Posts
Well... The Big American Zero is dead. With no further ado, the curtain closes and the lights come up. I am going to leave the site up for a little while, I still have a number of students who end up here looking to get a synopsis of Hume's Guillotine or on the nature of virtue.
Unfortunately, I am juggling work (and I'm going to be teaching in the fall) and school and family responsibilities and blogging about philosophy, while very interesting and a lot of fun, falls at the bottom of my priority list. The Big Zero may be back at some time in the future, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Peace in the Middle-East everyone!
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Mad World
Sorry for the dead space! I've been caught up at work and all that jazz.
I just happened to attend a high school concert at which a choral group performed this song. It's a beautiful piece of music even if it is a bit depressing.
I almost posted the video from Donnie Darko, but Frank really creeps me out and I am working late a night in my office alone...
I just happened to attend a high school concert at which a choral group performed this song. It's a beautiful piece of music even if it is a bit depressing.
I almost posted the video from Donnie Darko, but Frank really creeps me out and I am working late a night in my office alone...
Friday, April 10, 2009
Theodicy - The Existance of Evil
I have stumbled upon an interesting philosophy blog which discusses some of the metaphysical issues which I have typically focused on here. As seems to always be the case, the author and I disagree about the ultimate conclusion of his argument, but it is certainly an interesting and well informed series of articles.
I might post a response to some of these ideas here. We will see how I feel about it once I have really had a chance to digest his postings and the various comments.
Check them out! You will have to read from the bottom up as this blog, like most, arranges things in chronological order (ie. the first post is at the bottom of the page).
I might post a response to some of these ideas here. We will see how I feel about it once I have really had a chance to digest his postings and the various comments.
Check them out! You will have to read from the bottom up as this blog, like most, arranges things in chronological order (ie. the first post is at the bottom of the page).
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Ozymandias
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
~ Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelley
Retrieved on 3/30/09 from: http://www.online-literature.com/shelley_percy/672/
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
~ Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelley
Retrieved on 3/30/09 from: http://www.online-literature.com/shelley_percy/672/
Monday, March 23, 2009
Free-Will - Some Ancient Proofs
I was interested to note that Walter Farrell, the gent who wrote the “Companion to the Summa” books that have been hovering in apparent stasis on the left side of the page since Christmas, broached the question of the freedom of the will. Apparently the proofs that St. Thomas Aquinas used are largely the same ones that we have been using. I admit that I am a bit of a nerd, so I find this more exciting than I expect anyone else will.
His proofs are as follows:
The argument from morality: If man is not free, there can be no question of his actions being right or wrong; they are simply necessary. It is absurd to reward good behavior or punish bad behavior if both are nothing more than physically necessary. A great quote about morality is, “if a moral law means anything, it means a law which does not force but obliges,” (p 313). Farrell does a good job of demonstrating the absurdity of moving contrary to this position by pointing out that we wouldn’t ever think about actual physical characteristics (height or the size of one’s hands) as being morally right or wrong. If we have no free will than none of our actions are any different than these physical characteristics.
(As a side note, which I encourage new readers to this blog to skip: I have been doing a lot of thinking about an article on determinism and justice that was posted here awhile back, and I have concluded that the author has done a good job of not answering any questions at all. The apparent conclusion that the judge will make a judgment based on his own conditioning does not provide a basis for morality outside of free-will, but instead is simply a statement that justice and morality are not actually real at all. This solution tries to diffuse the problem by pretending that the problem does not exist. In fact, this is just a reduction to a statement that morality is whatever individuals “feel” is right or wrong. This incorrect answer to the morality question has already been discussed earlier.)
The argument from experience: Man has the immediate and consistent experience of being aware of his own freedom. We are aware of our ability to exercise our will and choose between alternatives and we are aware that we use this ability to actually make decisions all day long. This, of course, is the proof offered by the Good Reverend. This is consistent with the Ancient philosophical school of the Greeks (at least the Aristotelian) which insisted that some concepts must be known by intuition (in that specialized Aristotelian sense).
The argument from the order of the universe: (This being the proof which we did not use and I think one can quickly see why) Every object in the universe is assigned it’s particular nature which it never acts contrary to; rocks do not laugh, nor do parrots swim. Farrell moves the argument forward as such, “why should his (man’s) appetite, capable of the universal, the supreme, be forced to desire that which is so plainly imperfect?” (p 314). By those things which are “plainly imperfect” Farrell means those material things which humans do in fact spend their time working towards (ie. anything other than God Himself).
I think this final argument has merit, but it is coming from a very different place than the other arguments and it requires the reader to go a great deal further. In other words it would take more time to explain and make clear than I am willing to put in.
Another argument, which occurred to me recently, is this: If we did not possess free-will, where did this concept come from? Humanity has never come up with a single original concept; they are all necessarily derived from the universe in some way. If nothing possesses true freedom, where did the idea come from? As we do have a concept for "free-will" it must be, in some sense, a real thing.
All quotations are taken from "A Companion to the Summa" Vol. I by Walter Farrell. Copyright 1941 by Sheed & Ward.
(Editor's note: Some stylistic modifications made on 3/24/09 because I didn't actually spend enough time editing before I posted yesterday.)
His proofs are as follows:
The argument from morality: If man is not free, there can be no question of his actions being right or wrong; they are simply necessary. It is absurd to reward good behavior or punish bad behavior if both are nothing more than physically necessary. A great quote about morality is, “if a moral law means anything, it means a law which does not force but obliges,” (p 313). Farrell does a good job of demonstrating the absurdity of moving contrary to this position by pointing out that we wouldn’t ever think about actual physical characteristics (height or the size of one’s hands) as being morally right or wrong. If we have no free will than none of our actions are any different than these physical characteristics.
(As a side note, which I encourage new readers to this blog to skip: I have been doing a lot of thinking about an article on determinism and justice that was posted here awhile back, and I have concluded that the author has done a good job of not answering any questions at all. The apparent conclusion that the judge will make a judgment based on his own conditioning does not provide a basis for morality outside of free-will, but instead is simply a statement that justice and morality are not actually real at all. This solution tries to diffuse the problem by pretending that the problem does not exist. In fact, this is just a reduction to a statement that morality is whatever individuals “feel” is right or wrong. This incorrect answer to the morality question has already been discussed earlier.)
The argument from experience: Man has the immediate and consistent experience of being aware of his own freedom. We are aware of our ability to exercise our will and choose between alternatives and we are aware that we use this ability to actually make decisions all day long. This, of course, is the proof offered by the Good Reverend. This is consistent with the Ancient philosophical school of the Greeks (at least the Aristotelian) which insisted that some concepts must be known by intuition (in that specialized Aristotelian sense).
The argument from the order of the universe: (This being the proof which we did not use and I think one can quickly see why) Every object in the universe is assigned it’s particular nature which it never acts contrary to; rocks do not laugh, nor do parrots swim. Farrell moves the argument forward as such, “why should his (man’s) appetite, capable of the universal, the supreme, be forced to desire that which is so plainly imperfect?” (p 314). By those things which are “plainly imperfect” Farrell means those material things which humans do in fact spend their time working towards (ie. anything other than God Himself).
I think this final argument has merit, but it is coming from a very different place than the other arguments and it requires the reader to go a great deal further. In other words it would take more time to explain and make clear than I am willing to put in.
Another argument, which occurred to me recently, is this: If we did not possess free-will, where did this concept come from? Humanity has never come up with a single original concept; they are all necessarily derived from the universe in some way. If nothing possesses true freedom, where did the idea come from? As we do have a concept for "free-will" it must be, in some sense, a real thing.
All quotations are taken from "A Companion to the Summa" Vol. I by Walter Farrell. Copyright 1941 by Sheed & Ward.
(Editor's note: Some stylistic modifications made on 3/24/09 because I didn't actually spend enough time editing before I posted yesterday.)
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Free Will and Ethics
In our discussions on morality we were able to provide solid evidence in support of the idea that without some absolute moral law (what Immanuel Kant called the Categorical Imperative) morality does not exist at all. Then in our discussion of free-will, a long and rambling discussion I freely admit, we were able to strongly suggest that the creature called Man (or Human if you prefer) has the ability to make decisions and so has some control over his (or her) own behavior. I think that in both of these discussions we were able to see that the denial of either of these positions will ultimately result in the denial of our own humanity and reason.
I assume that no one has any difficulty in seeing what naturally follows from these two positions. We are all subject to moral law (or else it is not absolute) and we all are able, by the use of our free-will, to either follow or not follow this moral law (while of course maintaining that it is easier for some than for others).
Before I am able to go further it is necessary to stop and talk a little about what the moral law actually requires, what it is, and where it comes from. I need to discuss a popular misconception about the moral law before we can take our next step.
This is the idea that there have been many different moralities over the course of human history. While I don’t argue that there are no differences in the moral codes between different peoples in different times, I maintain that the moral codes have been far more similar than they have ever been different. The similarities between the codes of moral conduct between the early Americans, the English in the middle-ages, and the ancient Egyptians and Greeks are really quite amazing.
If you doubt me, take a moment to really think about it. Imagine for a moment a code morality which is truly different from our own, different in a way which is qualitative not quantitative; a morality which actually applauds stealing, lying, and cheating the people who have done the most for you. It is difficult to even imagine a code which tells you to hate and betray your closest friends and family. I have found that the codes which have come the closest to this did so, not because they felt that one particular value was unimportant, but rather because they felt another was even more important.
If you actually look back at all the moral codes ever developed (by Plato, Jesus, Confucius, Buddha…) certain rules of behavior run throughout all of them. To see an illustration of this, check out the appendix of The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis. This means that most people have had at least a general idea of the moral law. As I mentioned once before, I do not necessarily think that any one moral code totally embodies the essence of the moral law, but that nearly all reflect it in some way (imperfectly).
As such, I am not putting myself in the position of telling anyone else what code to follow and will not (at this time) push any of the ethical requirements of any one particular code. Instead, I will content myself with saying that the majority of traditional morality is in agreement and if we take morality on the whole, we will do rather well (but not perfectly).
So we have a situation in which we are aware of what is moral (for the most part) and, because of our free-will, we can either choose to do the right thing or not. It seems to be a simple matter of personal history that none of us has done the right thing all the time. We have all done things which we knew were objectively “bad” but did them anyways. What the result of these two things, free-will and an objective moral law which none of us has perfectly followed, is that we are all guilty.
If there were not absolute moral law, we could shrug this off as “other peoples’” opinion, but we already know that this isn’t true. If we had no free-will, we could say that we are not responsible for our own decisions, but we already know that this isn’t true either!
I think this is a critical point because our culture has moved so far away from thinking clearly about ethics and morality that this simple fact about human beings has been totally lost on our popular consciousness. We are not going to be able to think clearly or reasonably about morality and ethics until we accept the fact of our own guiltiness.
It may be said in objection, “So what? I have done something wrong, so has everyone else! What’s the big deal? I am certainly better than Mr. So and So down the street.” This is on the one hand a very reasonable objection, after all we are all guilty of breaking our own moral codes, so who am I to bring it up and wave it in peoples faces?
On the other hand this objection is very much mistaking the whole point of my argument. On this blog I am only talking about matters of fact, and matters of fact are totally indifferent to who is better than whom and I am certainly not making anything a big or little deal. I am merely concerned with using logic and philosophy to determine what really is.
Our use of reason and logic has led us to this point and I am certainly not going to stop here. There is much more to learn and talk about!
I assume that no one has any difficulty in seeing what naturally follows from these two positions. We are all subject to moral law (or else it is not absolute) and we all are able, by the use of our free-will, to either follow or not follow this moral law (while of course maintaining that it is easier for some than for others).
Before I am able to go further it is necessary to stop and talk a little about what the moral law actually requires, what it is, and where it comes from. I need to discuss a popular misconception about the moral law before we can take our next step.
This is the idea that there have been many different moralities over the course of human history. While I don’t argue that there are no differences in the moral codes between different peoples in different times, I maintain that the moral codes have been far more similar than they have ever been different. The similarities between the codes of moral conduct between the early Americans, the English in the middle-ages, and the ancient Egyptians and Greeks are really quite amazing.
If you doubt me, take a moment to really think about it. Imagine for a moment a code morality which is truly different from our own, different in a way which is qualitative not quantitative; a morality which actually applauds stealing, lying, and cheating the people who have done the most for you. It is difficult to even imagine a code which tells you to hate and betray your closest friends and family. I have found that the codes which have come the closest to this did so, not because they felt that one particular value was unimportant, but rather because they felt another was even more important.
If you actually look back at all the moral codes ever developed (by Plato, Jesus, Confucius, Buddha…) certain rules of behavior run throughout all of them. To see an illustration of this, check out the appendix of The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis. This means that most people have had at least a general idea of the moral law. As I mentioned once before, I do not necessarily think that any one moral code totally embodies the essence of the moral law, but that nearly all reflect it in some way (imperfectly).
As such, I am not putting myself in the position of telling anyone else what code to follow and will not (at this time) push any of the ethical requirements of any one particular code. Instead, I will content myself with saying that the majority of traditional morality is in agreement and if we take morality on the whole, we will do rather well (but not perfectly).
So we have a situation in which we are aware of what is moral (for the most part) and, because of our free-will, we can either choose to do the right thing or not. It seems to be a simple matter of personal history that none of us has done the right thing all the time. We have all done things which we knew were objectively “bad” but did them anyways. What the result of these two things, free-will and an objective moral law which none of us has perfectly followed, is that we are all guilty.
If there were not absolute moral law, we could shrug this off as “other peoples’” opinion, but we already know that this isn’t true. If we had no free-will, we could say that we are not responsible for our own decisions, but we already know that this isn’t true either!
I think this is a critical point because our culture has moved so far away from thinking clearly about ethics and morality that this simple fact about human beings has been totally lost on our popular consciousness. We are not going to be able to think clearly or reasonably about morality and ethics until we accept the fact of our own guiltiness.
It may be said in objection, “So what? I have done something wrong, so has everyone else! What’s the big deal? I am certainly better than Mr. So and So down the street.” This is on the one hand a very reasonable objection, after all we are all guilty of breaking our own moral codes, so who am I to bring it up and wave it in peoples faces?
On the other hand this objection is very much mistaking the whole point of my argument. On this blog I am only talking about matters of fact, and matters of fact are totally indifferent to who is better than whom and I am certainly not making anything a big or little deal. I am merely concerned with using logic and philosophy to determine what really is.
Our use of reason and logic has led us to this point and I am certainly not going to stop here. There is much more to learn and talk about!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)