Notes on Breakfast of Champions

I just finished Breakfast of Champions today and what a fantastic book. Y-O-U have got to read it. Seriously though, it is truly fantastic for numerous reasons. Firstly, it skewers us as humans and us especially as Americans in a delightfully painful way. I'm not advocating masochistic pleasure-seeking when I recommend this book, but if you want to have your patriotic thought processes unnerved a bit (which you should so you don't end up goose-stepping your way through life) this is a great book to achieve that. Secondly, it's a brilliant description of life. I have been working to make myself a good storyteller recently. In fact, that's what this whole blog is essentially about - it's a repository of all my previous notes and current thoughts in the hopes that my future self will be able to easily look back at categorized notes in order to pull something worthy of putting into a story. Vonnegut hates storytellers. He blames storytelling on all the ills that America faces and his argument is pretty sound. Nonetheless, Vonnegut wrote one hell of a story. Thirdly, I love the meta-narrative he does of inserting himself into the story and explaining why he writes the way he does and so on and so forth. It's a fascinating literary device and has instructional value for me as an aspiring writer.

There could be a lot of metaphorical ink wasted if I were to point out every little jib and jab of this book that I particularly enjoyed so I will save the metaphorical carbon black by highlighting only a few of my favorites. In the introduction his discussion of Armistice Day and how the soldiers heard God was great.

"When I was a boy, and when Dwayne Hoover was a boy, all the people of all the nations which had fought in the First World War were silent during the eleventh minute of the eleventh hour of Armistice Day, which was the eleventh day of the eleventh month. It was during that minute in nineteen hundred and eighteen, that millions upon millions of human beings stopped butchering each one another. I have talked to old men who were on battlefields during that minute. They have told me in one way or another that the sudden silence was the Voice of God. So we still have among us some men who can remember when God spoke clearly to mankind" (Vonnegut, 6).

This little blurb sums up for me what Vonnegut does in this book. First, he successfully makes himself a part of the story, which I like. Second, he touches on a brutal subject (WWI) with levity and jokes (stopped butchering one another) without being mean. It's dark, but not mean. Third, his wit and dark humor is amplified through dissonant sarcasm - the Voice of God is silence.

In a little jab at men and women and their roles with each other he writes "'I don't wonder you're tired and nervous,' Francine went on. 'If I was a man, I'd be tired and nervous, too. I guess God made women so men could relax and be treated like little babies from time to time.' She was more than satisfied with this arrangement." (Vonnegut, 154). That's just funny.

His shot at how wealth is accumulated is funny too. "With the passage of time, his shares had become one hundred times as valuable, simply lying in the total darkness and silence of a safe-deposit box. There was a lot of money magic like that going on. It was almost as though some blue fairy were flitting about that part of the dying planet, waving her magic wand over certain deeds and bonds and stock certificates" (Vonnegut, 161).

In contemplating the meaning of life as he is slowly starting to lose his grip on his sanity, Dwayne tells Francine about his visit to the Pontiac factory and the impact that the destruction tests had on him. He recalls seeing (and Vonnegut so kindly drew for us a rendition of it) a door labeled "Destructive Testing" where all the torture of the cars took place. "'I saw that sign,' said Dwayne, 'and I couldn't help wondering if that was what God put me on Earth for - to find out how much a man could take without breaking'" (Vonnegut, 166).

Again in pondering the meaning of life, Vonnegut inserted a story about a greyhound. Forgive me, this is a lengthy quotation but it's funny and can't really be pared down well and retain its hilarity. "The girl with the greyhound was an assistant lighting director for a musical comedy about American history, and she kept her poor greyhound, who was named Lancer, in a one-room apartment fourteen feet wide and twenty-six feet long, and six flights of stairs above street level. His entire life was devoted to unloading his excrement at the proper time and place. There were two proper places to put it: in the gutter outside the door seventy-two steps below, with the traffic whizzing by, or in a roasting pan his mistress kept in front of the Westinghouse refrigerator. Lancer had a very small brain, but he must have suspected from time to time, just as Wayne Hoobler did, that some kind of terrible mistake had been made" (Vonnegut, 198).

In discussing truth a Novelist (Beatrice) and a painter (Karabekian) a sad conclusion about truth is raised. Karabekian had just sold a minimalist painting entitled The Temptation of St. Anthony for an exorbitant price and Beatrice admitted to Karabekian that she had no idea who St. Anthony was. Karabekian responded, "'I don't know, and I would hate to find out,' said Karabekian. 'You have no use for truth?' said Beatrice. 'You know what truth is?' said Karabekian. 'It's some crazy thing my neighbor believes. If I want to make friends with him, I ask him what he believes. He tells me, and I say, Yeah, yeah - ain't it the truth?'" (Vonnegut, 209). Funny. But sad.

Vonnegut places the blame of what makes America a dangerous and unhappy place squarely on the shoulders of the story tellers. The government treated Americans as disposable (a war reference) because authors treated their bit-part players like that. The reason why some details in life are important and others are trivial and the reason why some people in life are important and others are trivial is because authors makes some details important and others trivial and some people important and others trivial in their stories. Vonnegut swore off storytelling. Instead he chose to write about life. "I resolved to shun storytelling. I would write about life. Every person would be exactly as important as any other. All facts would also be given equal weightiness. Nothing would be left out" (Vonnegut, 210). That's why Vonnegut stories have so many seemingly unimportant side passages.

"Milo now used a line from a television show which had been popular a few years back. The show wasn't on air anymore, but most people still remembered the line. Much of the conversation in the country consisted of lines from television shows, both present and past" (Vonnegut, 230). That's funny because it's true.

"I gazed at the Keedsler mansion, never dreaming that a volcanic dog was about to erupt behind me" (Vonnegut, 287). That's funny because of the wording.

As a hopeful writer, as a hopeful storyteller, I find I've often inserted myself into a story or two. But, I've not found a way to do it later in the story. Either I'm in it from the beginning or I'm not it at all. Vonnegut is present from the beginning in this book in theory, but really jumps into the story when Dwayne, Wayne and Kilgore Trout are all in or around the Holiday Inn in Midland City. His entrance is flawless and I read and reread it about fifteen times. "'Give me a Black and White and water,' he heard the waitress say, and Wayne should have pricked up his ears at that. That particular drink wasn't for any ordinary person. That drink was for the person who had created all Wayne's misery to date, who could kill him or make him a millionaire or send him back to prison or do whatever he damn pleased with Wayne. That drink was for me" (Vonnegut, 192). From this point on, Vonnegut is a character with a major role to play in the conclusion of the story - which I won't reveal in case you haven't read it.

Maybe it's the sheer weirdness of Vonnegut's stories. Maybe it's his literary style. Maybe it's the fact that he's a Hoosier. Maybe its a je ne sais quoi amalgamation of all three and other unknown factors, but I'm really starting to see Vonnegut as among my favorite writers. Currently, I find myself enjoying and thus, emulating, however poorly, four writers more than anyone else: Voltaire, Douglas Adams, Raymond Queneau and Vonnegut. Voltaire has long been among my favorites, so he holds a sentimental place in my heart. But, between the other three I can't decide who I like the most.

Community and II John

(Originally written December 13, 2010 in the Journal)

The Book of II John is a nice short little letter that hits on a few things that I hope that this blog will emphasize. First, it hits on the rewards of following God's commands and second, it hits on the community aspect of Christianity - something I think we are sorely missing in today's Church.

John writes that Jesus Christ, the Father's son will be with us in truth and love. He connects truth and love in the person of Jesus Christ. These two are inseparable and inextricably connected. And as we have the indwelling of Jesus Christ in us as Christians then we too have truth and love.

He also writes that he is writing an old command, one that we have had since the beginning - to love one another. What is love? Walking in obedience to God's commands. God is truth and God is love. By following God's commands we are walking in truth. But what are God's commands? "Love the Lord with all your heart and all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it, love you neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:37-40). If Jesus is the truth as John claims him to be in this short letter then his summary of the commandments to love God and to love one another is truth. We walk in truth and love when we obey God's commandments and what is our reward? Joy.

John writes also that seeing the dear lady's children walking in truth gives him great joy. Obviously as an apostle, John has walked with Jesus and spent his life dedicated to him. He receives joy through seeing others walk in truth. This leads me to point number two.

Christianity is about relationships, first to God and then to each other. What is the greatest commandment? Love the Lord your God with all your heart. What is the second commandment? Well, it is like the first, love your neighbor as yourself. The summary that Jesus gave points to the importance of community within Christianity. We need to love each other and establish a strong community of believers that exists aside from Sunday mornings. Love isn't a once a week type thing. Love permeates and spreads in us like yeast, causing us to rise. And then, what is the reward of loving one another? What is the reward of fostering this community that we are called to? Joy. The apostle John, one of the twelve men who walked with the living, breathing Jesus Christ was not done with joy when Jesus left. He got joy through seeing others, a new generation rising up in the name of Jesus Christ. Joy comes through community because Christ comes through community.

Return to Tipasa (1952)

(Originally Written October 14, 2008 in the Journal)

"To be sure, it is sheer madness, almost always punished, to return to the sites of one's youth" (Camus)

One must recapture the strength to accept what is, when once one has admitted that one cannot change it.

"And in this muddy Tipasa the memory itself was becoming dim" (Camus)

There is no love without a little innocence.

In innocence we do not know of the existence of morality. In knowledge we are guilty of not being able to live up to the standards of morality.

Noting is true that forces one to exclude.

It is bad luck to be unloved, it is a misfortune to be unloving. We are dying of this misfortune today.

Equally welcome what delights and what crushes.

The highest virtue of Camus: a will to live without rejecting anything of life.

Summer in Algiers (1936)

(Originally Written October 14, 2008 in the Journal)

Summer in Algiers (1936)

The openness and abundance of Algiers gives pleasure without remedy and joy without hope. It gives man his splendor and his misery.

Truth carries with it a bitterness.

It is ridiculous not to live by the body. To deny its impulses is to deny it life. Rather, drink when you are thirsty, bed a woman you desire, marry a woman you love and afterwards (as Camus' friend Vincent) say I feel better.

Algiers offers two contrasting pleasures; the abundance of the beach and the silence of the city. The key here is experiencing it, of living it.

Life, as joys, in Algiers are merciless and sudden. Life is not to be built up, but to be burned up.

Virtue is meaningless, but that does not mean that men lack principles.

There is nothing sacred in death; it is abhorred.

"The contrary of a civilized nation is a creative nation" (Camus)

The greatness of man as culture is one cast fully in the present (no past/future) and without myth or solace.

Relative truths are the only truths that stir individual men.

Spirituality is solely confined to this lifetime. Eternity is solely what survives us.

What exalts life increases the absurdity of life.

To sin is to sin against life, which is to elude life in the hope of another one.

Hope is resignation, to live is not to resign oneself.

Notes on An Absurd Reasoning & Absurd Freedom (The Myth of Sisyphus)

(Originally Written October 10, 2008 in the Journal)

Notes on Albert Camus' Myth of Sisyphus and other essays

Myth of Sisyphus

An Absurd Reasoning

"Understanding the world for a man is reducing it to human, stamping it with his real" (Camus)

This is pure subjectivism - all thought is anthropomorphic. A thought then, What of Imago Dei? If we, created in the image of God reflect on the world out of this sense aren't we reflecting on the world from a universal standpoint, albeit imperfectly due to our limitations?

Camus is an absolute empiricist. I feel my heart, it exists. I feel the world, I touch it. Therefore, it exists. "There ends all my knowledge, the rest is construction" (Camus). But he states even his own heart is and will remain indefinable to him.

The gap between certainty of existence and defining the content of existence is so wide it cannot be filled.

The irrational (existence's paradoxes and inconsistencies), the human nostalgia (our deepest desire for unity familiarity, and obsession with clarity), and the absurd (the abyss we stare at when we attempt of true knowledge and find none) converge to create in our minds a desert which we ought not attempt to escape by suicide (literal or the act of giving up thought or reason) or attempt to transcend by hope (a process of leaving knowledge to enter into pure construction). This is the point that demands action - suicide or recovery.

Philosophical suicide is the abdication of duty in pursuing knowledge either by giving up or by giving into hope.

The absurd is "the divorce between the mind that desires and the world that disappoints" (Camus).

The absurd is to be both impossible and contradictory.

The absurd is a disproportion between intentions and reality of consequences. "The absurd, which is a metaphysical state of the conscious man does not lead to God. Perhaps the notion will become clearer if I risk this shocking statement: the absurd is sin without God" (Camus).

Absurdity springs from comparison. It is essentially a divorce; it does not lie within the two things being compared but in the actual confrontation of the two things. The absurd is not in man nor in the world, but in the meeting of the two.

The absurd is the fundamental truth - the one thing that cannot be disposed of.

Now, it is the absurd that crushes man - the force that drives man to a broken point. The thing that crushes us we must fight to preserve. The absurd is an unceasing struggle - which implies "a total absence of hope (which has nothing to do with despair), a continual rejection (which must not be confused with renunciation), and a conscious dissatisfaction (which must not be compared to immature unrest)" (Camus).

So Camus' way is thus:

1. Break from the monotony of life to discover life is meaningless.
2. This shock demands action, either suicide or recovery
3. The recovery is acceptance of the absurd as ceaseless struggle
4. Ceaseless struggle brings to the mind three realizations
  - There is no hope
  - There is continual rejection
  - We must be dissatisfied

The existentialists (Chestov, Kierkegaard and Jaspers) came to the truth of the absurd and offered their reaction to it as escape. They did so out of forced hope - creating religion.

The absurd man, the existentialist, recognizes the absurd and the limited value of reason - but, rather than abandoning reason for religion, he in his awareness, simply knows there is no longer a place for hope.

The absurd man seeks to live with his ailments, while the man who has seen the absurd and turned to religion has become frantic and frenzied, seeking to be cured.

Kierkegaard views despair not as a fact, but as a state of existence - the state of sin. Now, Kierkegaard in his final dealings with the absurd sacrificed the intellect (reason) to the belief in God for he sacrificed his pride (sin) to God. Camus recognizes the limitations of reason, but states that if this is pride he sees no sufficient cause to sacrifice it.

The absurd man, the absurd mind seeks what is true at all costs. It seeks what is true, not what is desirable. If Kierkegaard warns that there is nothing but despair then the absurd man takes truth and despair.

Phenomenology (Edmund Husserl) - the making of structures of consciousness and the phenomena which appears in acts of consciousness - objects of systematic reflection and analysis. Husserl used this to provide a firm basis for all human knowledge.

Phenomenology seeks to describe actual experience - not explain the world.

Phenomenology claims truths but that there is no Truth.

Husserl's method was "the intention":
1. Negate classical reasoning (thinking as a unifying/familiarizing procedure). Thinking is actually a relearning how to see again and to direct consciousness.
2. Directing consciousness illuminates every little truth.
3. It isolates events from one another to represent an incoherent-ness in experience; thus, every isolated object of consciousness is its own "magical appearance".

The absurd spirit wishes to enumerate experience, not transcend it.

Husserl's methodology would be acceptable to the absurd man if it simply stopped at the enumeration of experience, but Husserl jumps from the psychological truth of his theory to the metaphysical. Thus, he reintroduces a rationalism akin to Plato. Unlike Kierkegaard who returns to God - Husserl returns to a form of truth as polytheism - flattening all hierarchy and making all truth equal little gods.

The difference between Husserl's abstract god and the dazzling God of Kierkegaard is minimal and only one on how to arrive at the conclusion. Kierkegaard, like other religious philosophers deified the absurd and called it God. The abstract philosophers like Husserl rationalized the absurd to the point of creating standard reasons. They began at the nausea of recognizing the absurd but go to one extreme (rationalizing/abstract) or irrationalizing (deifying/religious escapism).

Nausea is looking into the face of the absurd. There are then three paths to follow. Religion is the path of deifying the absurd. It is an escape or a reconciliation to avoid the divorce. The abstract is the pat of rationalizing the absurd. It is an escape or a reconciliation to avoid the divorce. The absurd man does neither. He takes the divorce. This is the path of acceptance.

The absurd man knows that existence is unreasonable - neither too rational nor too irrational. He accepts the limits of reason and does not give it limitless power as Husserl or abandon it as sin (pride) like Kierkegaard.

Absurd Freedom

What is known (that what is certain) cannot be denied or rejected. One can negate all, but one's desire for unity. One can refute all the world but chaos.

One can only understand a thing in human terms (thus cannot transcend). "What I touch, what resists me - that is what I understand" (Camus).

The break - the divorce of mind (reason) and the world is caused by awareness of it.

The absurd man lives in the certainty of this divorce and does nothing except on the basis of certain knowledge. The only certainty is the absurd and thus he cannot escape it in good conscious through religion. He hears that this is the sin of pride but he does not know what sin is.

Life is better lived because it does not have a meaning.

Hope in transcendence (religion) is to escape the reality of the absurd - to abolish the intellect is to elude, not solve the problem.

The absurd man lives in constant revolt against the world and against his desire for unity (escape/hope). It is in this revolt that gives life its value.

Camus really loves the pride of man. He focuses all of his energy on praising the absurd man and abhors any type of degradation.

To the absurd man the notion of the metaphysical freedom or determinism is not important - the absurd man is only certain of his own freedom.

Camus denies the paradox of God and freedom has been solved or laid to waste, it remains. Either god is all-powerful and the author of all evil or we are free and God is not all-powerful. But, none of this is important because we only experience our own freedom and the eradication of hope and future makes us more free.

The absurd tells me this: there is no future. Freedom in the classical sense is based on hope, hope based on future. Our hope in the future actually makes us slaves to the conventions of thinking.

The Ideal of the absurd man: to live with a constantly conscious soul in a ceaseless procession of presents (no pasts/no future)/

Three consequences of absurd reasoning:
1. Revolt
2. Freedom
3. The ideal (passion)

Brief Notes on The Didache

(Originally Written June 3, 2008 in the Journal)

The Didache seems to have been written in the mid first century A.D. Its origins may be either Egyptian or Syrian.

The Didache

There are two ways: the way of Life and the way of Death.

The Way of life is this: love the Lord your God, love your neighbor as yourself and do unto others as you wish to have done to you.

If you love those who hate you, you will have no enemy.

Do not be equivocating in speech or thought.

Be not hypocritical, spiteful or show superiority.

Be wary of blasphemy.

"Accept as good whatever experience comes your way, in the knowledge that nothing can happen without God" (Early Christian Writings, 192).

Never claim anything as your own.

The Way of Death is evil. The Way of Death abhors truth and loves falsehood. You must flee from the Way of Death.

Wednesdays and Fridays are days of fasting.

Say the Lord's prayer three times a day.

Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, in Heaven and Earth. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive our trespassers. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for thine is the power and glory forever and ever. Amen.

In everything you do, be guided by what you read in the Gospel of the Lord.

May the Lord forgive me of my sins. May He instruct me in His ways so that I may follow Him in all of my doings. Lord look upon me in mercy and pity. Restore me to you. Make me whole again. I feel so empty, so lost. I have lost the one I love. Lord I offer you this relationship as a sacrifice if that is what you require. If it is not then I beg of you to return her to me. Watch over her and comfort her. Draw her close to you. Do not feed her to the wolves or let harm befall her.

Lord grant me wisdom from the Book. Do not allow me to substitute anything for it, but keep me in your Word daily so that I can follow your path, neither saying to the left nor the right.

Brief Notes on Ignatius of Antioch (B)

(Originally Written June 2, 2008 in the Journal)

Lord forgive me of my sins. Do not hold them against me, but forgive me and show mercy on your servant. Today she moved out. Lord be with her and keep her from sin and draw her close to you. Do not destroy us utterly for you have united us. Is the righteous God, the Lord of lords, who is blameless and pure going to rip apart what He has united? Would He that does that which is perfect undo what He has done? Surely not. The Lord is everlasting and unchanging. Yahweh was, is and will be perfect and is the perfecter of all things. May you guard our hearts all evil and wickedness and restore joy and love to this relationship. I will follow you Lord all the days of my life. Deliver my bride to me once again Lord, I beg of you.

Notes on Early Christian Writings

Ignatius' Epistle to The Magnesians

We can only come to the presence of God in Jesus Christ by enduring in Christ all the indignities of this world while yet eluding their clutches.

You ought to obey the bishop, despite his lack of years because he is appointed by God. Do not obey him with mere lip service, but serve him as you serve the Father.

We obey bishops not because they are bishops and seen, but because of the unseen, the Holy Father, whom which knows all our secrets.

"We ought not just to have the name of Christians, but to be so in reality" (Early Christian Writings, 71).

There are two types of coins in circulation. One leads to life, the other leads to death. We must spend what we earn. If you earn the coins of God you will spend them on life; but, if you earn the coins of the world you wills surely spend them on death.

"Unless we are ready and willing to die in conformity with His passion, His life is not in us" (Early Christian Writings, 72).

(Warning against the Judaizing Heresy) The old practice of Judaism show a lack of faith in Jesus Christ. Their prophets were under grace because they were in tune with Christ.

Change from the old, which has grown stale and sour to the new, which is Christ.

Christianity ought not look to Judaism, but Judaism to Christianity.

Be submissive to one another.

Ignatius' Epistle to the Trallians

Ignatius yearns for martyrdom though he is doubtful of his worthiness. He prays for humility.

He warns them to guard against heresy, especially Docetism.

Ignatius' Epistle to the Romans

He encourages the Romans not to interfere with his sentence. "Suffer me to be a libation poured out to God, while there is still an altar ready for me" (Early Christian Writings, 85-86).

Good does not lie in what our eyes can see but in Christ Jesus.

"Christianity lies in achieving greatness in the face of a world's hatred" (Early Christian Writings, 86).

Do not have Christ upon your lips with the world in your heart.

Christ is the faithful mouthpiece by which the Father's words of truth find utterance.

Ignatius' Epistle to the Philadelphians

He encourages the Philadelphians to follow their bishop like sheep to guard against heresy.

"Those who wander in outlandish byways of doctrine must forfeit all part in the Lord's passion" (Early Christian Writings, 94). Ignatius places heavy emphasis on doctrine, but also on practicing what that doctrine is. To him, empty words or lip-service is as deadly as the heresy itself.

God does not dwell where there is disunity or bad blood.

Christ is the doorstep to the Father.

Ignatius' Epistle to the Smyraneans

He calls the Church of Smyrna to be unified in Christ: Jews and Gentiles alike.

He warns against Docetic beliefs. He implores them to acknowledge the flesh and blood birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus. He claims that if what Christ did was merely an illusion than his own claims must be illusionary as well.

Christ gives us strength.

He urges them to pray for those who have fallen prey to Doceticism so that they can have a better frame of mind to accept Christ Jesus.

Faith and love are everything; they must come before all.

Endure all things for Christ's sake and you will attain to Him in the end.

Ignatius' Epistle to Polycarp

There is no more important task to the bishops than unity.

Spend time in constant prayer, begging for wisdom.

"The heavier the labor, the richer the reward" (Early Christian Writings, 109).

The mark of a champion is to be able to stand in the face of punishment and still come off victorious. It is our duty to accept trails of all kinds if we are to be accepted by the Lord.

The honor God should be the aim in everything you do.

"A Christian, after all is not his own master; he puts his time at God's disposal" (Early Christian Writings, 111).

Brief Notes on Clement of Rome (B)

(Originally Written June 1, 2008 in the Journal)

Why do I turn my back on you Lord? Why do I fall so easily to temptation? I am dedicated. I give my all, but I fall so easily to the temptations. Lord forgive me for my weakness. I do not know what to do. I give this to you. Teach me to be chaste and strong in you. I disgust myself we these ways. Lord forgive this wicked sinner and cleanse him from his vile nature.

Notes on Early Christian Writings

I Clement (continued)

Clement admonishes the Corinthians for removing the bishops and deacons of their church because they were appointed by the apostles or other wise men who were appointed by Christ who was appointed by God. Thus, all those appointed were appointed by God.

He says to them it was wrong to persecute righteous men because in the Scriptures, only the wicked persecute the righteous.

He admonishes them for quarreling and extols them to become united again.

We must seek to better the community of Christ before we better ourselves and if we come to be looked upon in high esteem we must be ever the more humble.

Without love, Christianity is impossible. The perfection of love is beyond words. Let us pray to be found faultless in love.

Let us pray for those who have fallen from grace that they may be given unselfishness to submit to the Lord.

Remind them that "happy is the man the Lord reproves...for though he inflicts pain, yet afterwards he makes whole again" (Early Christian Writings, 46).

We find mercy through his holy correction.

Make us clean oh Lord with the cleansing of thy truth.

Jesus Christ is the High Priest and the Guardian of our souls.

"It is a moral duty for us to bow the head and take our seat on the stool of submission" (Early Christian Writings, 49).

Brief Notes on Clement of Rome (A)

(Originally Written May 31, 2008 in the Journal)

Praise the Lord for today because this is the day that the Lord has made. May all of heaven and earth proclaim your holy name and may your glory be acknowledged throughout all time! There is no God but the one true God, the God of Jacob! Praise the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Praise you for the beauty of the earth, the birds of the sky and the fish of the deep. Praise you for all things good and praise you for even the troubles that have befallen me because they have drawn me nearer to you.
I was thinking on the words of Rob Bell in Velvet Elvis. He talked of faith like a trampoline vs. faith like a wall. When you have faith like a trampoline then doctrine is the springs that propel you upwards toward God. When you have faith like a wall each doctrine fits in a certain place and if you remove one, the wall starts to crumble. He talked of a man who said if you deny the literal seven day creation you deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This seems false and destructive. But, I believe doctrine is vital to Christianity.

To deny the literalism of creation is not to deny the resurrection of Christ. But to deny the validity of any passage of the Bible is to reject the Word of God. You cannot deny any part of the Bible as valid and be Christian. A passage may be taken as poetic or figurative or literal, but it is valid always. You cannot make piecemeal of the Scriptures. Doctrine is man's interpretation of Scriptures and thus, fallible, where the Scriptures are not. But the Lord has endowed us with reason and we must make proper use of it.

Thank you Lord for today! I picked up the Penguin Classics Early Christian Writings today and will be reading it in conjunction with Bible readings.

Notes on Early Christian Writings

Clement of Rome

Clement seems to have been the fourth bishop of Rome, following Peter, Linus and Anencletus. The date of Clement's epistle to the Corinthians seems to have been written around 96 A.D. The letter shows Clement's extensive knowledge of the Scriptures, which as a Gentile, meant the Septuagint. He also shows a strong familiarity of the books that became the New Testament. He writes of harmony and draws also on Stoic Philosophy. While he combines the Hebrew Scriptures with Stoic philosophy, he subordinates Stoic Philosophy to Christian vision. Clement also uses strong Trinitarian language, much stronger than found in the New Testament.

1 Clement

Clement praises the Corinthian church for how they used to act. "Always you were ready for any deed of goodness...whatever you did was done in fear of God" (Early Christian Writings, 24).

The Clement extols them for having fallen back to their evil ways. They have traded folly for wisdom. "All have fallen back into the horrid sin of envy - the sin that brought death into the world" (Early Christian Writings, 24).

He encourages them to turn from envy and follow the examples of Peter and Paul. He reminds them that many of the elect have been tormented by envy and had to fight it unto their very deaths. He warns them that envy has ruined marriages and overthrown cities and nations. He tells them to turn from envy and reflect on the preciousness of the Blood of Christ, which is an outpouring of salvation and has opened grace of repentance to mankind.

The Lord always opens up the chance for man to repent. It is never too late.

The Lord never forsakes those who place their hope in Him, but puts pain and penalty on those who rebel against Him.

He calls on them to be humble and show forgiveness.

"Christ belongs to the lowly of heart" (Early Christian Writings, 29).

He tells them that humility is always found in the great men of God: in Elisha, in Elijah, in Job, in Ezekiel, in David and even in Christ, all of whom had reason to be proud.

He encourages them to aim to achieve the tranquility of which we were made to be in. He states even nature operates in harmony with itself: night and day, the seasons. These fulfill God's plans for them.

He tells them to respect those who God has set over them. He says to teach the children in Christian thought.

He reminds them that mercy will be shown to those who set their hopes on the Lord.

He warns them not to doubt the resurrection because there is evidence of the resurrection all around them.

He tells them that, "untruth is the only thing that is impossible to God" (Early Christian Writings, 34).

He reminds them that there is nothing that the Lord does not see or hear.

He calls on the Corinthians to give up everything that is opposed to God because they are God's chosen portion.

He reminds them that God rewards faith and that they are justified by faith.

He tells us that though we are justified by faith we ought to strive to good works because the Lord himself delights in working.

The Lord has mad man in His own image and blessed him, commanding man to increase and multiply.

We must put forth all our effort into the work of righteousness.

We must wait in patience for the Lord and He will bestow the greatness and beauty of His gifts upon us.

Men who do things that are detestable are held in detestation by the Lord. Not only this, but men who consent to these things are held in detestation.

Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Ch. 7 (B)

(Originally Written March 1, 2008 in the Journal).

What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Ch. 7

Pro captu lectoris habant sua fata libelli - The fate of books depends on the head of the reader.

Goodness, beauty and truth are treated as metaphysical and fundamental, but this is not the case.

However we understand goodness "our life is nothing but a striving towards the good, that is, towards God" (Maude, 141). Goodness is the fundamental metaphysical perception which forms the essence of our consciousness. Goodness cannot be defined; but it defines everything else.

Beauty is merely that which pleases us. It does not belong to the same fundamental level as goodness. Beauty often lies contrary to goodness because goodness often results in victory over the passions, while beauty has its roots in the passions.

The terms, 'moral beauty' and 'spiritual beauty' are word games that simply are another way of saying goodness.

Truth is merely a correspondence of an expression with reality. It is not fundamental like goodness is.

Notes on Tolstoy, On Truth in Art (1887)

(Originally Written February 18, 2008 in the Journal)

Part II On Truth in Art (1887)

Those who judge stories and fairy tales as untrue and mere fancy, judge them improperly.

"Truth will be known not by him who knows only what has been, is, and really happens, but by him who recognizes what should be according to the will of God" (Maude, 9) - a good theological/epistemological statement.

"Truth is a path" (Maude, 10).

Verbal compositions are good and necessary when they set value on what is good and evil. What is good conforms to what ought to be according to the will of God. What is evil is contrary to what ought to be according to the will of God.

A thought from me: Truth and fact are not synonyms. Fact can be truth, but truth is not necessarily factual as in correlation with the world as is.

In order to write on truth one must write on what ought to be, not what is.

Those men who do not know what is good or evil (what corresponds to what should or should not be according to the will of God) do not write on truth.

Fairy tales or fables in which events never happened or never could happen can be true because they describe the world as it ought to be according to the will of God.

If truth is lacking, no matter how factual a story can be, it is nonetheless false because it lacks the truth of the kingdom of God.

Christ spoke in parables and they have remained eternally true.

Philosophy of Religion - Hick: Ch. 5 (A)

(Originally written February 1, 2007 in Book 7)

Philosophy of Religion
John Hick

Chapter 5 - Revelation and Faith

It is impossible to establish the existence or non-existence of God via rational arguments proceeding from universally accepted premises.

Chris Linehan - An atheist can never convince a believer that God does not exist if he/she has truly felt God's touch/. But, a believer can never convince an atheist that God exists if he/she has naturalized all of his or her experience. God shows Himself to men and men must then interpret what they have seen.

Philosophy recognizes two ways in which human beings can come to know what may be known:
1) Experience (empiricism)
2) Reasoning (rationalism)

God must be known by experience. "If God exists, God is not an idea but a reality outside us; in order to be known to men and women, God must become manifest in some way within their experience" (Hick, 58).

Chris Linehan: I believe that God can be known solely by experience, but I think He can be known via reasoning. God is a logical necessity; thus, all we need to know is logic and necessity to know God.

The Bible takes God's existence for granted. There are no attempts to prove His existence.

The Biblical writers saw God as an experience reality, not an inferred entity.

God's disclosure of Himself to man is "revelation". Man's response to revelation is "faith".

The Propositional view of Revelation and Faith

Roman Catholicism and conservative Protestantism (as well as the Medieval conception) represent the propositional view of revelation. Revelation in this view is a body of truths expressed in statements and propositions. "Revelation is the imparting to people of divinely authenticated truths" (Hick, 60). Faith under this scheme is a person's obedient acceptance to these truths.

Natural theology and revealed theology have accompanied the propositional view of revelation and faith for centuries.

Natural theology is the sum of all theological truths that can be ascertained by humans without divine assistance. Revealed theology is the sum of truths that can be comprehended only with the assistance of the Divine.

Voluntarist Theories of Faith

Blaise Pascal and William James treat faith as the acceptance of certain beliefs by a deliberate act of will. Both Pascal and James saw it better to believe than not believe because it is so much worse to not believe in something that is true than believe in something that turns out to be false.

F.R. Tennant states that faith always involves risk, but it is via risk that human knowledge is increased.

Tillich's conception of Faith as ultimate concern

Paul Tillich taught, "Faith is the state of being ultimately concerned".

God is the object of man's ultimate concern and our attitude in participating with God is our ultimate concern.

Rhetoric and Epistemology Notes 1

(Originally written January 10, 2007 in Book 12)

So, I have decided that I will (for my class assignment) write on Rhetoric and epistemology. I have three articles to read before I truly narrow the scope and pinpoint my exact thesis.

Article #1

Rhetoric Denuded and Redressed
Figs & Figures

John Poulakos
Steve Whitson

Quarterly Journal of Speech, August 1995

Rumors and phobias: "Although I do not understand their arguments, I am keen on dismissing them".

Curious preferences: Why do we prefer a handful of certainty to a carful of possibilities?

Reality has real problems, humanity has artificial ones.

Truth has never been found.

Knowledge is seen as disposable.

Nietzsche's definition of truth: "Mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, anthropomorphizing, a sum of human relations which were poetically and rhetorically heightened, transferred, and adored, and after long use seem solid, canonical, and binding to a nation. Truths are illusions about which it has been forgotten that they are illusions" (379).

Knowledge to the common people is something strange being reduced to something familiar. The instinct of fear demands us to know.

Epistemic potential leads to a real job and respect, which leads to the loss of evidence and humanity.

"A deficient orator is always preying on audiences" (380).

Democritus: "We know nothing authentically about anything, but each one's opines are simply what flows into him"

We shape the world (and language) in our bodily image (Somatomorphic Nominalism)

"Epistemologists will never understand that Platonism is before anything else an erotic doctrine... sensorial spiritualism at its Dionysian best" (382).

"Aesthetics is nothing else than applied physiology" (383).

Shameful poverty- Gorgias would be proud and Plato's distrust of rhetoric is vindicated by the rhetorician's abuse of language.

Another rhetoric abuse of language: "The epistemologist's point is that a definition lets one get to the heart of the matter. Let us be clear. Matter has no heart, only surfaces" (384).

The ethics of rhetoric: "Words are not one's own to do as one pleases. Respect for words and doing justice to language are two things needed for any ethics of rhetoric" (385).

Article #2
Gorgias as Philosopher of Being: Epistemic Foundationalism in Sophistic Thought
Frank D. Walters

Philosophy has long regarded rhetoric as intellectual lightweights and moral relativists.

The Sophists moved the Athenian culture from mythos to logos, from myth to logical thinking.

The sophist epistemology put speech at the center of knowing.

Sophism takes being as the province of thought and discourse.

"Sophists were more than 'mere' rhetoricians and teachers of a suspect art" (144).

Epistemic foundationalism: the unification of rhetoric and philosophy.

Being, to the Sophist, is the primary object of intellectual and moral inquiry. Being can only be known through language.

"Where there is no discourse, there is no knowledge and, correlatively, no possibility of knowing Being in any philosophically justifiable way.

Sophistic anti-logic and the problem of Being

Anti-logic: the theory of argumentation that stands in opposition to dialectics, "a community of speakers using the resources of argument to construct a commonly accepted body of truths, which can then be disseminated as knowledge" (145). Dialectics aims at one thesis being true, anti-logic posits one thesis against another in search for knowledge. Dialectics ends when knowledge is found, anti logic is a continuous and recursive process.

The price for the freedom that epistemological foundationalism is epistemological uncertainty and undecidability.

Kairos as the motive force of anti-logic.

John Poulakos' definition of sophistic rhetoric: "the art which seeks to capture in opportune moments that which is appropriate and attempts to suggest that which is possible" (146).

Gorges uses knowledge as "the experience of the irrational and the impossible" (148). "Knowledge is contradictory" (148).

Gorgias and the rhetoric of Being: The Encomium of Helen

Gorgias aims at presenting his side as the truth of the case.

Truth is shown to be language bound in Helen.

Logos and Reality: On Nature or Not-Being

Gorgias' epistemology is an irrational method of contradiction and continual self-destruction. All reality is contradictory.

"For one to know, a judgment between contradictory realities must be made, with no absolute assurance that judgment is on the side of truth" (150).

Gorgias holds that Truth is relative to the individual.

Gorgias' take on Being:
1) Being does not exist
2) If Being does exist it cannot be known
3) If Being can be known, it cannot be communicated

The logical (rather anti-logical) next step would be:
4) If Being can be communicated it cannot exist, which is absurd.

"It is possible, as Gorgias notes, to think of things which are not real, such as chariots racing on the sea. Though we think of them, they are nonetheless not real, and their non-reality is the object of our thought" (152).

But, if something is an object of our thought it exists. Existence implies reality and therefore a non-real thing derives its reality from its existence as an object of our thought.

Gorgias denies that knowledge is propositional.

Book notes on Aquinas

(Originally written November 29, 2006 in Book 7)

Louis Pojman
Classics of Philosophy 2nd Edition

Thomas Aquinas

-Roman Catholic Dominican Monk
-1225 - 1274 A.D.
-He is considered to be the greatest theologian in Western religion
-He was born in Roccasecca to the Count Aquino.
-He studied at the University of Naples and joined the Dominicans, despite his parents' strong objection
-He was determined to live the celibate life of the Dominicans. He avoided the company of women.
-He went to the Dominican school at Cologne and studied under Albert the Great
-He earned the nickname "dumb ox" from his fellow classmates
-In 1252 he went to the University of Paris and began to develop an Aristotelian version of Catholic theology
-He wrote voluminously and encyclopedically
-Then on December 6, 1273 he had a deep religious experience, stating, 'All that I have written seems to me like straw composed to what has now been revealed to me' and stopped writing. He died four months later

Summa Theologica

Question 2 - The Existence of God

First article: whether the existence of God is self-evident?

Objection 1 - The knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all, thus the existence of God is self-evident.

Objection 2 - Once the name God is understood, his existence is seen to be actual, therefore God's existence is self-evident

Objection 3 - The existence of truth is self evident. God is truth. Therefore, the existence of God is self-evident.

A thing can be self-evident in two ways:
1) Self-evident in itself
2) Self-evident in itself and to us.

Aquinas claims that God's existence is self-evident in itself.

Reply to objection 1 - This natural knowledge of God is general and confused. We know something is out there, but we know not what.

Reply to objection 2 - Once the term God is understood, a mental existence, not an actual existence of God is known.

Reply to objection 3 - The existence of truth in general is self-evident, but the existence of a primal truth is not self-evident to us

Second Article - Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists?

Objection 1 - It is an artifice of faith that God exists. Faith is not demonstrable.

Objection 2 - Essence is the middle term of demonstration, but we cannot know in what God's essence consists.

Objection 3 - If the existence of God were demonstrable, it could be only from his effects. God is infinite, but his effects are finite.

Reply to objection 1- Faith presupposes natural knowledge, faith or reason can lead to knowledge of the existence of God.

Reply to objection 2: the means of the name God is the middle term, not God's essence.

Reply to objection 3: we cannot have a perfect knowledge of God, but we can know some from his effects.

Third Article - Whether God Exists?

Objection 1 - There is evil in the world and if there were an infinitely good being this would not be so.

Objection 2 - There is no need to assume God exists, everything can be explained naturalistically.

Reply to objection 1 - Augustinian response: His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good out of evil

Reply to objection 2 - Whatever is done by nature must be traced back to God.

What is this thing called science? Ch. 15

(Originally written November 18, 2006 in Book 8)

What is this thing called science?
Ch. 15 - Realism and Anti-Realism

[Introduction]

Realism views science as being able to accomplish its goal of telling us about things going on beyond the surface of things (i.e. DNA) and about things that happened long ago, prior to man's existence.

Many philosophers of science doubt realism. One reason for this doubt is that claims about the unobservable world must be hypothetical to the extent that they transcend what can be firmly established by observation.

Realism is too rash for philosophy of science because it claims way more than it can reasonably defend. History has reinforced this doubt as countless theories about the unobserved world have been proven false.

Anti-realists point out that when theories based on unobservable and observable facts that when the unobservable is proved wrong and the observable is retained. They hold that the enduring part of science is the part based on observation and experiment.

Anti-realists stress the inconclusiveness of theoretical science.

[Global anti-realism: language, truth and reality]

Global anti-realism holds that we are trapped by language and cannot ever directly describe reality. We can only describe it through a human perspective.

Global anti-realism denies that we have access to reality in any way, not just in science.

While most contemporary people are global anti-realists in that we all deny that we can come face to face with reality and directly read off facts about it, that doesn't prove much. At this point, global anti-realism is a very weak thesis.

The thesis becomes stronger when it is taken to have consequences that justify a skeptical attitude toward science and knowledge in general.

Chalmers calls this strengthening of thesis "unwarranted". He admits that we understand the world through conceptional framework, but that the framework can be tested for accuracy.

We learn about the world through observing it and describing it but, also through interacting with it.

Realists use the correspondence theory of truth because it is most conducive to their position. The correspondence theory of truth states that a sentence is only true if it corresponds to reality. A sentence is true if it describes things as they really are.

One problem with the correspondence theory of truth is that it can lead to paradoxes very easily.

The Liar paradox is a good example:

Example 1: "I never tell the truth"

If this is true, then you do tell the truth.

Example 2: If one side of the card has the sentence, "the sentence on the other side of this card is true" and the other side states, "the sentence on the other side of this card is false". This situation proves that either of the sentences are both true and false, which leads to the paradox.

Alfred Tarski demonstrated how, in a reasonably simple language system, paradoxes can be avoided. He distinguished between: one must carefully distinguish sentences between 'object language' and 'meta-language'

Object language deals with truth or falsity of sentences. Meta-language talks about object language.

Using Tarski's formula one of the sentences on the card must be object language and the other must be meta-language and thus, no paradox arises.

One of the main components of Tarski's correspondence theory is that if we are going to talk about truth for sentences, we need a more general language, a meta-language.

Meta-language refers to object language and to the facts to which those object language sentence are intended to correspond.

Tarski needed to show how the correspondence notion of truth can be systematically developed for all sentences within the object language in a way that avoids paradoxes. The difficulty of his task is that for any interesting language there are an infinite number of sentences

Tarski achieved this task for languages involving a finite number of single placed predicates. He took what it means for a predicate to be satisfied by an object.

The everyday language makes it sound trivial. The predicate 'is white' is satisfied by "X" only if X is white.

Using the notion of primitive satisfaction as a given, Tarski defined truth recursively.

Tarski's work was technically important for mathematical logic. It had a fundamental bearing on model theory and effected proof theory. He showed how contradictions can arise when truth is discussed in natural language, and showed how these contradictions can be avoided.

Tarski merely showed a commonsense thing. He proved that "snow is white" is true only because snow is white.

Tarski showed that a commonsense idea of truth can be utilized in a way that is free from paradoxes that were believed to threaten it.

From Tarski's point of view, a scientific theory is true, if and only if it describes the world as it really is.

Anti-realism will maintain that Tarski has not proven a correspondence between truth and a sentence, only a correspondence between one sentence and another.

The traditional debate between realists and anti-realists, in science, concerns whether scientific theories should be seen as truth in an unrestricted sense, or if they should be seen as making claims about the observable world exclusively. Neither side of this debate defends global anti-realism.

Anti-realism

Anti-realism maintains that the content of a scientific theory involves only a set of claims that can be substantiated by observation and experiment.

Many anti-realists are called instrumentalists.

Instrumentalists hold theories are nothing more than useful instruments that aid in correlating and predicting the results of observation and experiment.

Theories, in instrumentalism, are not interpretable as true or false.

Theories must be overarching, general, simple and compatible with observation and experiment.

Bas van Fraassen is an anti-realist who is not an instrumentalist.  He believes theories are true and false, but that truth or falsity is beside the point of science.

van Fraassen's merit of a theory is located in terms of its generality and simplicity and the extent to which it is borne out by observation and leads to new kinds of observation.

van Fraassen calls his position "constructive empiricism"

A motive for anti-realism is a desire to restrict science to claims that can be justified by scientific means.

Anti-Realists employee historical evidence to justify their claim that the theoretical part of science is not securely established.

Anti-realists note that even when theories are proven false there is no denying their utility in discovering new methods of observation.

"They (theories) are simply scaffolding to help erect the structure of observational and experimental knowledge, and they can be rejected once they have done their job" (Chalmers, 233).

[Some standard objections and the anti-realist response]

Anti-realists differentiate between observational knowledge, which is securely established and theoretical knowledge, which is not securely established.

One objecting to anti-realism is that if theories are not approximately true, how can they be so predictively successful in experiment?

History, however, forces the realist to admit that the predictive success is not a necessary indication of truth.

Realists claim that anti-realists can sweep difficult problems under the rug. Anti-realists would call this a caricature of anti-realism.

Realists claim that anti-realists don't take phenomena that is unobservable serious enough if they call it useful fiction. Anti-realists admit that these useful fiction and hold that as technology increases useful fictions can become observable phenomena.

[Scientific realism and conjectural realism]

Scientific realism claims that science's aim is to discover how the world behaves at all levels, not just observable ones.

Scientific realism claims that it is true because the testability of realism makes it scientific.

A key problem in the strong version of realism is the fact that history reveals science as fallible.

Ian Hacking, a realist, states that anti-realists place an inappropriately strong emphasis on what can and cannot be observed and pay insufficient attention to what can be practically manipulated in science.

Hacking maintains that an entity is real in science if it can be manipulated by science.

Some realists hold that scientific realism is too strong and attempt to weaken it.

Popper and his followers adhere to conjectural realism. Conjectural realism stresses the fallibility of our knowledge and admit that numerous theories in the past have been falsified and that we have no idea which current theories will be falsified in the future

The conjectural realist, however, still maintain that the aim of science is to discover the truth about what really exists and theories are to be judged on the extent to which they can fulfill this aim.

Conjectural realists will insist that their position is the most fruitful one in science, but will not call it a scientific position.

Conjectural realists hold that scientific realists' position as too ambitious.

Conjectural realism is a philosophical position, not a scientific one.

Conjectural realism has not criteria of judging true theories or false theories. They only recognize that in the past there have been false theories.

[Idealisation]

One objection to realism is that its theories cannot be taken as literal because it idealizes the world in a way it is not.

Theoretical descriptions are idealizations that cannot correspond to real-world situations.

Chalmers claims that the idealization of theoretical science do not pose the difficulties they are thought to.

[Unrepresentative realism or structural realism]

Science is dominated by realism because it attempts to discover reality.

Structural realism sees the theories as being more than calculating tools (anti-realism's position) but are still useful as such when they prove to be false.

Skepticism (B)

(Originally written September 3, 2006 in Book 6)

I can't do anymore. My mind is heavy and I have a sensory perception of pain. Do I know why my head hurts? I don't care if I know, it feels as much and that is good enough for me tonight.

Continuing on Descartes' Third Meditation

Ideas - thoughts which are images of things

Other thoughts are particulars that also have some form of thought process in them. These are volitions or emotions or judgments.

Judgments are in danger of being false, whereas ideas, emotions or wills are not.

The biggest danger of a false judgment is believing that internal idea resembles something outside of my self.

There are innate and adventitious and self-invented ideas.

Understanding what a thing is, what truth is, and what thought is are innate ideas.

Sense perceptions are adventitious.

Imagination ideas (unicorns) are self-invented ideas.

But, it could be that all ideas are of one category.

What reasons do I have for believing that things outside of me that cause sense perceptions resemble one another?
-Nature taught me to think this.

Since all knowledge I have comes from within me, something greater than I must have put these ideas in me, this is God's role in creation.

Since I am less perfect than God, that is I have less reality in me than God, I could not get the idea of him from within myself.

It must be concluded that the mere fact that I exist and have within me an idea of a most perfect being, that is, God, provides a very clear proof that God indeed exists.

The idea of God is innate.

"And indeed it is no surprise that God, in creating me, should have placed this idea in me to be, as it were, the mark of the craftsman stamped on his work - not that the mark need be anything distinct from the work itself. But the mere fact that God created me is a very strong basis for believing that I am somehow made in his image and likeness, and that I perceive that likeness, which includes the idea of God, by the same faculty which enables me to perceive myself. That is, when I turn my mind's eye upon myself, I understand that I am a thing which is incomplete and dependent on another and which aspires without limit to ever greater and better things; but I also understand at the same time that he on whom I depend has within him all those greater things, not just indefinitely and potentially but actually and infinitely, and hence that he is God" (Polman, 34-35). This is very good.

Fourth Meditation
"Truth and falsity"

What we know about corporeal things is not through perception.

Knowledge of God is the most distinct and clear knowledge man has.

God provides me with all the knowledge and capability for knowledge to make judgments. If I use the judgment correctly, I can't err.

I make mistakes because I exist somewhere between God and nothingness. God is the ultimate reality and nothingness is no reality. Since I tend to make judgments towards the scale of no reality, I am prone to err.

Error is a privation of some knowledge which ought to be in me.

The will is the ability to do or not to do something.

To behave correctly I must withheld my judgment on what I do not have indubitable knowledge of.

I cannot complain that God has not provided me with more knowledge or a greater capacity for knowledge because I am a finite being.

Every perception comes from God and to avoid error I simply have to withhold judgment on that which I do not have indubitable knowledge of.

Skepticism regarding the senses
David Hume

-Scottish Empiricist
-1711 - 1776
-Accepts there are truths of reason, mathematical truths and logical truths
-He doubts empirical and metaphysical knowledge
-Learning is based on sensory impressions
-Ideas are representations of sensory impressions
-Complex ideas are mere composites of ideas and we have no way of knowing if complex ideas accurately represent reality/

Metaphysics - Ch. 6 (A)

(Originally written July 30, 2006 in Book 6)

Metaphysics - Peter van Inwagen

Chapter 6 - Necessary Being: The Cosmological Argument

The principle of sufficient reason states: for every truth there is a sufficient reason for it being true. The principle of sufficient reason does not entail that everything has a purpose, only that there is a reason for the truth being true or a reason why something is the way it is.

The principle of sufficient reason produces this argument for why something exits: "There is a necessarily existent thing that is in some way responsible for the fact that there are contingent things" (van Inwagen, 102).

The principle of sufficient reason present difficulties though. Quantum mechanics claims nature is filled with events that occur without explanation. Another part of the principle of sufficient reason that is difficult to entertain is that all true propositions are necessarily true. It denies the possibility of contingently true propositions.

If the principle of sufficient reason is false than the entire cosmological argument for why anything rather than nothing exists is false.

Are there other possible worlds as is assumed? I would say no. There is only one possible world and that is the one we exist in. This world could be much different in a variety of ways (i.e. history could be completely different or the world could have more or fewer cities) but that would simply be a variation of this actual world.

Premise 1

The world (physical universe) exists to be a habitat for its inhabitants.

Is this provable? I cannot think of a way to argue it in an indefensible way, but that does not imply that it is false. We have two options when we consider the origin and purpose of the world. Well, three.

1) The world has existed in the way it does in essence eternally.
2) The world has evolved from whatever primordial substance in an undirected, accidental way to produce a habitat capable of sustaining life.
3) The world was created in a purposeful way as a habitat for its inhabitants by a creator.

Each option can have variations but essentially it is one of these three options.

The first option is the most improbable of the three. Science like the laws of thermodynamics deny the possibility of the world existing as it does now forever. That leaves us with the last two options. The principle of sufficient reason would demand that the earth exists in a way that has a purpose and deny accidental causes, but people who reject the principle of sufficient reason will not be swayed by that argument. We face a bit of a conundrum. For this dilemma I will appeal to Occam's razor. What demands more speculation: the existence of a Creator (Supreme Being/God) or the probability of concurrent accidents?

In order to accept option two we would have to accept many unprovable scientific hypotheses. The weight of science is truly impressive and hard to escape. Is science infallible though? Science has produced many truths and many, many falsehoods. The fact that it has produced falsehoods shows that it is not infallible. I could list a number of error science has produced but that would simply be prejudicial.

In order to accept option three we would have to accept one, untestable hypothesis: there is a Supreme Being.

Now by simple numbers it would seem that accepting one hypothesis is less speculative than accepting a number of hypotheses. But, the hypothesis that God exists is hard to accept and a number of scientific hypotheses (even if some are obviously false) seem to be probable.

I do not feel that the ontological argument holds any weight. But, I believe that the first cause argument proves the existence of a necessary being or a god. (For the conclusion of this argument see Book 5 pg. 43-53)

Saint Thomas Aquinas

(Originally Written July 29, 2006 in Book 5)

The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell

Chapter 13 - St. Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) is the greatest scholastic philosopher of all time.

Catholic philosophies still teach his philosophical system as the only true system.

He has the respect and authority of the Church Fathers in Catholicism.

Thomas was the son out Count Aquino and born in Naples near Monte Cassino. Monte Cassino is where the "angelic doctor" began his education. He then studied at the University of Naples. He became a Dominican and then studied under Albertus Magnus at Cologne.

Aquinas had a fuller understanding of Aristotle than other scholastics. He disliked Neo-Platonism, even in the writings of Augustine.

He convinced the Church in the philosophy of Aristotle, despite misinterpretations of Islamic Avveroist Aristotelians.

Thomas' most important work is the Summa Contra Gentiles. Its purpose is to establish the truth of Christianity in arguments to Non-Christians.

Summa Theologica is of almost equal importance, but is addressed to Christians.

This is an abstract of Summa Contra Gentiles

1) Wisdom is concerned with the end of the universe
2) The end of the Universe is the good of the intellect (truth)
3) Natural Reason is deficient in the things of God. It can prove some parts, but not all. It can prove the existence of God and the immortality of the Soul, but not the Trinity, the Incarnation or the Last Judgment.
4) Nothing in revelation (the Scriptures) is contrary to reason

Linehan - Not exactly.

The Summa Contra Gentiles is divided into four parts. The first three do not refer to the Scriptures as arguments.

The first step for Aquinas was to prove the existence of God. He rejected the ontological argument because it requires man to know the essence of God, which is impossible. The existence of God can be proved, but it can also be deduced by faith. Aquinas denies that only faith makes God knowable.

Aristotle proved the existence of God through the argument of the unmoved mover:
1) There are things that are only moved
2) There are things which move and are moved.
3) Whatever is moved, is moved by something
4) An endless series of movers is impossible.
Conclusion: There necessarily exists something that moves without being moved. This unmoved mover is God.

Aquinas gives five proofs for the existence of God in the Summa Theologica 
1) the argument of the unmoved mover
2) the argument of the first cause
3) there must be an ultimate source of all necessity
4) the various perfections of this would must have their source in something completely perfect
5) Non-living things have a purpose, but only living things have a purpose and thus something outside of them must have a purpose.

In returning to the Summa Contra Gentiles: after proving the existence of God we can say many things about him in a negative sense.
1) He is unmoved, thus eternal
2) He contains no passive potentiality, thus he is unchanging
3) He is not primary matter (pure passivity) thus he is pure activity
4) God has no composition, thus no body, thus no body parts, thus he must be something other than physical

Since God is not a composite he is his own essence.

God's essence and existence are identical.

There are no accidents in God. He cannot be defined.

It is more proper to state that X is similar to God in such a way than to say that God is similar to X.

God is good. He is the good of every good.

He is intelligent. His act of intelligence is His essence. He understands by His essence and understands himself perfectly.

God understands forms because he created them. He understands the world as being like Him in a way or unlike him in another way. God understand the plant as:
1) like him in that it is alive
2) unlike him in that it is not possessing of knowledge.

A creature always differs from God in some form of negation.

God understand all  things at the same instant.

God is literally truth.

Aquinas is now troubled with the question, can God know particular things or does He only know universals and general truths? As a Christian, Aquinas believes in providence and that demands that God must know particular things despite weighty arguments against this view. Aquinas states 7 contrary arguments then refutes them.
1) Singularity being signate matter, nothing immaterial can know it. Refutation God knows singulars as their cause.
2) Singulars do not always exist and cannot be known when they do not exist; therefore they cannot be known by an unchanging being. Refutation God nows things that do not yet exist
3) Singulars are contingent, not necessary. Therefore there can be no certain knowledge of them except when they exist. Refutation He sees all time as present.
4) Some singulars are due to volitions, which can only be known to the person willing the volition. Refutation God knows our minds and secret wills
5) Singulars are infinite in number and the infinite as such is unknown. Refutation God knows an infinity of things
6) Singulars are too petty for God's attention. Refutation Nothing is wholly trivial.
7) IN some singulars there is evil, but God cannot know evil. Refutation God knows evil things because he knows what is good and anything not good must be evil.

God possesses will. His will is His essence. His will is the cause of other things. He does not will necessarily. It is free-will.

God hates nothing. He is happy and is His own happiness.

God create the world out of nothing.

God cannot be a body, change, fail, be weary, forget, repent, be angry or sad, create a man with no soul, make the sum of the angles of a triangle be the sum of two right angles, undo the past, commit sins, make another God or make himself not exist.

Intellectual substances are immaterial and incorruptible.

The intellect is part of the soul.

The soul is not created through sexual reproduction, it is created new in each body.

Linehan - I tentatively reject this view. The soul must be reproduced in sex for the inheritance of sin to happen.

Thomas adopts Aristotle's view on universals. "Universals do no subsist outside the soul, but the intellect, in understanding universals, understands things that are outside the soul" (Russell, 458).

Evil is unintentional, not an essence. It has an accidental cause, which is good.

God is the end of all things so all things tend to be like God.

Man's happiness lies in moral virtue, not bodily pleasures. It consists in the contemplation of God.

Ultimate happiness is unachievable on earth. It only exists in heaven, when we see God face to face (even though God doesn't really have a face).

Divine Providence does not negate evil, contingency, free will, chance or luck.

Evil comes through second causes.

Angels are each individual species.

Astrology is rejected, as well as any notion of fate.

Prayer is useful in spite of Providence being unchangeable.

Miracles are solely performed by God. Magic is demonic.

Divine law:
1) directs us to love God
2) directs us to love our neighbor, but not as vividly
3) it forbids birth control because it is against nature (interestingly it does not forbid celibacy)
4) matrimony is indissoluble
5) not all carnal intercourse is sinful, but continence is a better life than marriage
6) monogamy is demanded
7) incest is forbidden

Mortal sins demand Hell as punishment. No man can be forgiven of sin without grace, yet is condemned if he doesn't convert.

God is not the cause of sin, but chooses to free some from sin and leave others in sin.

Aquinas states God is knowable three ways:
1) Reason
2) Revelation
3) Intuition of previous revelation

He blames the Greek Church for denying the double procession of the Holy Ghost and the supremacy of the pope.

He believes the sacraments are valid even if dispensed by a wicked priest.

Aquinas basically agrees with Aristotle philosophically. He is original in aptly adapting Aristotle to Christian dogma.

He was very innovative and condemned in Paris and Oxford universities.

He was even more remarkable in systematizing then originality. "Even if every one of his doctrines were mistaken, the Summa would remain an imposing intellectual edifice" (Russell, 461).

He is fair to arguments and positions contrary to his own. He then firmly dismantles them.

He does a good job in distinguishing arguments from reason and arguments from revelation.

He thoroughly knows Aristotle.

Russell contends that since Aquinas already knows the outcome of his arguments (revealed by God) that he cannot be regarded as an elite philosopher.

My beliefs circa July 28, 2006

(Originally written July 28, 2006 in Book 7)

Heart not broken, just bruised.
Love will never fail.

A number of short presuppositions

1. What is philosophy?

Philosophy is the process of discovering innate concepts in this world. It is the formulation of opinions, belief and acquisition of knowledge practiced by all human beings. It is speculation, and a way of thinking. It is necessary for all humans to function properly. It is using the limited faculty of reason and rationality that we all have.

2. What is not philosophy?

A) an exact science
B) An inexhaustible and infinite wealth of knowledge
C) A substitution for faith
D) A tool of suppressions or terror

3. Is there a God?

A god (whatever it is) necessarily exists. I turn to cosmological evidence and the first cause for this conclusion. The existence of a god does not demand the existence of God directly.

But through natural theology and scientific observance I would readily infer that some supreme mind must exist to facilitate the creation of such an orderly universe. A supreme mind infers a Supreme Being God (not yet defined by a religion) is the only being that would be able to possess a Supreme Mind.

My faith bridges the chasm between a God (Supreme Being) necessarily existing and the belief in the Christian God. A true Christian who has truly felt God (a prerequisite) cannot be swayed by any argument that God does not exist. Faith can falter or even be undermined totally, but that is an account of the weakness and fallibility of man, not an argument against God's existence.

4. What is my philosophy of philosophy?

It is a process, a means. It is not an end. If it becomes an end it contradicts itself. (A process cannot be the culmination). Philosophy is a road to Truth. Truth is the goal; philosophy is one of many means. But, philosophy or any other means to Truth is hopeless if it is not supplemented by faith.

5. What then is Truth?

Truth is God. Only through God can we grasp the Truth. The truths we grab from God is fragmentary. Thus, Truth is God, truths are man's comprehensions of bits of that Truth.

6. What is knowledge?

Knowledge is not Truth or truth. Truth exists independently, thus any truth that exists, exists as a piece of the Truth. Knowledge is the comprehension of a truth. Knowledge cannot exist independently; it requires a host to comprehend truth. Absolute knowledge is the comprehension of the Truth in its entirety. Only God (the Truth) has full comprehension of the Truth. Absolute knowledge is unattainable for man, but should be strived for.

7. Philosophy of History

History is cyclical. It isn't because of some reincarnation, but because there are similar variables and one constant. God is the constant. Every individual human being that has existed is unique, but has many familiar characteristics that he or she shares with all other humans. The probability of similar things happening in various cultures or ages is likely because they all contain the same constant (God) and similar variables (humans). While history is cyclical it is not identically cyclical.

8. Philosophy of Language

Language is a universal. It has always existed and will always exist. A particular language is a sub-universal. An individual's usage of any sub-universal (i.e. English, Spanish, etc.) is the particular. Thus language, when used becomes purely subjective. Because no human being is perfectly identical, their subjective use of language causes ambiguities and thus, difficulties. Ambiguity is unavoidable, but clarification should always be used to minimize ambiguity.

9. Philosophy of Religion

Religion is the systematized rules surrounding a belief in a supreme being. It is subjective because it involves an individual's belief in God. Religion is also concerned with Ethics and Morality. While any particular set of religious beliefs is subjective and then subjective to any particular individual it does not follow that religion is relative. Relativism does not have any place in this world.

10. Ethics

Ethics are the primary concern of philosophy because they are the core of every individual human being. Ethics precede (or at least ought to precede) every action. It is for this reason that they are of the utmost importance.

The purpose of Ethics are to provide direction to every individual human being. Since Ethics are to be personal guides they are subjective. But, as in the case of religion, subjectivism does not equate relativism. Some Ethical beliefs are better than others and some systems are wrong. The correctness of an Ethical belief is measured by its close relationship to the teachings of Christ and the nature of God. God is Truth, an objective reality. Thus, any subjective set of ethics can be measured against the Objective Truth for accuracy. The measurement is called morality and immorality. An ethical system is mostly moral when it correlates closely to the nature of God, it is immoral when it contradicts the nature of God.

11. I exist

To doubt my existence is absurd. How I exist is another matter completely.

12. Man

Man is distinct from other individual animals because man was created in the image of God. This gives man a unique balance of responsibility and supremacy.

The image of God is a capacity for rationality. This does not mean that man is a rational being. Man is capable of rationality and reason, but often chooses not to follow it. Man is by nature, irrational. Sin is a testament to the irrationality of man.

13. Evil

Evil is a privation of the Good (God). Without the presence of the Good, man is evil.

Metaphysics - Ch. 2 (B)

(Originally written July 22, 2006 in Book 6)

Metaphysics
Peter van Inwagen

Ch. 2 - Individuality

An individual thing is not a process. Processes start and end and happen. Individual things come into existence and go out of existence.

The Common Western metaphysic holds that the World consists of many individual things. Contrary to the Common Western metaphysic there are those who believe:
1) There are no individual things (nihilism)
2) There is one individual thing (monism)
3) There is more than one individual thing, but there are not many

Dualists believe that there are two types of things, not just two individual things: mental things and physical things. Some dualists hold that there are two things that are either good or evil, or order and disorder.

Nihilism believes in universals and the things that we see are not individual things, but modifications and collections.

Nihilists can also only believe in stuff and no individual things or collections or modifications.

Nihilism that bases its theory that individual things do not exist and only modifications of universals exist is not plausible. Nihilism that bases its theory that individual things do not exist and only collections exist is even less plausible. Nihilism that believes that individual things exist only as stuff is the most plausible but does not match up with modern physics.

Monism believes that there is only one individual thing. "Monists believe that there is only one thing that is at all like things that those who believe that there are many individual things" (van Inwagen, 20). Monists hold that only one non-universal thing can exist. Thus, monists basically hold that only these things exist:
1) Universals
2) Stuffs
3) Modifications
4) The One (the only individual thing)
5) Modifications of the One
6) Collections of modifications of the One

Some monists hold that what individual things (seemingly) are are actually various modifications of the One. (This is Spinoza's version).

Some monists hold that seemingly individual things are appearances and cannot be viewed as reality at all. This school of thought was held by the Absolute Idealists. (Berkeley held this version).

Berkeley believed that minds were actually individual things, so he couldn't be an Absolute Idealist or a true monist.

A third form of monism holds that seemingly individual things are actually how the One portraits itself to himself. The Sun (the One) presents itself to me (the One) in a certain way.

Linehan - Sexual gratification is thus only masturbation. The One is one horny bastard.

Some people stat that Hindus hold this third view.

Monism, while it has various forms believes that individuality is either illusionary at its lowest and not fully real at its best.

Why would anyone be a Monist?

Spinoza - "If a thing is not absolutely independent of everything else, then it must be a mere modification of something that is absolutely independent of everything else" (van Inwagen, 32).

Linehan - While I do not hold to monism or Spinoza at all, this is a very good argument.

When the One is called 'god' it becomes pantheism. Theism is a mean between pantheism (all is God) and atheism (nothing is God). Atheists do not believe in God, thus only the physical universe composes the world.

While theists and atheists disagree profoundly, they both reject pantheism (and monism).

Atheists reject monism on a number of levels:
1) Some hold that there are no independent beings
2) some hold that there are many independent things

Some monists accept monism simply because of a certain experience that has shown them individuality is only an illusion. These experiences do not come from senses (which indicate individual things) but from religious or mystical experience. Whatever triggers these experiences (chance, drugs or rigorous spiritual exercises) they end them with the feeling that one of the mot important pieces of knowledge is that individuality is an illusion. People who have these experiences call them ineffable, impossible to articulate or describe.

Linehan - at the end of chapter 2 I find myself questioning why I ever wished to embark on metaphysical studies. What good can come from questions without answers? I find myself slipping into a metaphysical madness. But, metaphysics and anything in philosophy (save for history) is similar to faith. Faith provides for me the knowledge of God (for me, knowledge is the comprehension of truth). Undoubtedly, truth exists. Just as sure as truth exists, I am incapable of comprehending it all. Thus, I am wholly incapable of comprehending all truth and thus, ill-equipped to handle or possess absolute knowledge. While I do not have absolute knowledge of God, I have enough partial knowledge to assert his existence as real. Faith then provides me with the assurance of God, which I cannot get from my own knowledge.

Metaphysics cannot provide concrete knowledge. Without the assurance of God's existence, provided by faith, anyone would be lost in metaphysical madness, entering endless dark alleys of speculation ultimately leaving him or her with nothing but hopeless skepticism. I will never produce concrete metaphysical facts, but I am assured that any questions I 'answer' will continue to point me towards God. What I cannot produce through metaphysics will undoubtedly be overcome through faith. Questions are a process (one of the many processes) that ultimately lead to God. The final question that they produce is (thankfully) an answerable one. Will you accept God's existence and the mercy he offers or will you deny God and His grace? As for me and my house, I will accept the Lord.