Category: philosophy

A headache and a question – if it’s true that it’s false, then it’s false that it’s true too

If Rene Descartes starts with the assumption that it is true that everything is false, then does it not also mean that it is false that it is true that everything is false, and by which, if it is false that it is true that everything is false, then something’s at least are true [it’s true that it’s false that it’s true that it’s false].



Does this mean that he bases his foundation of the Cartesian method of doubt on a something that is not true (the thought that it is true that everything is false, or the thought that it is not true because it is false because everything is false) – then by his own logic because his foundation is built on something false, then his whole method of doubt is also then untrue! But that in itself is a truth.



So if it’s true that it’s false then it’s false that it’s true, which means it’s false that it’s false, which makes it true?



Do you see why people say I give them a headache all the time?



But seriously, isn’t there something self-referentially incoherent about the Cartesian Method of Doubt.



I know in the end Rene believes there is but one thing that is true “Cogito Ergo Sum” – however, how can he know that it’s true, if he starts with the idea that everything is false (which is itself an incoherent statement as it is self-contradictory), and therefore then disqualifies his own argument against his own argument.

The truth of fiveness

Someone in my philosophy class made the statement that they believe the emperical (sense dataum) view of truth is the ultimate view; they made the statement that they agreed with the idea of locke and hume that our minds from birth are a tabula raza (blank slate) – I’m a rationalist (although not purely) and I would agree with Plato & Socrates that there is knowledge that is a priori – even if not seen prima fascie.


The thought is that you can teach your child that 2+2=5; and because they learn through experience, until experience shows them otherwise, they will believe that it is true (does false belief equate to knowledge?). Here is my counter argument. 🙂



I don’t agree with either Locke or Hume that our mind is a blank slate at birth, just like with Socrates, Plato and many other rationalists, I believe there are many things that we know a priori; although I would admit prima fascie it may seem like we are a blank slate.


If your son was told, and thus believed that 2+2=5, would it be true? So if you give him one item, then another item, then another item and another item and present them to him, and ask him how many items he has, would he be able to present you back with 5 items (even though he only had 4?).


Your son may not understand the idea of fiveness, but could he thus produce 5 items out of 4? So while he can’t justifiably know that 2+2=5 without having an experience of fiveness, is there not a standard of fiveness beyond him that can be known a priori (that is 4 != 5)?


But, I also am not a pure rationalist, I agree with you that there are many things that we learn through experience, and not pure rationalization – however, how much can we trust experience without rational thought?


For example, to many people, including myself, 60 is really warm in the winter, but really cold in the summer, so which is true to me, is 60 warm or 60 cold? Experience, in this case would say “It depends”, but rational thought would say “My body is roughly 98 degrees, so 60 degrees is about 38 degrees colder than my body, so 60 is to be perceived as cold”.

To an Aethist on the Problem of Evil

I would like to first start off by recognizing that the questions you have brought up on the existence of God are more academic in nature than personal. I have found that when approaching this type of question, value and prudence are found in addressing each individual appropriately. If you had, let’s say, approached this discussion asking about some specific pain or disappointment you had experienced in your life, our discussion may have gone in a different direction. In your questions on the existence of God, in light of human pain and suffering, you have taken an academic approach, and therefore I shall answer you (somewhat) academically.

Before we get into our discussion in more depth, let us lay some groundwork. As we work through this problem of evil, let us first address the concept of paradox. Sometimes, there are expressions of an idea that seem intuitively to be contradictory. A paradox often encompasses concepts, that seem prima fascie self-refuting. Let me provide a few illustrations.

Have you ever heard the saying “spreading yourself thin”? The idea is that if you are a jack of all trades, then you are a master of none. In this case, it is easy to understand the epitome of “less is more”. Less knowledge in the broader sense can provide the ability to have more knowledge in the particular sense. The statement – “less is more”, while seeming at first glance to be self-refuting and contradictory, can also be understood in the right relationship and in the right way.

There are also scenarios in life where you may need to be cruel to someone to be kind to them. This once again, seems at first glance to be self-contradictory, and yet, perhaps if someone says to you, “do I look fat in this outfit”, you could say “no” and subject them to the ridicule of their peers, or you could say “yes, it is not very flattering”. In the second case, you may be cruel, but you were cruel only to be kind.

In both of these above cases, we have seen scenarios where language provides a paradox, and yet, given the right relationship and understanding, we can, in some ways, provide satisfactory resolution to what is seemingly a self-refuting incoherent paradox of ideas.

Now it is by no means a hard stretch to reason, that if humans can take hold of paradoxical positions, then a God who is greater, can also maintain positions of paradox as well. This concept is also necessary when we seek understanding of God in light of the question of evil.

And so, it seems most appropriate to discuss your views on the non-existence of God with the most fundamental of all objections to God – the paradox of evil. Our God is understood to be omniscient (all knowing), omni-benevolent (all loving) and omnipotent (all powerful). And here, we find that an all loving, all powerful and all knowing God still allows evil (and by inference pain and suffering and sin) to persist. So, at first glance, one might immediately jump to the conclusion that this God, as described, does not exist. However, such a conclusion is not necessary.

I shall begin with an illustration.

Once there was a young princess, who while ugly, seemed to have a heart of gold, her name was Orual. Orual was sister kin to a princess that seemed simple, and yet, was the most beautiful and unselfish woman the world had ever laid eyes on, she was called Psyche.

Through a series of unfortunate events Psyche was offered (offered herself) up as a sacrifice to appease the gods and to divert a pestilence and famine that had fallen upon their home kingdom of Glome. After the sacrifice commenced, Orual, assured that Psyche had not really been killed, searched for her, and found her sitting in a castle that could not be seen by human eyes, eating food that could not be tasted by mortal tongue and married to a god who refused to show his face.

Insisting that the beautiful girl had cracked under the strain of her ordeal, Orual entreated her to expose her god-husband, by disobeying him and looking upon his face directly, for she was sure that this would open the eyes of Psyche so she could see that her husband was not a god, but a mere rouge that had enticed her into believing in a false and make believe world, and was holding her against her will in an impoverished, retched state.

Partly because of her love for Orual, and more because of Orual’s vain insistence, Psyche obeyed, exposed her husband’s face, and was banished from the kingdom and her immortal husband, to roam and walk the earth.

In great distress Orual began writing a book; her charge against the gods. She wrote accusing them of injustice, vileness, indifference, she accused them of hiding themselves, and then punishing her for her unbelief, she claimed them to be unloving and unkind, and in her distress she blamed the gods for her very unbelief.

The book ends with Orual being brought before the gods to give her account of how they were unjust, unloving, uncaring and unworthy of love and adoration. In the end Orual finds her answer to her charges, and she understands that we cannot meet with the gods face to face, till we have faces.

This illustration is a very short rendition of a magnificent book called Till We Have Faces written by C.S. Lewis. I would highly recommend reading this book, as it draws out for recognition a fundamental question of the differences between what we, as humans claim to know, and what we, as humans really do know.

This story is similar to the story we find in the Jewish book of Job. In this book, we find God allowing pain and suffering and evil to happen to this blameless and upright man by the name of Job. As readers, we have a somewhat omniscient view of what is going on, because we get to read Job chapter one and two – but Job doesn’t – he has no idea of why all these trials and pains beset him. What is interesting, in the very end, when Job confronts God, the only answer God gives Job is, Himself. And Job, a man who lost all his earthly possessions, sons and daughters and servants, accepts this answer, for he realizes that he is faceless before the power of The Almighty God.

Now, so far, I have used parables to discuss how God is far beyond reproach and questioning, and yet, you may, at this point, believe that this line of reasoning is invalid. For, you may say, I still haven’t answered your question as to why He allows pain and suffering and evil, but have only side stepped it by saying “God is God”. This approach might be compared to a kind of talking head like the Wizard of Oz in saying “Do not question the great and powerful Oz”. For those that believe in the Wizard, the argument is convincing, but for those who do not believe, much more is required.

Very well then, I think, to answer your question from an academic perspective, I might first need to discuss the nature of evil. What is evil? How does one define evil? Close your eyes and think up a definition of evil.

Many philosophers define evil as the lack of good. They say evil has no positive nature, but evil is a measurement of the absence of good (referred to in philosophical terms as the privation of good). Things that are considered to be not evil are measured on an approximation of goodness and perfection.
This is exactly what Thomas Aquinas does in his 4th cosmological argument. His argument is that the idea of “more perfect” and “less perfect” is defined as an approximate to the standard, and that standard must be that which is all perfection, and that which is all perfections is by definition God (see Anselm’s Ontological Argument). Evil is therefore the absolute lack of perfection, it is defined as that which lacks all perfections. The reason we can even attribute something as evil, or less than perfect, is because we have the perfect being to approximate our standard too. Therefore, the knowledge of evil proves the existence of God.

C.S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity goes even further to define what he refers to as the moral law that governs what is right or wrong. Lewis states that when two people disagree on what is right and wrong (and the existence of this type of disagreement is an undeniable truth), then they are both implicitly appealing to a standard that is outside of themselves, a concept of what is morally right and morally wrong. Again, this measurement is known by what is considered to be “more right” and “less right” as it approximates the ultimate standard of rightness (or perfection). God is defined as that which has all perfections. Therefore, the fact that people argue over right and wrong, proves the existence of God.

At this point, I have given you reasons to show why the existence of evil is yet another proof for the existence of God, so let me get down to business and answer your question without skirting it any longer.

The existence of evil is a paradox when it comes to the existence of an all powerful, all loving God. It is one that I cannot truly answer you, beyond a shadow of a doubt. But what I can say, I will. When we look at our own lives, there are many things when approximating to a standard of what is good, would be defined as bad. There are things that we see happen that we consider evil: a child dying in childhood, a mother or father dying and leaving their children to grow up without a parent or parents, disfigurements, unfairness and injustice happening everywhere in the world around us, and the list goes on and on. Do I have an answer for all of these things? No. Do I have an answer for even some of these things? Probably not.

And yet, when I look at my own life, and I see the evils, the hardships, the suffering, there are many things that I can now stand up and say “I see the good that has come from this”. It may not be that I will always see the good; it may not be that there will always be a good to be seen by our own eyes, and yet, just as with a paradox (even if it is one that we cannot understand in the right relationship, in the right way), the evils we see in and around us cannot, through logic, or probability describe away the existence of an Omnipotent, Omni-Benevolent, Omniscient God. His existence in light of the existence of evil is not a contradiction, but rather a paradox that we do not have the right faculties to understand.

I wish I could continue, as I have just scratched the surface, and there is so much more that I would love to discuss, on each and every one of your points; but, to take the words for John, I suppose if the whole world were a scroll and the oceans ink, I still could not capture the complexity and importance of this discussion.

Perhaps, some day, when we have faces, we will be able to understand.

I am sick with a headache – but not because of this…

Faith versus Reason


A discourse on St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Anselm of Canterbury



Jediah L.


PHI1000


Sunday, January 27, 2008



The two names, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Anselm of Canterbury carry great weight in both the world of religion and philosophy. In this introduction to philosophy course, we have been asked to compare and contrast the Ontological argument of Anselm to the arguments of cosmology from St. Thomas Aquinas. While we can find cosmological arguments in works of Anselm (like those put forth in the Monologion), and we can find ontological arguments by Aquinas (like some of the divine traits put forth in the quinquae viae), the intent of this assignment is not to limit either philosopher to a specific set of arguments, rather to compare and contrast these identified arguments for the existence of God. As a result, in this paper, we will focus specifically on the differences of the ontological versus cosmological arguments of the two aforementioned philosophers. Our primary focus will be to show how each proof presents a priori or a posteriori arguments for God’s existence, as well as compare and contrast the way of faith and reason shown by the differing methods of these two arguments.


We turn our view first to St. Anselm of Canterbury. Anselm, in his ontological argument, argues first and foremost of the a priori nature of God, that is, that the existence of God is necessary and self-evident. His philosophical proof can be defined in its essence as thus:


1. God by definition is that which no greater can be conceived


2. That which is outside of the mind is greater than that which is only inside of the mind (for existence is greater than non-existence).


3. If God existed only inside of the mind, than one could conceive of a God greater than God


4. Therefore: God exists (outside of the mind)


In the Proslogium Anselm lays out this argument, and asserts that even the fool can be convinced that there is in understanding, that which no greater can be conceived. His proof continues to dictate that while the fool might state, that which no greater can be conceived only exists in understanding, it by necessity must also exist in reality, for if it is conceived in understanding alone, it can also be conceived to exist in reality (which is greater), and by definition that which no greater can be conceived is that which no greater can be conceived..:namespace prefix = w ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word” /> (Pojman, Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, 2006). While this reasoning seems very circular, the Theologian and Apologist Cornelius Van Til points out that “every system of thought is circular when arguing its most fundamental presuppositions (e.g. a rationalist can defend the authority of reason only by using reason) (Frame).”


One of the primary points to notice of Anselm’s argument is that it defines the existence of God as a necessary and analytical truth and then builds rational arguments upon that. This thought process can be seen in Anselm through one of his famous phrases: Credo ut Intellegam. This phrase acts in summation of the idea that we first have faith in what necessarily has to exist by definition, and through this faith we seek the rationale (understanding) of this faith (faith comes before reason).


The arguments by St. Thomas Aquinas, however, take a different approach to proving God. Aquinas uses a posteriori reasoning; that is, he seeks to prove God by contingent and synthetic truths through particular experiences and justifications. Of the five proofs, the two that are given the most attention in our assigned readings are the arguments of first cause and arguments of contingency.


The first cause argument goes something like this (Pojman, Philosophy : The pursuit of wisdom, 2006):


1. There exists things that are caused


2. Nothing can cause itself


3. An infinite number of causes cannot be regressed


4. Therefore there exists an uncaused first cause


5. This uncaused first cause is God


This argument is based on an understanding of ex nihilo nihil fit, which is to say, out of nothing, nothing comes. The idea behind this understanding is that in order for something to create itself (to cause itself), it must predate itself, and therefore it must exist and not-exist at the same time, which is not logically or casually possible and violates the law of non-contradiction put forth by Aristotle. Secondly, premise three can be furthered through a thought experiment proposed by David Hilbert, referred to as Hilbert’s hotel. This experiment shows the absurdity of trying to traverse an actual infinite, and draws a differentiation between an actual infinite and a potential infinite, the later being an indefinite collection. In this thought experiment, Hilbert’s hotel has an infinite number of rooms, but an infinite number of guests as well (therefore the hotel is full). Hilbert shows that you can still add an infinite number of hotel guests (even though the hotel is already full), and yet have no more guests then before you added the infinite number of guests. His conclusion is that the hotel has a potential infinite (an indefinite collection) rather than an actual infinite (Pojman, Philosophy : The pursuit of wisdom, 2006).


The contingent argument goes something like this (Pojman, Philosophy : The pursuit of wisdom, 2006):


1. Every being that exists is either contingent or necessary


2. Not every being can be contingent


3. Therefore there exists a necessary being upon which the contingent beings depend.


4. A necessary being on which all contingent beings exist is what we mean by “God”


5. Therefore God exists


This argument is also similar to the first cause argument, in that it describes the concept of ex nihilo nihil fit, that is, before contingent beings come to exist, there must be something non-contingent (therefore necessarily existing) to predate those things that are contingent, because contingent things cannot create themselves, and are contingent in reference to something outside of themselves.


As can be seen in these cosmological proofs, Aquinas, unlike Anselm’s ontological argument, takes the approach that we can come to faith in the existence of God, first by reasoning through our experiences and through rational justifications.


In summary, both Thomas Aquinas and St. Anselm agree in the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolant, omniscient God, the God of the Christian Bible, however, they approach the subject within these discussed proofs quite differently. Aquinas uses a posteriori reasoning based on contingent and synthetic truths defined through particular experiences and justifications, his idea is that logic and reason will bring us to the knowledge of the existence of God. Anselm, on the other hand, uses a priori reasoning based on necessary and analytical truths, his premise is that we start our search for God with faith in what is necessarily true, and use that faith to bring rationale to our understanding.



Bibliography


Frame, J. M. (n.d.). Van Til, Cornelius (1895-1987). Retrieved January 27, 2008, from The Works of John Frame and Vern Poythress: http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2005Vantil.htm


Nolan, L. (2006, October 18). Decartes’ Ontological Argument. Retrieved January 27, 2008, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/


Pojman, L. P. (2006). Philosophy : The pursuit of wisdom. Belmont: Holly J. Allen.


Pojman, L. P. (2006). Philosophy: The Quest for Truth. New York: Oxford University Press.



Second portion of our assignment is to use the Hypothetical syllogism pattern to show how Descartes’ ontological argument can be expressed. Taking Descartes’ ontological argument by way of a quote from the Fifth mediation (Nolan, 2006), my hypothetical syllogism for the ontological argument would appear as such:



1. If I can clearly and distinctly relate a property to an object then I must have some foundation to understand the property of the object


2. If I have a foundation to understand the property of an object then the object must have that property


3. Therefore: If I clearly and distinctly relate to the property of an object, then the object must have that property


4. I can clearly and distinctly relate existence to God, therefore God must have existence

Savage or Noble – Do you wnt to know?

I worked out deductive arguments to answer this question; i have the logic written out, I won’t give it out to anyone who hasn’t tried to work the solution outo themselves – but if you’ve tried and you’re stumped – or want validation, let me know and I’ll be happy to provide it!




You are the sole survivor of a shipwreck and are drifting in a small raft parallel to the coast of an island. You know that on this island there are only two tribes of natives: Nobles, kind folk who always tell the truth and Savages, cannibals who always lie. Naturally, you want to find refuge with the Nobles. You see a man standing on the shore and call out, “Are you a Noble or a Savage?” The man answers the question, but a wave breaks on the beach at that very moment, so you don’t hear the reply. The boat drifts farther down along the shore when you see another man. You ask him the same question, and he replies, pointing to the first man, “He said he was a Noble.” Then he continues, “I am a Noble.” Your boat drifts farther down the shore where you see a third man. You ask him the same question. The man seems very friendly as he calls out, “They are both liars. I am a Noble. They are Savages.”



Who are the Nobles and who are the Savages?


(From Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, Louis P. Pojman)

Do you search for truth?

“Very few really seek knowledge in
this world. Mortal or immortal, few
really ask. On the contrary, they try
to wring from the unknown the
answers they have already shaped in
their own minds – justification,
explanations, forms of consolation
without which they can’t go on. To
really ask is to open the door to the
whirlwind. The answer may
annihilate the question and the
questioner.”



Spoken by the Vampire Marius in
Ann Rice’s book The Vampire Lestat
Ballantine Books. New York, NY. 1985.

A presuppositional Compatibilist?

I have met so many people that seem to subscribe to what I would call Objectivism (although in truth, after looking this up for this post, it appears that someone has already laid claim to this term, and I make no claim to a comparison between my use and their use), where they believe that their views are totally mind independent, that they can interchange in the economy of idea’s without having any presupposed bias.

In my view of existence, that there is no being-independent reasoning, I would make references to Aristotle’s Prime Mover (The First Cause) – to state that outside of the prime mover there is no uncaused cause (in some ways I’m a Compatibilist [That is – I believe in determinism and free-will all at the same time]) – in fact, in regards to pre-existing thought – I would probably be considered a presuppositionalist like Van Til – stating that all human thought presupposes the existence of the God of the Bible – but no – I’m not prepared to argue that point (yet). 🙂



To me reason is not abstract from being.

What Philosophy means to me..

The formal definition of Philosophy can be stated as such: The Love of Knowledge (from the two Greek words philos and sophia). The material definition of Philosophy can be described as Lewis Pojman does:


[Philosophy] begins with wonder at the world, aims at truth and wisdom, and hopefully results in a life filled with meaning and moral goodness. It is centered in clarifying concepts and analyzing and constructing arguments regarding life’s perennial and perplexing questions. (Pojman, 2006).



Marcus Buckingham wrote a book called “Now Discover your strengths”, in this book, it was made evidently clear to me what I have almost always known, since becoming conscience of my own cognitive aberrations – I am truly a philosopher at heart.


Of my top 3 greatest strengths are Strategy, Learning and Context – I am driven by examining all portions of a problem and seeking the best and most intelligent strategy, constantly driven to learn and grow, taking a strong emphasis on the past to understand the context of every situation before looking towards the present in relation to the future.


Young children have this tendency to walk around in their lives and constantly ask “Why”, “Why”, “Why”; most adults (as I do) find this a rather annoying quality of children. However, I have never grown out of it myself.


From an early age, long before I was introduced to ideas like Descartes Method of Doubt, it has been my life’s goal to constantly question my own beliefs, question the teachings I have been given as a child, and to search for truth.


This quest has brought a lot of trouble and heart ache into my life, walking away from convictions that your friends and family hold to be true, because they are unsupportable and irrational can be a dark and lonely road, and yet, as was stated by Martin Luther when standing before the Church fathers at the Diet of Worms: “Unless I am convinced by holy scripture, or by evident reason… I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one’s conscience is neither safe nor sound” (Oberman, 2006).


Regardless of the problems in my life that the love of knowledge has caused, with this relentless drive in the pursuit of knowledge comes a greater appreciation and an awakened beauty, for each and every new concept that comes through and knocks down my world as I know it. As I grow and grasp, I am left with the sense of waking up on a summer’s morning inside of a hot and stuffy tent, unzipping the door and stepping out into fresh sunlight and to indescribable sights and sounds.


I will never cease to be awestruck through, in and around the world as it exists – I shall cling to the reformation motto of “Semper Reformanda” – and hope there never comes a time in my life that I am not ready, able and willing to learn and grow.


Philosophy to me is the foundation of my existence.


Works Cited


Oberman, H. A. (2006). Luther: Man Between God and the Devil. New Haven: Yale University Press.


Pojman, L. P. (2006). Philosophy : The Pursuit of Wisdom 5th Ed. Belmont: Holly J. Allen.

Are you really free?

Premise 1) If everything is caused, then no one is free


Premise 2) Everything is caused


Therefore: No one is free



This statement is a valid, solid deductive argument. If you don’t agree with the conclusion, then you must disagree with one of the two premises.


I’m curious – what are your thoughts?