that may befall us.
"The present is always inadequate, but the future is uncertain and the past irrecoverable" (Tanner, 25).
"We notice that certain days of our life were happy only after they have made room for unhappy ones" (Tanner, 26).
Written/Read by street light
Schopenhauer
by Michael Tanner
Arthur Schopenhauer - 1788 - 1860
- Apessimistic view of life
- the will is intrinsically evil
- the arts are vital to life, especially music
-Schopenhauer used many of Kant's fundamental arguments but rejected Kant's limitation of science to save room for faith
-Shopenhauer vehemently denied the categorical imperative
-Shopenhauer's book The World as Will and Representation follows Kant in book 1, but departs in book 2 because (like most philosophers) he cannot agree with Kant's view of the phenomenal world (the world we experience) and the noumenal world (the real world)
- believes that our bodies are the phenomenal representation of the will
- The will is not subject to reason. It is impatient, imperious and egoistic
The world is will and appears as representation.
The will is used to get what we lack. If we lacked nothing we would will nothing, but since we will things constantly, we are in a state of "perfect discontent".
This condition is incurable because as soon as we satisfy a deficiency, we find a new thing we lack. Thus, it is a never-ending cycle.
Life (the will) is 'endless flux'.
The will to live is the most absurd form of willing that man does. We love life in spite of the fact that existence is full of pain, want, misery, trouble and anxiety. If we were to look at it objectively we would not will to live, we would will-to-die. Yet, death (our biggest fear) is abhorred, when actually life should be detestable and death anticipated.
Life can either be lived by ceaseless wanting (which is painful) or by achieving what we want only to be bored by it.
Willing comes from a deficiency and thus, from suffering.
Pleasure is merely the absence of pain.
Even when we become satisfied with bodily needs (hunger, thirst, shelter, etc.) we begin to have imaginative needs, that is our minds are free to create speculative horrors that may befall us.
"The present is always inadequate, but the future is uncertain and the past irrecoverable" (Tanner, 25).
"We notice that certain days of our life were happy only after they have made room for unhappy ones" (Tanner, 26).
Notes on Jones' Kant
(Originally Written April 30, 2006 in Book 3)
Kant & The 19th Century
W.T. Jones
18th Century Philosophers:
-optimistic
- 'Best of all possible worlds'
- 'Whatever is, is right'
Then optimism was shattered. The French Revolution produced Napoleon, the industrial revolution produce over-crowded urban centers and Hume destroyed the basis for knowledge.
Counter scientific movements began.
In steps Kant
Kant
Answers to Hume's critique and shows a priori knowledge of nature is possible, limit science's scope so faith is not squeezed out (two main goals).
Both were accomplished in Kant's "Copernican revolution" of the theory of knowledge.
Theory of Knowledge:
Minds are not contemplators of independent objects. The objects are constructs in which the activity of the mind plays an essential part.
Double thesis - 1) Since cognition includes construction things not in this constructive activity are unknowable. 2) There is a realm of reality that is inaccessible to human minds because they did not participate in its construction.
Post-Kantian philosophers have been either one of two things. Either they agreed with point 1 or point 2.
Why do I love Kant so much?
"[Schopenhauer] resenting - as most subsequent philosophers have - his (Kant's) elaborate, indeed compulsive architectonic, whereby everything is divided into threes and fours and categories and concepts are invented merely to satisfy Kant's craving for symmetry" (Tanner, 2).
Kant & The 19th Century
W.T. Jones
18th Century Philosophers:
-optimistic
- 'Best of all possible worlds'
- 'Whatever is, is right'
Then optimism was shattered. The French Revolution produced Napoleon, the industrial revolution produce over-crowded urban centers and Hume destroyed the basis for knowledge.
Counter scientific movements began.
In steps Kant
Kant
Answers to Hume's critique and shows a priori knowledge of nature is possible, limit science's scope so faith is not squeezed out (two main goals).
Both were accomplished in Kant's "Copernican revolution" of the theory of knowledge.
Theory of Knowledge:
Minds are not contemplators of independent objects. The objects are constructs in which the activity of the mind plays an essential part.
Double thesis - 1) Since cognition includes construction things not in this constructive activity are unknowable. 2) There is a realm of reality that is inaccessible to human minds because they did not participate in its construction.
Post-Kantian philosophers have been either one of two things. Either they agreed with point 1 or point 2.
Why do I love Kant so much?
"[Schopenhauer] resenting - as most subsequent philosophers have - his (Kant's) elaborate, indeed compulsive architectonic, whereby everything is divided into threes and fours and categories and concepts are invented merely to satisfy Kant's craving for symmetry" (Tanner, 2).
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Class notes on Schopenhauer
(Originally Written April 26, 2006 in 3 Subject)
History of Philosophy II
Schopenhauer (1780-1860)
-The world is the objectification of the will
-Reason and abstract knowledge (principle of sufficient reason is basically the law of causality)
-Science is based on the principle of sufficient reason
-Science teaches us about particulars
-Science is a means to an end
-Science via the principle of sufficient reason serves the will, thus the will controls the world through science
The Moral Life:
-To access eternal truth and value we must reject the principle of sufficient reason
-We must turn to the aesthetic attitude and turn to art
-Unlike science, art is about portraying universal, eternal truths
-In art we find immutable, universal truths
-Unlike science, art enables us to overcome the selfish desires of the will. Conversely, science serves the selfish desires of the will.
-Asceticism - denial of the will
-Aestheticism and asceticism go hand in hand
-Artists have a pure insight into eternal truths because of their ascetic lifestyles. They throw off the practicality of thinking scientifically to see the eternal truths.
-Art is born of pain and suffering.
History of Philosophy II
Schopenhauer (1780-1860)
-The world is the objectification of the will
-Reason and abstract knowledge (principle of sufficient reason is basically the law of causality)
-Science is based on the principle of sufficient reason
-Science teaches us about particulars
-Science is a means to an end
-Science via the principle of sufficient reason serves the will, thus the will controls the world through science
The Moral Life:
-To access eternal truth and value we must reject the principle of sufficient reason
-We must turn to the aesthetic attitude and turn to art
-Unlike science, art is about portraying universal, eternal truths
-In art we find immutable, universal truths
-Unlike science, art enables us to overcome the selfish desires of the will. Conversely, science serves the selfish desires of the will.
-Asceticism - denial of the will
-Aestheticism and asceticism go hand in hand
-Artists have a pure insight into eternal truths because of their ascetic lifestyles. They throw off the practicality of thinking scientifically to see the eternal truths.
-Art is born of pain and suffering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)