Question #8 – Leibniz and Berkeley both endorse metaphysical phenomenalism but each for different reasons. With Leibniz, phenomenalism follows from rationalist scruples (substances must be simple, and no corporeal thing is simple), while with Berkeley, phenomenalism follows from empiricist scruples (corporeal things are collections of qualities, and no collection of qualities is “ipso facto”-(by the fact itself) a substance). Did Leibniz and Berkley reach essentially the same position by way of different argumentative routes, or are their respective phenomenalist systems divergent throughout?
Berkeley Notes
- It is absurd to think that an object could exist outside of perception. (Try to imagine it)
- All objects exist only in the mind. The only things that exist are sensations. Objects are just combinations of sensations. We can see a rock, feel a rock, smell a rock, and hear a rock. All of the sensations we get from the rock make up the rock. However, the rock has no existence outside of these perceptions and outside of the mind.
- The things which perceive are called spirits.
- Only ideas (sensations) cause ideas, therefore an incorporeal substance must be producing our ideas. So God is the governing spirit who causes ideas in us.
More on Leibniz’s Monads
- The universe consists of monads which each reflect the universe from a different perspective.
- Every monad imagines space from the inside.
- Monads require Internal Properties
- Monads are different from each other because they have different perceptions of the universe. Perception is the representation of events from the world played out in the mind (each monad has a mind).
- Monads all differ qualitatively and occupy different points of view. This means that each Monad mirrors the world in a slightly different way and with different levels of clarity. Rocks and dirt are made of colonies of “low level” monads that have only dull and confused perceptions as they mirror the world. Every monad has a psychic life. Each monad has an internal state which represents external things.
- Those monads whose perceptions are more distinct and are accompanied by memory are on a higher level.
- Whereas human bodies are colonies of lower monads, the dominant monad in a person is a spirit because it is capable of performing reflective acts. Spirits are also capable of knowing the universe and of entering into a relationship with the chief monad, god.
- Each soul represents the universe to itself according to its point of view, and through a
relation which is peculiar to it.
Summary:
Although Leibniz and Berkeley are both phenomenalists and do not believe that matter exists, their views radically differ. Leibniz believes all things can be divided into simple substances and that no corporeal thing is simple; therefore, substance cannot be corporeal. Berkeley is an empiricist and believes that we can only have knowledge through sensation. Berkeley comes to his view by holding that it is impossible for a thing to exist without being perceived.
Not only do Leibniz and Berkeley come to their conclusions in radically different ways but their conclusions are also radically different. Leibniz believes the universe is composed of monads who perceive the universe in its own special way, and this perceptual point of view is what gives a thing its quality. The monads kind of mirror the world in slightly different ways and with different levels of clarity. So in Leibniz’s view, even a rock is composed of perceiving substances. However, the rock’s view of the universe is a muddy view, whereas a human has a higher perception of the universe and is therefore a greater representation of the world. Monads that have memory are distinguished as higher monads. A spirit in a person is capable of reflective acts, which makes it a higher monad, but it is God who has the clearest perception of the universe.
In Berkeley’s view our sensations (including rocks) do not exist, except as a collection of sensations (rather than collection of monads). While Berkeley believes the world is exactly as we perceive it, Leibniz believes everything perceives the world through a different point of view. Berkeley does not believe in a collection of things like monads. Berkeley believes that only spirits and the sensations which God, the governing spirit, puts in the spirits exist. Objects of
sensations, he argues, are simply combinations of sensations, such as color and extension.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Missing Cat
Philosophy of Mind
August 26, 2005
The Missing Cat
In The Cerebral Code: Thinking a Thought in the Mosaics of the Mind William H. Calvin suggests that human thoughts undergo a process of Darwinian evolution similar to the biological evolution that organisms undergo. Calvin theorizes that there might be a subconscious “milliseconds-to-minutes Darwinian ratchet” that results in our complex mental life which he elaborates on in the following passage:
As Wittgenstein once observed, you gain insights mostly through new arrangements of things you already know, not by acquiring new data. This is certainly true at the level of biological variation: despite the constant talk of ‘mutations,’ it’s really the random shuffle of grandparent chromosomes during meiosis as sperm and ova are made, and the subsequent sexual recombination during fertilization, that generates the substantial new variations, such as all the differences between siblings. Novel mental images have also been thought to arise from recombinations during brain activity. In our waking hours, most of these surely remain at subconscious levels—but many are probably the same sorts of juxtapositions that we experience in dreams every night. […]. Most such juxtapositions and chimeras are nonsense. But during our waking hours, they might be better shaped up in a Darwinian manner. Only the more realistic ones might normally reach ‘consciousness.’ (5)
According to Calvin’s theory our minds, especially when encountering new problems, are constantly undergoing a Darwinian thought process in which the strongest and most coherent combination of ideas usually survive and become conscious thoughts. The following two paragraphs consist of a thought experiment designed to test this theory.
Imagine a mother, her three-year-old daughter, and their black cat living together in an apartment. Imagine that one day the mother and daughter discover that the cat is missing. All of the windows and doors in the apartment are shut—it seems that the cat must be inside. The mother looks everywhere for the cat: under the beds, in the closets, in the dryer, in the refrigerator. The cat is nowhere to be found. After about thirty minutes of searching the daughter tells the mother, “I opened the door and let the cat out.” The furious mother yells at the daughter and immediately sends her to bed. The mother spends the rest of the night sulking over her lost cat, sitting outside and waiting for the cat to return. But the cat never comes home. Sadly, the mother goes to bed.
In the middle of the night the mother is awoken to the sounds of her daughter yelling “Mommy! Mommy!”. The mother opens the door to her daughter’s room and says “What baby?”. “There’s a cat in my room”, the daughter says, and the missing cat emerges from the darkness and walks out of the room.
What does this story have to do with the theory of a Darwinian thought process? First let’s ask a simple question—where was the cat? It seems likely that the cat was in the daughter’s room the whole time. But the daughter said she let the cat outside. Is this possible? Maybe the cat was let outside. How could it get back into the daughter’s room? The window to the room was shut—that is the only opening where the cat could have made it back inside. The cat could have walked through the walls into the daughter’s room, but this is highly unlikely. It seems obvious that the cat was in the daughter’s room the whole time. This raises another question—why did the daughter say she opened the door and let the cat out, if it’s obvious that she didn’t? Did she hide the cat in order to play a trick on her mother? It is doubtful that a three-year-old would be capable of such a hoax. It is possible, but seems unlikely. Keep in mind that the daughter was immediately punished when she revealed that she let the cat outside. The daughter could have avoided punishment by simply telling her mother she did not really let the cat out. It seems that the most likely scenario is the daughter honestly believed that she let the cat out. Why did the daughter have this memory that appears so obviously to be false?
Calvin’s Darwinian model of mentality can help us understand why the three-year-old daughter might believe that she opened the door and let the cat out when she didn’t. Perhaps at an earlier time in her life the daughter opened a door and let a cat out—perhaps she did this at a relative’s house with a completely different cat. Or perhaps the daughter saw someone else open a door and let a cat out; she could have seen such an image on television. Now in the daughter’s present situation a cat is missing, and it does not seem to be in the house. If we apply Calvin’s theory of a Darwinian thought process to the child’s mind then it is possible that the child combined a previous memory or idea of opening a door and letting a cat out with the current idea of a missing cat into the false memory of opening the door to let the now missing cat out! Calvin writes, “Starting with shuffled memories no better than the jumble of our nighttime dreams, a mental image can evolve into something of quality, such as a sentence to speak aloud” (1). It is possible that the child’s false belief and statement, “I opened the door and let the cat out”, is merely a combination of random ideas that seems to best explain the child’s current experience of a missing cat.
Calvin’s theory of a Darwinian thought process adequately explains why a daughter might have a false memory of letting a missing cat out. Darwin’s theory of evolution has been a great achievement of biology, and Calvin’s adaptation of the theory to the study of the mind may prove to be an important step in our ongoing efforts to unravel the mysteries of the mind.
Works Cited
Calvin, William H.. The Cerebral Code: Thinking a Thought in the Mosaics of the
Mind. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1996.
August 26, 2005
The Missing Cat
In The Cerebral Code: Thinking a Thought in the Mosaics of the Mind William H. Calvin suggests that human thoughts undergo a process of Darwinian evolution similar to the biological evolution that organisms undergo. Calvin theorizes that there might be a subconscious “milliseconds-to-minutes Darwinian ratchet” that results in our complex mental life which he elaborates on in the following passage:
As Wittgenstein once observed, you gain insights mostly through new arrangements of things you already know, not by acquiring new data. This is certainly true at the level of biological variation: despite the constant talk of ‘mutations,’ it’s really the random shuffle of grandparent chromosomes during meiosis as sperm and ova are made, and the subsequent sexual recombination during fertilization, that generates the substantial new variations, such as all the differences between siblings. Novel mental images have also been thought to arise from recombinations during brain activity. In our waking hours, most of these surely remain at subconscious levels—but many are probably the same sorts of juxtapositions that we experience in dreams every night. […]. Most such juxtapositions and chimeras are nonsense. But during our waking hours, they might be better shaped up in a Darwinian manner. Only the more realistic ones might normally reach ‘consciousness.’ (5)
According to Calvin’s theory our minds, especially when encountering new problems, are constantly undergoing a Darwinian thought process in which the strongest and most coherent combination of ideas usually survive and become conscious thoughts. The following two paragraphs consist of a thought experiment designed to test this theory.
Imagine a mother, her three-year-old daughter, and their black cat living together in an apartment. Imagine that one day the mother and daughter discover that the cat is missing. All of the windows and doors in the apartment are shut—it seems that the cat must be inside. The mother looks everywhere for the cat: under the beds, in the closets, in the dryer, in the refrigerator. The cat is nowhere to be found. After about thirty minutes of searching the daughter tells the mother, “I opened the door and let the cat out.” The furious mother yells at the daughter and immediately sends her to bed. The mother spends the rest of the night sulking over her lost cat, sitting outside and waiting for the cat to return. But the cat never comes home. Sadly, the mother goes to bed.
In the middle of the night the mother is awoken to the sounds of her daughter yelling “Mommy! Mommy!”. The mother opens the door to her daughter’s room and says “What baby?”. “There’s a cat in my room”, the daughter says, and the missing cat emerges from the darkness and walks out of the room.
What does this story have to do with the theory of a Darwinian thought process? First let’s ask a simple question—where was the cat? It seems likely that the cat was in the daughter’s room the whole time. But the daughter said she let the cat outside. Is this possible? Maybe the cat was let outside. How could it get back into the daughter’s room? The window to the room was shut—that is the only opening where the cat could have made it back inside. The cat could have walked through the walls into the daughter’s room, but this is highly unlikely. It seems obvious that the cat was in the daughter’s room the whole time. This raises another question—why did the daughter say she opened the door and let the cat out, if it’s obvious that she didn’t? Did she hide the cat in order to play a trick on her mother? It is doubtful that a three-year-old would be capable of such a hoax. It is possible, but seems unlikely. Keep in mind that the daughter was immediately punished when she revealed that she let the cat outside. The daughter could have avoided punishment by simply telling her mother she did not really let the cat out. It seems that the most likely scenario is the daughter honestly believed that she let the cat out. Why did the daughter have this memory that appears so obviously to be false?
Calvin’s Darwinian model of mentality can help us understand why the three-year-old daughter might believe that she opened the door and let the cat out when she didn’t. Perhaps at an earlier time in her life the daughter opened a door and let a cat out—perhaps she did this at a relative’s house with a completely different cat. Or perhaps the daughter saw someone else open a door and let a cat out; she could have seen such an image on television. Now in the daughter’s present situation a cat is missing, and it does not seem to be in the house. If we apply Calvin’s theory of a Darwinian thought process to the child’s mind then it is possible that the child combined a previous memory or idea of opening a door and letting a cat out with the current idea of a missing cat into the false memory of opening the door to let the now missing cat out! Calvin writes, “Starting with shuffled memories no better than the jumble of our nighttime dreams, a mental image can evolve into something of quality, such as a sentence to speak aloud” (1). It is possible that the child’s false belief and statement, “I opened the door and let the cat out”, is merely a combination of random ideas that seems to best explain the child’s current experience of a missing cat.
Calvin’s theory of a Darwinian thought process adequately explains why a daughter might have a false memory of letting a missing cat out. Darwin’s theory of evolution has been a great achievement of biology, and Calvin’s adaptation of the theory to the study of the mind may prove to be an important step in our ongoing efforts to unravel the mysteries of the mind.
Works Cited
Calvin, William H.. The Cerebral Code: Thinking a Thought in the Mosaics of the
Mind. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1996.
Modern Philosophy Final Exam Questions
1. Explain how Cartesian epistemology accounts for the existence and nature of the external world; along the way, (a) describe the analyses and arguments which led Descartes to doubt the existence of the external world; (b) explain what he was left with; and (c) trace the arguments he used to reassert the epistemological respectability of Seventeenth century physics.
Descartes had been devcieved in the past. He had accepted a belief about the solar system and then learned that the belief was false. So now Descartes does not know if he is still doing this.
The moethod of doubt is a technique for resolving dogmatism and skepticism. He assumes that anything that might be false is false and sees if there are some beliefs that cant be doubted.
First he sustracts sensory beliefs,cause they are variant from one person to the other.. then physical qualities… then the external world.. because in our dreams we think the world is real.. so who knows if we aren’t in a dream like state now? A brain in a vat.Math & lgoic might be false because if there is an evil genei then all he does is want to decieve me. Find the thing that can’t be doubted. One undoubtabl belief.. The thought of thought thinking… I can’t doubt that I’m doubting. I am a thinking thing… Thinking thing.. mental activities.. god error.. external world… external world can be guaranteed using mathematics.. look this up.
2. According to Spinoza, Descartes’ failure adequately to distinguish between the nature and operation of the human mind misled him (descartes) into adopting an untenable interactionist psychology. Using E2P7 and E2P13, show how Spinoza’s own distinction between these two questions led him to adopt both materialism (as regards the nature of the mind) and parallelism (as regards the mind’s operation).
E2P7 The order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things.. Knowledge depends on the idea’s cause of which it is the effect.
E2P13 – the object of the idea constituing the human mind is the body, or a certain mode of extension which actually exists, and nothing else.
First seven propositions of spinoza are about Descartes mind body problem. Axiom 5 you can’t understand mind by better understaniding brain… every mind is part of the mindscape.(the mind and body are one and the same individueal??).. E2P7 – any mode of extension (region of space with certain properties) and the idea of that mode are 1 and the same individual… E2 P13.. Order and connection of ideas is the same.. of things.. Mind and body are same individual.. mind is idea of (something?) “that which constitues the actual being of the mind is nothing but the idea of an actually existing thing”.. minds have ideas of bodies.. The object of the idea constituing a mind is the bvoyd.. mind is the idea of the body… List of payoofs – essence of human mind is a relation, to be a mind at all is a relationip to what actually existes.. mind and body are inseperable… the mind is a relation to the thing that actually exists.. you can’t have a mind unless there’s osmething of it’s referrent.. to understand the mind you must understand the body.. a mind can know more than simpler organisms because our bodies are complicated.. because the body is the object of our knoweldge we can understand time..
3. Both Hobbes and Locke contend that there are natural laws at work in human political affairs, yet their respective accounts of the state of nature differ radically. Show how this difference in theory can be traced to a pair of fundamental disputes, one concerning empirical facts (scarcity vs. abundance), and the other concerning the concept of a natural law (description vs. presciption (Law) (Rule)).
4. Berkeley accuses Locke of leaving epistemology in the lap of latitudinarian skepticism, contending that realism-by-resemblance leads either to immaterialism or the egocentric predicament; explain why this critique, if trained on Galileo’s inferential realism, fails.
Galileo isn’t saying their objects are ou thtere, he is saying we can infer them by reason, and they help us to understand the world
5. Compare and contrast the Hellenic and Roman/Hebraic paradigms at work in the cosmology and social theory which ultimately gave rise to the scientific revolution and thus to modern philosophy.
The modern period erupts from result of Hellenistic and Romano-Hebraic traditions. Paradigm – “A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline”.
The hellenistic paradigm for cosmology(the world, the way of the universe, the order of things) model - speculative under the rule of reasons, typically by experience. For the romano Hebraics the model is truth through revelation of trascendant truths (must be established by a source beyond experience). As far as socio-ethics (the human world) where rightness is goodness of fit. The good life.. proportioanl ratio.. balancing act. For the romano-Hebraics (semetics) rightness was fullfillment of covenant (contract with god).
The modern period involves philosophers trying to get rid of teleogogy(effect happens and then u find the cause?).. trying to aristotles’ idea of natural place.
The scientific revolution was a change in method. None of the old methods involved looking at the world. Form hyptheses and then test them (galileo)… “how many feet per second rather than “really fast”.. put it into a number and test it with instruments. Cosmology – Hellenic is reason/speculation romano hebraic is revelation. Socio ethics- proprotion ratio… covenant. “Hobbes wants a covenant based on rationality”.
Descartes – experience trumps authority… reason rather than revelation.. natural thelogy.. Either god is a deciever or he isn’t. Faith can tell you that god exists but only philosophy can tell you that god necessarily exists.” Descartes wants to be able to prove that god exists during arguments.
6. Explain how Hobbes’ radical conventionalism about language both arises from his empiricism and reinforces his contention that the power of sovereign must be absolute.
“True and false are attributes of speech, not things… science is knowing the consequences of names, not the nature of things… definition as a socio-political tool.. correct reasoning arbitrated by the stae.. evidence for propositions reduces to sensation.. names signfy rememberd sensations… universal names name other names, not things… propositions as conceptions of things, not things themselves… propositions as copulated names.. the cuases of names as tantamount to the causes of conceptions.
7. Analyze Spinoza’s definitions of finitude (E1D2) and substance (E1D3), and explain how these definitions figure in the proof that substance is necessarily infinite (E1P8).
E1D2 – That thing is said to be finite in its own kind that can be limited by another of the same nature. For example a body is called finite because we always conceive another that is greater. Thus a thought is limited by anothoter thought. But a body is not limited by athought nor a thought by a body.
E1D3 – By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself, i.e., that whose concept does not require the concept of another thing, from which it must be formed.
Ideas limit ideas, bodies limit bodies.. finitude – x is limited by another of the same kind.. limited by another idea or budy… (3) substance – that which s complete , conceived through itself… substances are independent from their properties.. when you collapse distinctions between reasons & causes then you find out substances are causually/independent of their causes… substance is necessarily infinite.. nature, god = only substance, only one thing causally independnet of everything else.. ..
9. Both Locke and Hume rest their epistemologies on the contention that human knowledge can be reduced to sensory impressions; their accounts of the processes by which knowledge is constructed from sense data diverge, however. Delineate the divergence and evaluate the relative advantages and disadvantages of each constructional system.
Hume – things must be reduced to impressions distinction between imppressions & ideas. Impressions are immediate effects. Ideas copies of original impressions.. resemblence, contiguity .. casuality.. 3 principles of associateion…
10. Spinoza and Leibniz are both rationalists. Berkeley and Hume are both empiricists. But Berkeley and Leibniz are libertarians, while Spinoza and Hume are determinists. Each of these four thinkers contends that ethics follows from metaphysics. How is this possible?
These things don’t necessarily spill over into metaphysical positions. You don’t get committed to metaphysics from rationalism. Leibniz argues that an omniscicent being would see in detail that everything is connected with everything else in such a way that the slightest change anywehre in the unvierse would inovle a change in the whole.
HOBBES – mechanical account of the state, rather than telological… NOMINALIST .. His theory of mind provides a reason why we must have this social contract… British civil war gives Hobbes his fundamental problem.. this doesn’t look like divine right.. artifactuality of authority created by people rather than god.. we should correctly understand origin and nature of civil society..
Mechanics of mind, cognitive inertia (nothing changes it self) leads to nominalism (names name singulars) only individual things of the world, general names are placeholders for many indiviudal things.. the sovereign runs the social contract… causal theory of meaning.. words get meaning by what caused them. Hobbes wants covenant based on rationality. All there is is bodies in motion.
3 degrees of nominalism (argument from language).. sign which may raise in the mind the thought you had of the previous perception (all things are bodies in motion pushing on the senses)> 1) Names – real in name only – sigs sub for phantasms.. sign to others only by arbitrary agreement.. 2)Proposition, sentences, relations among different names (subject/predicate relations).
3) reasoning – link propositions together . recokoning that traces consequence of using names.. soverign – dictionary – without sovereign we wouldn’t have anything to say.. wouldn’t be able to communicate.. the only real things are bodies in motion, and all bodies in motion obey mechanical laws.. we have to impose standarzations of what the word mean
Konotas – self-preservation – this is the only thing we have by nature… no STATE is natural.. we are apolitical by nature.. state is created voluntarily in occurrence with a natural law(when people are rational they will choose to be in this state rather than not… No DIVINE RIGHT.. a deal between people and people to accept a sovereign… is hobbes ideal social contract… peculair character of konatas with rational people is that they lean toward forming states… state of nature is solitary, competitve and short.. look up abstract.. everything that happens is outside stuff pushing and us pushing back.. cognitive intertia – as you have perceptions the thought is expressed in signs, in order for language to function we need arbitrary & soverign agreements… affetive inertia – conditions of state of twar.. there is no sovereign then you have a state of war.. so rationlity operates and leads us to want a sovereign… Social condition is created out of these two inertias by natural laws (WE HAVE NO CHOICE IN THE FORMATION OF THE STATE).. we are social because we cannot fail to be social as long as we are rational… the rational thing to do is to give up rights to get peace… follow a design without doing it on purpose… CONATUS(fundamental right to self-preservation) “If we take Hobbes’ nominalism seriously, it follows that there are no natural connections between words and things—whatever connection there is is forged by human agreement; consequently, no one reaches the point of being able to articulate the social contract without having already tacitly agreed to it. He should have realized this more clearly when he came to think about tribal societies.”
Locke – state of nature is natural laws for physical material.. property.. we have natural god given rights.. life, health, liberty possessions… right to use resources of the land.. these lwas are discovered by reason but given by god… state o fnature is also a state of abundance so no competeition.. no innate ideas.. blank slate… sensations are the outside world acting on us.. reality is the same as our experience. I wouldn’t believe it if I didn’t see it.. representational – primary, secondary.. (inferential – existence of molecules by table)
Descartes had been devcieved in the past. He had accepted a belief about the solar system and then learned that the belief was false. So now Descartes does not know if he is still doing this.
The moethod of doubt is a technique for resolving dogmatism and skepticism. He assumes that anything that might be false is false and sees if there are some beliefs that cant be doubted.
First he sustracts sensory beliefs,cause they are variant from one person to the other.. then physical qualities… then the external world.. because in our dreams we think the world is real.. so who knows if we aren’t in a dream like state now? A brain in a vat.Math & lgoic might be false because if there is an evil genei then all he does is want to decieve me. Find the thing that can’t be doubted. One undoubtabl belief.. The thought of thought thinking… I can’t doubt that I’m doubting. I am a thinking thing… Thinking thing.. mental activities.. god error.. external world… external world can be guaranteed using mathematics.. look this up.
2. According to Spinoza, Descartes’ failure adequately to distinguish between the nature and operation of the human mind misled him (descartes) into adopting an untenable interactionist psychology. Using E2P7 and E2P13, show how Spinoza’s own distinction between these two questions led him to adopt both materialism (as regards the nature of the mind) and parallelism (as regards the mind’s operation).
E2P7 The order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things.. Knowledge depends on the idea’s cause of which it is the effect.
E2P13 – the object of the idea constituing the human mind is the body, or a certain mode of extension which actually exists, and nothing else.
First seven propositions of spinoza are about Descartes mind body problem. Axiom 5 you can’t understand mind by better understaniding brain… every mind is part of the mindscape.(the mind and body are one and the same individueal??).. E2P7 – any mode of extension (region of space with certain properties) and the idea of that mode are 1 and the same individual… E2 P13.. Order and connection of ideas is the same.. of things.. Mind and body are same individual.. mind is idea of (something?) “that which constitues the actual being of the mind is nothing but the idea of an actually existing thing”.. minds have ideas of bodies.. The object of the idea constituing a mind is the bvoyd.. mind is the idea of the body… List of payoofs – essence of human mind is a relation, to be a mind at all is a relationip to what actually existes.. mind and body are inseperable… the mind is a relation to the thing that actually exists.. you can’t have a mind unless there’s osmething of it’s referrent.. to understand the mind you must understand the body.. a mind can know more than simpler organisms because our bodies are complicated.. because the body is the object of our knoweldge we can understand time..
3. Both Hobbes and Locke contend that there are natural laws at work in human political affairs, yet their respective accounts of the state of nature differ radically. Show how this difference in theory can be traced to a pair of fundamental disputes, one concerning empirical facts (scarcity vs. abundance), and the other concerning the concept of a natural law (description vs. presciption (Law) (Rule)).
4. Berkeley accuses Locke of leaving epistemology in the lap of latitudinarian skepticism, contending that realism-by-resemblance leads either to immaterialism or the egocentric predicament; explain why this critique, if trained on Galileo’s inferential realism, fails.
Galileo isn’t saying their objects are ou thtere, he is saying we can infer them by reason, and they help us to understand the world
5. Compare and contrast the Hellenic and Roman/Hebraic paradigms at work in the cosmology and social theory which ultimately gave rise to the scientific revolution and thus to modern philosophy.
The modern period erupts from result of Hellenistic and Romano-Hebraic traditions. Paradigm – “A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline”.
The hellenistic paradigm for cosmology(the world, the way of the universe, the order of things) model - speculative under the rule of reasons, typically by experience. For the romano Hebraics the model is truth through revelation of trascendant truths (must be established by a source beyond experience). As far as socio-ethics (the human world) where rightness is goodness of fit. The good life.. proportioanl ratio.. balancing act. For the romano-Hebraics (semetics) rightness was fullfillment of covenant (contract with god).
The modern period involves philosophers trying to get rid of teleogogy(effect happens and then u find the cause?).. trying to aristotles’ idea of natural place.
The scientific revolution was a change in method. None of the old methods involved looking at the world. Form hyptheses and then test them (galileo)… “how many feet per second rather than “really fast”.. put it into a number and test it with instruments. Cosmology – Hellenic is reason/speculation romano hebraic is revelation. Socio ethics- proprotion ratio… covenant. “Hobbes wants a covenant based on rationality”.
Descartes – experience trumps authority… reason rather than revelation.. natural thelogy.. Either god is a deciever or he isn’t. Faith can tell you that god exists but only philosophy can tell you that god necessarily exists.” Descartes wants to be able to prove that god exists during arguments.
6. Explain how Hobbes’ radical conventionalism about language both arises from his empiricism and reinforces his contention that the power of sovereign must be absolute.
“True and false are attributes of speech, not things… science is knowing the consequences of names, not the nature of things… definition as a socio-political tool.. correct reasoning arbitrated by the stae.. evidence for propositions reduces to sensation.. names signfy rememberd sensations… universal names name other names, not things… propositions as conceptions of things, not things themselves… propositions as copulated names.. the cuases of names as tantamount to the causes of conceptions.
7. Analyze Spinoza’s definitions of finitude (E1D2) and substance (E1D3), and explain how these definitions figure in the proof that substance is necessarily infinite (E1P8).
E1D2 – That thing is said to be finite in its own kind that can be limited by another of the same nature. For example a body is called finite because we always conceive another that is greater. Thus a thought is limited by anothoter thought. But a body is not limited by athought nor a thought by a body.
E1D3 – By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself, i.e., that whose concept does not require the concept of another thing, from which it must be formed.
Ideas limit ideas, bodies limit bodies.. finitude – x is limited by another of the same kind.. limited by another idea or budy… (3) substance – that which s complete , conceived through itself… substances are independent from their properties.. when you collapse distinctions between reasons & causes then you find out substances are causually/independent of their causes… substance is necessarily infinite.. nature, god = only substance, only one thing causally independnet of everything else.. ..
9. Both Locke and Hume rest their epistemologies on the contention that human knowledge can be reduced to sensory impressions; their accounts of the processes by which knowledge is constructed from sense data diverge, however. Delineate the divergence and evaluate the relative advantages and disadvantages of each constructional system.
Hume – things must be reduced to impressions distinction between imppressions & ideas. Impressions are immediate effects. Ideas copies of original impressions.. resemblence, contiguity .. casuality.. 3 principles of associateion…
10. Spinoza and Leibniz are both rationalists. Berkeley and Hume are both empiricists. But Berkeley and Leibniz are libertarians, while Spinoza and Hume are determinists. Each of these four thinkers contends that ethics follows from metaphysics. How is this possible?
These things don’t necessarily spill over into metaphysical positions. You don’t get committed to metaphysics from rationalism. Leibniz argues that an omniscicent being would see in detail that everything is connected with everything else in such a way that the slightest change anywehre in the unvierse would inovle a change in the whole.
HOBBES – mechanical account of the state, rather than telological… NOMINALIST .. His theory of mind provides a reason why we must have this social contract… British civil war gives Hobbes his fundamental problem.. this doesn’t look like divine right.. artifactuality of authority created by people rather than god.. we should correctly understand origin and nature of civil society..
Mechanics of mind, cognitive inertia (nothing changes it self) leads to nominalism (names name singulars) only individual things of the world, general names are placeholders for many indiviudal things.. the sovereign runs the social contract… causal theory of meaning.. words get meaning by what caused them. Hobbes wants covenant based on rationality. All there is is bodies in motion.
3 degrees of nominalism (argument from language).. sign which may raise in the mind the thought you had of the previous perception (all things are bodies in motion pushing on the senses)> 1) Names – real in name only – sigs sub for phantasms.. sign to others only by arbitrary agreement.. 2)Proposition, sentences, relations among different names (subject/predicate relations).
3) reasoning – link propositions together . recokoning that traces consequence of using names.. soverign – dictionary – without sovereign we wouldn’t have anything to say.. wouldn’t be able to communicate.. the only real things are bodies in motion, and all bodies in motion obey mechanical laws.. we have to impose standarzations of what the word mean
Konotas – self-preservation – this is the only thing we have by nature… no STATE is natural.. we are apolitical by nature.. state is created voluntarily in occurrence with a natural law(when people are rational they will choose to be in this state rather than not… No DIVINE RIGHT.. a deal between people and people to accept a sovereign… is hobbes ideal social contract… peculair character of konatas with rational people is that they lean toward forming states… state of nature is solitary, competitve and short.. look up abstract.. everything that happens is outside stuff pushing and us pushing back.. cognitive intertia – as you have perceptions the thought is expressed in signs, in order for language to function we need arbitrary & soverign agreements… affetive inertia – conditions of state of twar.. there is no sovereign then you have a state of war.. so rationlity operates and leads us to want a sovereign… Social condition is created out of these two inertias by natural laws (WE HAVE NO CHOICE IN THE FORMATION OF THE STATE).. we are social because we cannot fail to be social as long as we are rational… the rational thing to do is to give up rights to get peace… follow a design without doing it on purpose… CONATUS(fundamental right to self-preservation) “If we take Hobbes’ nominalism seriously, it follows that there are no natural connections between words and things—whatever connection there is is forged by human agreement; consequently, no one reaches the point of being able to articulate the social contract without having already tacitly agreed to it. He should have realized this more clearly when he came to think about tribal societies.”
Locke – state of nature is natural laws for physical material.. property.. we have natural god given rights.. life, health, liberty possessions… right to use resources of the land.. these lwas are discovered by reason but given by god… state o fnature is also a state of abundance so no competeition.. no innate ideas.. blank slate… sensations are the outside world acting on us.. reality is the same as our experience. I wouldn’t believe it if I didn’t see it.. representational – primary, secondary.. (inferential – existence of molecules by table)
Spinoza's Ethics
Spinoza’s Ethics – Appendix
Spinoza believes that God is the only necessary substance, and that all things happen by necessity because of God’s infinite and perfect nature. However, people may have trouble grasping this notion because of prejudices they have about the nature of causes.
People are born without knowledge of the causes of things and consciously pursue what is beneficial to themselves. Therefore, people think they are free because they do not know the causes of their actions. Also, they pursue ends that benefit themselves, and the only causes they care about are those which lead to the ends they seek.
There are many things in nature which fulfill people’s needs. Humans have eyes to see, the sun for warmth, and animals for food. There are an endless number of things in nature that cause people’s needs and desires to be fulfilled. Because people only care about the final causes of things, they think that all natural things exist to benefit humanity. The people don’t think of the previous causes that caused these things. People further believe that if all natural things exist to benefit humanity then something must have created them for this purpose.
Because of these notions, people conceive of a God or gods that are responsible for creating these things. Humans have no way of knowing what these gods are like so, drawing on their own experiences and imagination; they imagine what the gods are like. They attribute human emotions to God and decide that God created all things for the benefit of humans, which were created to benefit God. People begin to conceive of ways that they could better please God and subsequently receive more benefits from God. Because people feel that all things happen for a reason (to benefit humanity), they begin to look for the causes of all events. But there are horrible things that happen in the world. People conclude that God causes these things in order to punish bad people. But it can be seen that bad things happen to good, as well as bad people. So these people will begin to believe that all things have a purpose determined by God, but the human mind is too feeble to understand the reasons for some things. People will appeal to this same ignorance in trying to determine the cause of all things.
Humans tend to believe that all things act for an end. But if God caused things to happen for some end then he wouldn’t be perfect because he would be lacking something. Therefore the benefit of humans cannot be the final end, because before humans were created God would lack something of great importance, making him imperfect.
Since people believe that everything that exists exists for their benefit, they judge things based on how it benefits or harms them. People determine what’s good and bad based on how something affects their senses. And because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, many different beliefs about the nature of the universe and God have arisen. And because these are beliefs created out of each individuals own personal bias, everyone cannot agree on the truth. This is because there are no truths to be found in these imaginary, personally biased beliefs. If they were true then everyone could appreciate the truth even if they didn’t understand it, like mathematics.
People with these prejudices might ask why there is evil in the world if God is perfect. Spinoza would reply that perfection is not to be based on how something affects a person, because things don’t happen for the end of benefiting humanity, but rather out of necessity. Everything that can happen does happen.
Spinoza believes that God is the only necessary substance, and that all things happen by necessity because of God’s infinite and perfect nature. However, people may have trouble grasping this notion because of prejudices they have about the nature of causes.
People are born without knowledge of the causes of things and consciously pursue what is beneficial to themselves. Therefore, people think they are free because they do not know the causes of their actions. Also, they pursue ends that benefit themselves, and the only causes they care about are those which lead to the ends they seek.
There are many things in nature which fulfill people’s needs. Humans have eyes to see, the sun for warmth, and animals for food. There are an endless number of things in nature that cause people’s needs and desires to be fulfilled. Because people only care about the final causes of things, they think that all natural things exist to benefit humanity. The people don’t think of the previous causes that caused these things. People further believe that if all natural things exist to benefit humanity then something must have created them for this purpose.
Because of these notions, people conceive of a God or gods that are responsible for creating these things. Humans have no way of knowing what these gods are like so, drawing on their own experiences and imagination; they imagine what the gods are like. They attribute human emotions to God and decide that God created all things for the benefit of humans, which were created to benefit God. People begin to conceive of ways that they could better please God and subsequently receive more benefits from God. Because people feel that all things happen for a reason (to benefit humanity), they begin to look for the causes of all events. But there are horrible things that happen in the world. People conclude that God causes these things in order to punish bad people. But it can be seen that bad things happen to good, as well as bad people. So these people will begin to believe that all things have a purpose determined by God, but the human mind is too feeble to understand the reasons for some things. People will appeal to this same ignorance in trying to determine the cause of all things.
Humans tend to believe that all things act for an end. But if God caused things to happen for some end then he wouldn’t be perfect because he would be lacking something. Therefore the benefit of humans cannot be the final end, because before humans were created God would lack something of great importance, making him imperfect.
Since people believe that everything that exists exists for their benefit, they judge things based on how it benefits or harms them. People determine what’s good and bad based on how something affects their senses. And because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, many different beliefs about the nature of the universe and God have arisen. And because these are beliefs created out of each individuals own personal bias, everyone cannot agree on the truth. This is because there are no truths to be found in these imaginary, personally biased beliefs. If they were true then everyone could appreciate the truth even if they didn’t understand it, like mathematics.
People with these prejudices might ask why there is evil in the world if God is perfect. Spinoza would reply that perfection is not to be based on how something affects a person, because things don’t happen for the end of benefiting humanity, but rather out of necessity. Everything that can happen does happen.
Kierkegaard outline
When Kierkegaard begins The Present Age by stating that, “Our age is essentially of understanding and reflection, without passion, momentarily bursting into enthusiasm, and shrewdly relapsing into repose,” what does he mean? Give specific examples from the text. What does Kierkegaard think we should do about this? Do you agree? Why?
Intro – Outline Kierkegaard’s position, my interpretation of the statement and specific examples to back up my argument.
Body – Kierkegaard’s solution – what is wrong with this solution. Give a sound argument to refute it. This is when I do philosophy.
Outré – Talk about the problem presented by Kierkegaard and how I might go about solving it.
Kierkegaard means that people no longer act. People no longer create and accomplish anything. People are content to sit around and let the world pass by them rather than actively participate in it. People forget that they are individuals and merely fall into the crowd into obscurity. Kierkegaard believes people should stop reflecting, stop deliberating, stop contemplating and act! People have lost passion for anything. There is no passion only reflection. Only “hmmmm” rather than “!!!!”. Talk about passion, passionately. You could even write about how the Present Age describes our time. Talk about abstraction. You read this book in two nights, you could do it in one if you tried.
Quotes
On suicide Kierkegaard says that one does not die with deliberation but from deliberation” (33).
“A revolutionary age is an age of action; ours is the age of advertisement and publicity” (35).
“Formerly it was agreed that a man stood or fell by his actions; nowadays, on the contrary, every one idles about and comes off brilliantly with the help of a little reflection, knowing perfectly well what ought to be done” (39).
“For, being without passion, it has lost all feeling for the values of eros, for enthusiasm and sincerity in politics and religion, or for piety, admiration and domesticity in everyday life” (39).
“But these are only the excuses of reflection and the real position in reflection remains unchanged, for it is only altered within reflection” (42).
“Each individual within his own little circle can co-operate in the leveling, but it is an abstract power, and the leveling process is the victory of abstraction over the individual. The leveling process in modern times, corresponds, in reflection, to fate in antiquity” (52).
“It must be obvious to every one that the profound significance of the leveling process lies in the fact that it means the predominance of the category ‘generation’ over the category ‘individuality’” (52).
“infinite freedom of religion” (53).
“Mere gossip anticipates real talk, and to express what is still in though weakens action by forestalling it” (69).
“Life’s existential tasks have lost the interest of reality; illusion cannot build a sanctuary for the divine growth of inwardness which ripens to decisions” (78).
“when as a result of leveling with this skepticism, the generation has rid itself of the individual and of everything organic and concrete, and put in its place ‘humanity’ and the numerical equality of man and man…” (81).
Intro – Outline Kierkegaard’s position, my interpretation of the statement and specific examples to back up my argument.
Body – Kierkegaard’s solution – what is wrong with this solution. Give a sound argument to refute it. This is when I do philosophy.
Outré – Talk about the problem presented by Kierkegaard and how I might go about solving it.
Kierkegaard means that people no longer act. People no longer create and accomplish anything. People are content to sit around and let the world pass by them rather than actively participate in it. People forget that they are individuals and merely fall into the crowd into obscurity. Kierkegaard believes people should stop reflecting, stop deliberating, stop contemplating and act! People have lost passion for anything. There is no passion only reflection. Only “hmmmm” rather than “!!!!”. Talk about passion, passionately. You could even write about how the Present Age describes our time. Talk about abstraction. You read this book in two nights, you could do it in one if you tried.
Quotes
On suicide Kierkegaard says that one does not die with deliberation but from deliberation” (33).
“A revolutionary age is an age of action; ours is the age of advertisement and publicity” (35).
“Formerly it was agreed that a man stood or fell by his actions; nowadays, on the contrary, every one idles about and comes off brilliantly with the help of a little reflection, knowing perfectly well what ought to be done” (39).
“For, being without passion, it has lost all feeling for the values of eros, for enthusiasm and sincerity in politics and religion, or for piety, admiration and domesticity in everyday life” (39).
“But these are only the excuses of reflection and the real position in reflection remains unchanged, for it is only altered within reflection” (42).
“Each individual within his own little circle can co-operate in the leveling, but it is an abstract power, and the leveling process is the victory of abstraction over the individual. The leveling process in modern times, corresponds, in reflection, to fate in antiquity” (52).
“It must be obvious to every one that the profound significance of the leveling process lies in the fact that it means the predominance of the category ‘generation’ over the category ‘individuality’” (52).
“infinite freedom of religion” (53).
“Mere gossip anticipates real talk, and to express what is still in though weakens action by forestalling it” (69).
“Life’s existential tasks have lost the interest of reality; illusion cannot build a sanctuary for the divine growth of inwardness which ripens to decisions” (78).
“when as a result of leveling with this skepticism, the generation has rid itself of the individual and of everything organic and concrete, and put in its place ‘humanity’ and the numerical equality of man and man…” (81).
Death of the Individual
Existentialism
March 3, 2005
Death of the Individual
Actions define individuals. In order to act one must have passion and faith. These are tenets that Søren Kierkegaard would likely adhere to. Action, faith, passion, the individual—these concepts are all central to the themes that Kierkegaard discusses in The Present Age and Fear And Trembling. Kierkegaard begins The Present Age by saying, “Our age is essentially one of understanding and reflection, without passion, momentarily bursting into enthusiasm, and shrewdly relapsing into repose” (33). By this Kierkegaard means that the present age isn’t one of action by faith and passion, but it is rather an age of excessive reasoning and reflection that will lead to the destruction of the individual.
Kierkegaard saw himself as an individual. He wanted “That Individual” to be written on his tombstone. What defines an individual? Action defines an individual. An individual must stand out, not just be part of the crowd. The only way for one to stand out is to do something and have an accomplishment associated with one’s name. Kierkegaard writes in Fear And Trembling that, “it is not what happens to me that makes me great but what I do” (64). Actions are closely related to, if not inseparable from, decisions. An action can be the process of making a decision and an action often requires that a decision to act be made. Actions and decisions define an individual’s life.
How might one go about acting in the world? One cannot act without passion. Kierkegaard’s age is one without passion. It is an age of reflection and conformity. How did this age come about? Kierkegaard believes that the people of the age have in a sense become too rational for their own good. When decisions need to be made people usually have gut feelings and reactions about what course of action to take; however, when one reasons, weighs options, and considers the consequences in order to try and determine the most appropriate and logical plan of action, often no action is taken. Kierkegaard writes that in the present age one often comes to the conclusion “that the shrewdest thing of all is to do nothing” (The Present Age 34).
In the extravagant process of reflection one often loses sight of the fervent passions that define individuals. Sometimes reflection is required in order to fully realize exactly what one’s true passions and desires are, however in a passionate age one’s passions would be so central to the character of that individual that the individual would not become lost in reflection but instead be constantly acting in the world. Passion has gotten lost in the intellectual reflection of the age. When faced with a decision, deep down one knows what he or she wants to do. People have emotional cores, sets of passions inside them that encompass their desires, but people often refrain from making the choice, ignoring their passions, getting lost in reflection worrying about the uncertain consequences. Decisions are already determined by passions before reflection; people may change their minds in reflection, but one’s inert passions steadfastedly remain. Kierkegaard expresses this when he writes, “the real position in reflection remains unchanged, for it is only altered within reflection” (The Present Age 42). Reflection does not define the individual. Only actions have value and meaning in the world. Reflection is a useless abstraction that gets in the way of pure emotional reason and decision making. In reflection one is never sure if the decision is the correct one. The only way to make a decision is to make it because you truly want to do it. This requires passion. One cannot become an individual by passive reflection and assimilation with the universal.
It is not easy however, to make decisions and act. The consequences of action and decision are uncertain. A leap of faith is required to act. Faith is central to Kierkegaard’s philosophy. Fear and Trembling is in some ways a dissertation on faith. Faith involves the ability to act as one’s passions dictate with the confident knowledge that everything will be okay. Doubt and fear enter into the decision process by reflection; only faith can overcome these. For Kierkegaard, in order to make a decision and to act one must have faith. Faith enables people to act according to their passions and desires without fear or anxiety that they are making the wrong choice. Faith enables the individual to follow his or her heart rather than logical, emotionless reason. Faith is an activity not an understanding. Faith enables the individual to say “Yes!” whereas passionless reflection causes the individual to say “I am not sure…”.
What are some of the consequences of this age without passion or faith? In The Present Age Kierkegaard writes, “while a passionate age storms ahead setting up new things and tearing down old, raising and demolishing as it goes, a reflective and passionless age does exactly the contrary: it hinders and stifles all action; it levels” (51). Leveling is the process by which the abstraction of the public engulfs the individual. Kierkegaard writes that, “the leveling process is the victory of abstraction over the individual” (The Present Age 52). When the leveling process is complete the individual will be destroyed. There will be only one voice, the voice of the public. Political decisions will no longer have any weight because they won’t be based on passion. Important change will never come about because in light of risks leaders will be afraid to make drastic changes. Kierkegaard speaks of this as he describes the reflective age, “For, being without passion, it has lost all feeling for the values of eros, for enthusiasm and sincerity in politics and religion, or for piety, admiration and domesticity in everyday life” (The Present Age 39). Heroes are no longer honored in a passionless age. People will no longer be trying to become better people, but will instead simply believe that all persons are equal and that each person could have accomplished this or that feat if they so desired—but they choose not to because of shrewd reflection. Once the leveling process is complete the individual has been assimilated into the mindless, stagnant public.
What must be done to combat the age of reflection and to stop the leveling process so that the individual might survive? Kierkegaard writes, “man’s only salvation lies in the reality of religion for each individual” (The Present Age 56). Is religion the only salvation that will overcome the leveling process? Religion for Kierkegaard involves a strong sense of inwardness. Kierkegaard writes, “unless the individual learns in the reality of religion and before God to be content with himself, and learns, instead of dominating others, to dominate himself, content as a priest to be his own audience, and as author his own reader, if he will not learn to be satisfied with that as the highest… then he will not escape from reflection” (The Present Age 57). Later Kierkegaard writes, “Life’s existential tasks have lost the interest of reality; illusion cannot build a sanctuary for the divine growth of inwardness which ripens to decisions” (The Present Age 78). The important notion in these passages is inwardness, or the domination of oneself. Only when one finds happiness in oneself and develops a personal identity with real passions is it possible to escape from reflection and act. Religion is one means by which one might come to know oneself, but it is not the only way.
The Present Age applies not only to Kierkegaard’s age but also to the present age today. People are content to apathetically observe history moving on without them. Forty percent of United States citizens did not vote in the 2004 Presidential Election. Individuals are rare and more and more people are finding an identity in the public rather than in themselves. In order to become an individual one must act; in order to act one must have faith and passion. Kierkegaard advocates becoming an individual through religious faith, yet Kierkegaard’s notion of individuality could be attained by anyone in touch with themselves and their passions. Only individuals can change society. One can see why Kierkegaard was outraged by an age where passion did not exist and individuals failed to emancipate themselves from the public. The people of today should heed Kierkegaard’s advice, stop their endless reflection, and act.
Works Cited
Kierkegaard, Søren. Fear and Trembling. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1983.
Kierkegaard, Søren. The Present Age. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1962.
March 3, 2005
Death of the Individual
Actions define individuals. In order to act one must have passion and faith. These are tenets that Søren Kierkegaard would likely adhere to. Action, faith, passion, the individual—these concepts are all central to the themes that Kierkegaard discusses in The Present Age and Fear And Trembling. Kierkegaard begins The Present Age by saying, “Our age is essentially one of understanding and reflection, without passion, momentarily bursting into enthusiasm, and shrewdly relapsing into repose” (33). By this Kierkegaard means that the present age isn’t one of action by faith and passion, but it is rather an age of excessive reasoning and reflection that will lead to the destruction of the individual.
Kierkegaard saw himself as an individual. He wanted “That Individual” to be written on his tombstone. What defines an individual? Action defines an individual. An individual must stand out, not just be part of the crowd. The only way for one to stand out is to do something and have an accomplishment associated with one’s name. Kierkegaard writes in Fear And Trembling that, “it is not what happens to me that makes me great but what I do” (64). Actions are closely related to, if not inseparable from, decisions. An action can be the process of making a decision and an action often requires that a decision to act be made. Actions and decisions define an individual’s life.
How might one go about acting in the world? One cannot act without passion. Kierkegaard’s age is one without passion. It is an age of reflection and conformity. How did this age come about? Kierkegaard believes that the people of the age have in a sense become too rational for their own good. When decisions need to be made people usually have gut feelings and reactions about what course of action to take; however, when one reasons, weighs options, and considers the consequences in order to try and determine the most appropriate and logical plan of action, often no action is taken. Kierkegaard writes that in the present age one often comes to the conclusion “that the shrewdest thing of all is to do nothing” (The Present Age 34).
In the extravagant process of reflection one often loses sight of the fervent passions that define individuals. Sometimes reflection is required in order to fully realize exactly what one’s true passions and desires are, however in a passionate age one’s passions would be so central to the character of that individual that the individual would not become lost in reflection but instead be constantly acting in the world. Passion has gotten lost in the intellectual reflection of the age. When faced with a decision, deep down one knows what he or she wants to do. People have emotional cores, sets of passions inside them that encompass their desires, but people often refrain from making the choice, ignoring their passions, getting lost in reflection worrying about the uncertain consequences. Decisions are already determined by passions before reflection; people may change their minds in reflection, but one’s inert passions steadfastedly remain. Kierkegaard expresses this when he writes, “the real position in reflection remains unchanged, for it is only altered within reflection” (The Present Age 42). Reflection does not define the individual. Only actions have value and meaning in the world. Reflection is a useless abstraction that gets in the way of pure emotional reason and decision making. In reflection one is never sure if the decision is the correct one. The only way to make a decision is to make it because you truly want to do it. This requires passion. One cannot become an individual by passive reflection and assimilation with the universal.
It is not easy however, to make decisions and act. The consequences of action and decision are uncertain. A leap of faith is required to act. Faith is central to Kierkegaard’s philosophy. Fear and Trembling is in some ways a dissertation on faith. Faith involves the ability to act as one’s passions dictate with the confident knowledge that everything will be okay. Doubt and fear enter into the decision process by reflection; only faith can overcome these. For Kierkegaard, in order to make a decision and to act one must have faith. Faith enables people to act according to their passions and desires without fear or anxiety that they are making the wrong choice. Faith enables the individual to follow his or her heart rather than logical, emotionless reason. Faith is an activity not an understanding. Faith enables the individual to say “Yes!” whereas passionless reflection causes the individual to say “I am not sure…”.
What are some of the consequences of this age without passion or faith? In The Present Age Kierkegaard writes, “while a passionate age storms ahead setting up new things and tearing down old, raising and demolishing as it goes, a reflective and passionless age does exactly the contrary: it hinders and stifles all action; it levels” (51). Leveling is the process by which the abstraction of the public engulfs the individual. Kierkegaard writes that, “the leveling process is the victory of abstraction over the individual” (The Present Age 52). When the leveling process is complete the individual will be destroyed. There will be only one voice, the voice of the public. Political decisions will no longer have any weight because they won’t be based on passion. Important change will never come about because in light of risks leaders will be afraid to make drastic changes. Kierkegaard speaks of this as he describes the reflective age, “For, being without passion, it has lost all feeling for the values of eros, for enthusiasm and sincerity in politics and religion, or for piety, admiration and domesticity in everyday life” (The Present Age 39). Heroes are no longer honored in a passionless age. People will no longer be trying to become better people, but will instead simply believe that all persons are equal and that each person could have accomplished this or that feat if they so desired—but they choose not to because of shrewd reflection. Once the leveling process is complete the individual has been assimilated into the mindless, stagnant public.
What must be done to combat the age of reflection and to stop the leveling process so that the individual might survive? Kierkegaard writes, “man’s only salvation lies in the reality of religion for each individual” (The Present Age 56). Is religion the only salvation that will overcome the leveling process? Religion for Kierkegaard involves a strong sense of inwardness. Kierkegaard writes, “unless the individual learns in the reality of religion and before God to be content with himself, and learns, instead of dominating others, to dominate himself, content as a priest to be his own audience, and as author his own reader, if he will not learn to be satisfied with that as the highest… then he will not escape from reflection” (The Present Age 57). Later Kierkegaard writes, “Life’s existential tasks have lost the interest of reality; illusion cannot build a sanctuary for the divine growth of inwardness which ripens to decisions” (The Present Age 78). The important notion in these passages is inwardness, or the domination of oneself. Only when one finds happiness in oneself and develops a personal identity with real passions is it possible to escape from reflection and act. Religion is one means by which one might come to know oneself, but it is not the only way.
The Present Age applies not only to Kierkegaard’s age but also to the present age today. People are content to apathetically observe history moving on without them. Forty percent of United States citizens did not vote in the 2004 Presidential Election. Individuals are rare and more and more people are finding an identity in the public rather than in themselves. In order to become an individual one must act; in order to act one must have faith and passion. Kierkegaard advocates becoming an individual through religious faith, yet Kierkegaard’s notion of individuality could be attained by anyone in touch with themselves and their passions. Only individuals can change society. One can see why Kierkegaard was outraged by an age where passion did not exist and individuals failed to emancipate themselves from the public. The people of today should heed Kierkegaard’s advice, stop their endless reflection, and act.
Works Cited
Kierkegaard, Søren. Fear and Trembling. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1983.
Kierkegaard, Søren. The Present Age. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1962.
Birds and Bees
Oriental Thought
July 7, 2005
The Way of Nature
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. God created all the plants. God created the fishes of the sea, the birds of the sky, and the creatures of the earth. On the sixth day God created man in his own image. God saw that everything he created was good. The earth was a paradise and man had only one rule—do not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Rules are made to be broken… man ate the fruit. So began the fall of man.
What do we make of this story? Some take it to be the actual history of man and the earth. This literal interpretation has led to growing conflicts between Christian and scientist, church and state, as well as man and earth. Instead of taking the literal interpretation of this ancient story I propose we try to find a moral to the myth.
Here are a few headlines from the Google News homepage on July 7, 2005 at 12:03 AM: “Authorities think sex offender responsible for 3 Idaho deaths”; “Thousands are Arrested in India in Unrest Over Temple Site”; “Al-Qaida threatens to kill captured Egyptian diplomat”; “Israeli troops kill Palestinian militant in West Bank”; “Federal spy probe begins into California National Guard unit”; “Afghanistan condemns US raid”; “Florida Prosecutors Receive Limbaugh's Medical Records”. My oh my! The fall of man has been great. Before the fall we had paradise. Now we have war for peace. Our world is entrenched in a battle of good versus evil. One person may look at an action and call it good. Another may look at the same action and call it evil. If we interpret the creation story literally then we’ve had the knowledge of good and evil at our disposal for 6,000-10,000 years. In light of this knowledge shouldn’t we have agreed on some objective moral principles by now?
It has been assumed that the knowledge of good and evil must exist independently of humans. After all, God says in Genesis 3:22, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil” (New King James Bible). But what if we assume that this knowledge does not exist independently of humans? What if Adam and Eve thought they had knowledge of good and evil when they didn’t? Could the actual fall of man be the result of an error on the part of man to try and form a knowledge of good and evil in a world where good and evil do not exist?
Immediately after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit “the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings” (New King James Bible Genesis 3:7). The first knowledge that Adam and Eve received after eating the fruit was that they were naked. Immediately after realizing they were naked they put on clothing—so obviously they must have believed that it was wrong to be naked. But what is so wrong with being naked? God created man in his own image… naked! We are born naked. We make love naked. I cannot find anything wrong with being naked; however, immediately after Adam and Eve received the knowledge of good and evil they put clothes on. Adam and Eve had no reason to be ashamed of their nakedness, but they believed they did.
What separates man from animal? Many have said it is our intellect, and I would not disagree; but what Darwinian evolution has taught us, to the indignation of those who hold a literal interpretation of Genesis, is that our similarities to animals far outweigh the differences. We like every other life form that has ever walked this planet were created from the earth. In theory we are the most highly evolved animals. There is no great divide between man and animal. But today much of humanity considers humans to be distinguished from animals; some find the idea that our ancestors are apes to be repulsive. What first separated man from animal?—the human belief that man is separate from animal. I do not know how this belief evolved, but the period when humans began to wear clothing must have been a crucial one to the development of this idea. Adam and Eve had no justification for their belief that they should be clothed. By imparting a knowledge onto the world that didn’t really exist man began to separate himself from nature. Many people believe that humans have a special status above other animals and above the world. The putting on of clothes by Adam and Eve symbolizes man’s divorce from nature as a result of man’s false knowledge.
The Old Testament creation myth is not the only story of its kind. Taoism also has similar tales. Martin Palmer, translator of The Book of Chuang Tzu, writes, “Taoism is the search for the Tao, the Way of Nature which, if you could become a part of it, would take you to the edge of reality and beyond” (Palmer xiii). Chuang Tzu, considered to be an important thinker in the Taoist tradition, writes of “men of old” who “did not know that anything existed […] Later, they knew that some things existed but they did not distinguish between them. Next came those who distinguished between things, but did not judge things […] It was when judgments were made that the Tao was damaged” (Palmer 14). One of the main tenets of eastern thought is the belief in the unity of all things. Everything is the same and divisions between things are illusions. By inventing a division such as the distinction between things that are good and evil we are deluding ourselves. The unity of all is lost when we invent divisions such as these. A Taoist sage lives in such a way that he is immersed in the Tao and knows he, as everything else is a part of the Tao.
As we know, the western tradition holds that humans can obtain knowledge of good and evil; but Taoism claims that there is no such knowledge. Westerners create moral laws designed to help people become good. All of these rules are based on what we believe to be our knowledge of good and evil—many, believe that if we didn’t have these laws man would live a reckless life. People fear that without guidance and moral laws humanity will have no knowledge of what is good and will consequently become base and animalistic. Taoism teaches that humans are fundamentally good because they are part of nature, and that the way of nature is good. Raymond M. Smullyan, author of The Tao is Silent, expresses this as he writes:
“A person who is truly free from morality has no need to reject it; he is free and simply leads a good life. Some may be afraid that he will then simply lead a bad life; this is one of the key differences between Taoistic thought and the thought of some Westerners, as well as some Easterners like the Chinese Legalists or Realists who regarded human nature as fundamentally evil and therefore believed that humans would act evilly unless checked by extremely rigid laws. Now, the Taoist ideal is not so much to feel that we shouldn’t be moral, but rather to be independent, free, unentangled with moral ‘principles’—to return, so to speak, to the Garden of Eden days before we ate of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil” (113).
Before Adam ate the fruit he lived in harmony with himself, with God, with the animals, and with the earth. Before the old men started making divisions and judgments of nature things were perfect. The state of the world today, does not seem to be in harmony with nature. We kill our fellow man for the sake of our principles everyday. Knowledge of good and evil, in a world that was purely good before this knowledge arose, needs to be eliminated from the human mind if we wish to live in peace with each other and with the world.
In nature there is no right or wrong. We invent these categories, become convinced of them and try to change others. If we just act, and do what we want, and abstain from what causes suffering to ourselves and others then we can be happy. We should not tell other people what to do. By what authority can we tell others how to act if we have no knowledge of good or evil? By natural evolution selfishness and ill-will could cease to exist if we let people do what they want. Smullyan writes that the Taoists felt that:
“morality itself—‘principles of morality’, that is—was a major cause of suffering, since it only weakened that natural goodness in us which would spontaneously manifest itself if not interfered with or commanded by moral principles or moral law. Indeed, one day Laotse chided Confucius for ‘bringing great confusion’ to the human race by his moralistic teachings. He said ‘Stop going around advertising goodness and duty, and people will regain love of their fellows’ (112).
The difference between the Western notion of good and the Taoist notion of good is that Westerners believe we must have knowledge of good in order to live well, but Taoists simply live well without knowledge. As we can see by simply looking at the headlines of a newspaper, moral rules are not conducive to the moral development of man. The only way man will become good is if individuals who have learned to live well show others how to live by example. Smullyan creates a dialogue between a moralist and a Taoist in which the Taoist says, “What you are trying to do is to command love. And love, like a precious flower, will only wither at any attempt to force it. My whole criticism of you is to the effect that you are trying to force that which can thrive only if it is not forced” (79). For centuries we have been trying to force man to be good by telling him that he must obey rules and laws. We must abandon this method of morality. People will not become good by being told how to live. People need to learn by experience. Everyone has the right to do whatever he or she wants, but they may be happier if they want good things rather than bad. The only way that people will begin to live good moral lives is if people live by example without pushing their beliefs on others but instead allow others to learn how to live themselves.
Can we again live in the peace of the natural world—a world from which we are now separated? We must abandon our notions of duty based on moral principles. Our moral principles are strictly human constructions and will not help lead humanity to morality. We should do things because they make our lives and the lives of others better, not because we have a duty or moral obligation. The creation myth tells us that man’s wish to obtain knowledge of good and evil will only cause isolation from nature and will never lead to the goodness of man. We have tried to logically deduce the laws of morality. We have failed. We must begin anew. It may be of use to us in our new beginning to remember Adam, Eve, the Taoists, and the beautiful way of nature.
Works Cited
Google News. July 7, 2005..
Palmer, Martin. The Book of Chuang Tzu.
Smullyan, Raymond M.. The Tao Is Silent. New York. Harper & Row, 1977.
The New King James Bible. Thomas Nelson Inc., 1995.
July 7, 2005
The Way of Nature
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. God created all the plants. God created the fishes of the sea, the birds of the sky, and the creatures of the earth. On the sixth day God created man in his own image. God saw that everything he created was good. The earth was a paradise and man had only one rule—do not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Rules are made to be broken… man ate the fruit. So began the fall of man.
What do we make of this story? Some take it to be the actual history of man and the earth. This literal interpretation has led to growing conflicts between Christian and scientist, church and state, as well as man and earth. Instead of taking the literal interpretation of this ancient story I propose we try to find a moral to the myth.
Here are a few headlines from the Google News homepage on July 7, 2005 at 12:03 AM: “Authorities think sex offender responsible for 3 Idaho deaths”; “Thousands are Arrested in India in Unrest Over Temple Site”; “Al-Qaida threatens to kill captured Egyptian diplomat”; “Israeli troops kill Palestinian militant in West Bank”; “Federal spy probe begins into California National Guard unit”; “Afghanistan condemns US raid”; “Florida Prosecutors Receive Limbaugh's Medical Records”. My oh my! The fall of man has been great. Before the fall we had paradise. Now we have war for peace. Our world is entrenched in a battle of good versus evil. One person may look at an action and call it good. Another may look at the same action and call it evil. If we interpret the creation story literally then we’ve had the knowledge of good and evil at our disposal for 6,000-10,000 years. In light of this knowledge shouldn’t we have agreed on some objective moral principles by now?
It has been assumed that the knowledge of good and evil must exist independently of humans. After all, God says in Genesis 3:22, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil” (New King James Bible). But what if we assume that this knowledge does not exist independently of humans? What if Adam and Eve thought they had knowledge of good and evil when they didn’t? Could the actual fall of man be the result of an error on the part of man to try and form a knowledge of good and evil in a world where good and evil do not exist?
Immediately after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit “the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings” (New King James Bible Genesis 3:7). The first knowledge that Adam and Eve received after eating the fruit was that they were naked. Immediately after realizing they were naked they put on clothing—so obviously they must have believed that it was wrong to be naked. But what is so wrong with being naked? God created man in his own image… naked! We are born naked. We make love naked. I cannot find anything wrong with being naked; however, immediately after Adam and Eve received the knowledge of good and evil they put clothes on. Adam and Eve had no reason to be ashamed of their nakedness, but they believed they did.
What separates man from animal? Many have said it is our intellect, and I would not disagree; but what Darwinian evolution has taught us, to the indignation of those who hold a literal interpretation of Genesis, is that our similarities to animals far outweigh the differences. We like every other life form that has ever walked this planet were created from the earth. In theory we are the most highly evolved animals. There is no great divide between man and animal. But today much of humanity considers humans to be distinguished from animals; some find the idea that our ancestors are apes to be repulsive. What first separated man from animal?—the human belief that man is separate from animal. I do not know how this belief evolved, but the period when humans began to wear clothing must have been a crucial one to the development of this idea. Adam and Eve had no justification for their belief that they should be clothed. By imparting a knowledge onto the world that didn’t really exist man began to separate himself from nature. Many people believe that humans have a special status above other animals and above the world. The putting on of clothes by Adam and Eve symbolizes man’s divorce from nature as a result of man’s false knowledge.
The Old Testament creation myth is not the only story of its kind. Taoism also has similar tales. Martin Palmer, translator of The Book of Chuang Tzu, writes, “Taoism is the search for the Tao, the Way of Nature which, if you could become a part of it, would take you to the edge of reality and beyond” (Palmer xiii). Chuang Tzu, considered to be an important thinker in the Taoist tradition, writes of “men of old” who “did not know that anything existed […] Later, they knew that some things existed but they did not distinguish between them. Next came those who distinguished between things, but did not judge things […] It was when judgments were made that the Tao was damaged” (Palmer 14). One of the main tenets of eastern thought is the belief in the unity of all things. Everything is the same and divisions between things are illusions. By inventing a division such as the distinction between things that are good and evil we are deluding ourselves. The unity of all is lost when we invent divisions such as these. A Taoist sage lives in such a way that he is immersed in the Tao and knows he, as everything else is a part of the Tao.
As we know, the western tradition holds that humans can obtain knowledge of good and evil; but Taoism claims that there is no such knowledge. Westerners create moral laws designed to help people become good. All of these rules are based on what we believe to be our knowledge of good and evil—many, believe that if we didn’t have these laws man would live a reckless life. People fear that without guidance and moral laws humanity will have no knowledge of what is good and will consequently become base and animalistic. Taoism teaches that humans are fundamentally good because they are part of nature, and that the way of nature is good. Raymond M. Smullyan, author of The Tao is Silent, expresses this as he writes:
“A person who is truly free from morality has no need to reject it; he is free and simply leads a good life. Some may be afraid that he will then simply lead a bad life; this is one of the key differences between Taoistic thought and the thought of some Westerners, as well as some Easterners like the Chinese Legalists or Realists who regarded human nature as fundamentally evil and therefore believed that humans would act evilly unless checked by extremely rigid laws. Now, the Taoist ideal is not so much to feel that we shouldn’t be moral, but rather to be independent, free, unentangled with moral ‘principles’—to return, so to speak, to the Garden of Eden days before we ate of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil” (113).
Before Adam ate the fruit he lived in harmony with himself, with God, with the animals, and with the earth. Before the old men started making divisions and judgments of nature things were perfect. The state of the world today, does not seem to be in harmony with nature. We kill our fellow man for the sake of our principles everyday. Knowledge of good and evil, in a world that was purely good before this knowledge arose, needs to be eliminated from the human mind if we wish to live in peace with each other and with the world.
In nature there is no right or wrong. We invent these categories, become convinced of them and try to change others. If we just act, and do what we want, and abstain from what causes suffering to ourselves and others then we can be happy. We should not tell other people what to do. By what authority can we tell others how to act if we have no knowledge of good or evil? By natural evolution selfishness and ill-will could cease to exist if we let people do what they want. Smullyan writes that the Taoists felt that:
“morality itself—‘principles of morality’, that is—was a major cause of suffering, since it only weakened that natural goodness in us which would spontaneously manifest itself if not interfered with or commanded by moral principles or moral law. Indeed, one day Laotse chided Confucius for ‘bringing great confusion’ to the human race by his moralistic teachings. He said ‘Stop going around advertising goodness and duty, and people will regain love of their fellows’ (112).
The difference between the Western notion of good and the Taoist notion of good is that Westerners believe we must have knowledge of good in order to live well, but Taoists simply live well without knowledge. As we can see by simply looking at the headlines of a newspaper, moral rules are not conducive to the moral development of man. The only way man will become good is if individuals who have learned to live well show others how to live by example. Smullyan creates a dialogue between a moralist and a Taoist in which the Taoist says, “What you are trying to do is to command love. And love, like a precious flower, will only wither at any attempt to force it. My whole criticism of you is to the effect that you are trying to force that which can thrive only if it is not forced” (79). For centuries we have been trying to force man to be good by telling him that he must obey rules and laws. We must abandon this method of morality. People will not become good by being told how to live. People need to learn by experience. Everyone has the right to do whatever he or she wants, but they may be happier if they want good things rather than bad. The only way that people will begin to live good moral lives is if people live by example without pushing their beliefs on others but instead allow others to learn how to live themselves.
Can we again live in the peace of the natural world—a world from which we are now separated? We must abandon our notions of duty based on moral principles. Our moral principles are strictly human constructions and will not help lead humanity to morality. We should do things because they make our lives and the lives of others better, not because we have a duty or moral obligation. The creation myth tells us that man’s wish to obtain knowledge of good and evil will only cause isolation from nature and will never lead to the goodness of man. We have tried to logically deduce the laws of morality. We have failed. We must begin anew. It may be of use to us in our new beginning to remember Adam, Eve, the Taoists, and the beautiful way of nature.
Works Cited
Google News. July 7, 2005.
Palmer, Martin. The Book of Chuang Tzu.
Smullyan, Raymond M.. The Tao Is Silent. New York. Harper & Row, 1977.
The New King James Bible. Thomas Nelson Inc., 1995.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)