I find ideas about free will to be very interesting. The philosophical definition of freedom is the power to do otherwise; that is, when we make choices, the ability to choose alternatively. A good illustration of this is a picture of a path with different forks in the road. The path itself symbolizes life, and the forks in the road symbolize times when we have choices to make. When we reach a decision, we choose the direction and follow along that path.
Thinking about the illustration, a thought comes to mind. What if it doesn’t matter which route we take? What if all routes lead to the same destination? For a quick example, say a high school senior reaches a “fork in the road” and needs to make a decision about which university to apply to. Then, say whatever school he chooses, and whatever major he decides to pursue, his future ultimately holds that he will eventually graduate and end up working at the same location under the same boss. I can literally think of countless scenarios in which this “ultimate destination” might take place.
The question I pose is this: if we are to reach certain “forks in the road” and decide which route to take, and if all routes ultimately lead to the same destination, are we still free? We do still get to choose how to get there, but we don’t get to choose where we end up. If one were to somehow prove that we all reach a guaranteed destination, could they disprove freedom? There is at least one destination we can’t avoid – death. This is just food for thought.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Modern vs. Aristotelian Metaphysics
I am fascinated at how far Democritus was before his time. Two thousand years before Galileo sprung forth "modern" philosophy, Democritus basically wrote the blueprint. Without the scientific aid of his modern successors, he somehow came up with a logical metaphysical view of the world. From what I have read, atomism and the corpuscular theory are fundamentally identical. However, Democritus was soon criticized by Aristotle, whereas Galileo was rather proceeded by Descartes. Thus, ancient philosophy took one direction in the fork in the road, while modern philosophy took the other path.
This distinct deviation brings forth a few questions. In my ethics class, I’ve read a little of Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue. In this work, he argues that modern morality is a failure, because of the lost significance of the more real Aristotelian ethics. He argued that modern philosophers abandoned everything that gave ethics a rational basis, namely teleology. Modernists devised theories devoid of social, political, divine, or teleological criteria. Therefore, without a firm base from which to compose a sound philosophy, modern ideas fall short.
This brings forth the thought that perhaps Modern metaphysics is a falsely constructed version of the more real Aristotelian model. Aristotle criticized Democritus for taking meaning, teleology, and mind/soul out of reality. What if Aristotle was right? Maybe there is some form of metaphysics that can account for everything Aristotle desired. I don’t think that Aristotle’s metaphysical views are necessarily correct, but I am definitely not sure about modern philosophers either. I wonder if there is some middle ground between the physical modern version and Aristotle’s teleological version.
This distinct deviation brings forth a few questions. In my ethics class, I’ve read a little of Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue. In this work, he argues that modern morality is a failure, because of the lost significance of the more real Aristotelian ethics. He argued that modern philosophers abandoned everything that gave ethics a rational basis, namely teleology. Modernists devised theories devoid of social, political, divine, or teleological criteria. Therefore, without a firm base from which to compose a sound philosophy, modern ideas fall short.
This brings forth the thought that perhaps Modern metaphysics is a falsely constructed version of the more real Aristotelian model. Aristotle criticized Democritus for taking meaning, teleology, and mind/soul out of reality. What if Aristotle was right? Maybe there is some form of metaphysics that can account for everything Aristotle desired. I don’t think that Aristotle’s metaphysical views are necessarily correct, but I am definitely not sure about modern philosophers either. I wonder if there is some middle ground between the physical modern version and Aristotle’s teleological version.
Faith and Confidence
In an Existentialism class I took, we read Fear and Trembling by Soren Kierkegaard, and he retold the story of how Abraham obeyed God to sacrifice his son Isaac in order to exemplify faith. Through extreme faith, he was resigned to give up everything with the expectation of receiving it back with joy. Ultimately, after his resignation, Abraham received Isaac back with joy. Kierkegaard proposes that one needs infinite resignation as a prerequisite to faith. That is, one must be carry out their action solemnly and consistently, regardless of the situation, and accept the potential negative consequences.
To me, through interpretation of this depiction of faith, I find it to be very comparable to confidence. Confidence can be described as a state of believing that one is going in the right direction through insecurities. One can use the stage of infinite resignation to give up all of their fears, insecurities, and anxieties through acceptance of the myriad of consequences of a particular situation. When one achieves this, and such blockage is torn down, they can take the next step. So, if one were to be infinitely resigned, they would first lose all of which is stopping them from being confident. Similarly, when one looks at Kierkegaard’s explanation of faith, they will find that to have infinite resignation means simply to give up that which is stopping them from having faith. Then, when one is faithful and confident, they can go even further. They can then have the expectation of receiving that which they resign back with joy. I will use an athlete as an example. If Lebron James is at the free-throw line at the end of the game, he must resign his fear of losing, then confidently step up and sink the shots with the expectation to win.
To me, through interpretation of this depiction of faith, I find it to be very comparable to confidence. Confidence can be described as a state of believing that one is going in the right direction through insecurities. One can use the stage of infinite resignation to give up all of their fears, insecurities, and anxieties through acceptance of the myriad of consequences of a particular situation. When one achieves this, and such blockage is torn down, they can take the next step. So, if one were to be infinitely resigned, they would first lose all of which is stopping them from being confident. Similarly, when one looks at Kierkegaard’s explanation of faith, they will find that to have infinite resignation means simply to give up that which is stopping them from having faith. Then, when one is faithful and confident, they can go even further. They can then have the expectation of receiving that which they resign back with joy. I will use an athlete as an example. If Lebron James is at the free-throw line at the end of the game, he must resign his fear of losing, then confidently step up and sink the shots with the expectation to win.
Faith vs. Rationality
Often, when we try to come up with a rational answer to important issues, we end up spinning ourselves into a logical web, and find that we are more lost than when we started. When thinking about God, people often try to pit science and rational inquiry against his existence. I have found myself troubled when thinking about issues that rational people would not assume was God ordained. In other words, sometimes God’s existence doesn’t seem rational.
It is interesting to put faith against rationality, and I will rationally argue in favor of faith over rationality. The thing about faith is that it brings more faith. By virtue of the absurd, once one makes the initial leap of faith, that is if it is genuine faith, they will surely find faith and grow in faith. For if they were to seek faith and instead find doubt, then they never made the leap of faith in the first place. Conversely, those who seek rational truths only find rational doubts. As the old adage goes, true wisdom is merely the knowledge that we actually don’t know anything. So, what rational person would choose rationality? It is like being stuck in a hole and trying to escape by digging deeper. Pure truth can only be found in faith, but quite ironically, rationality causes people to act irrationally. God is the truth, and as it is written, those who seek God with their whole hearts will find him. Unfortunately, many people, such as myself, often try to seek with our minds instead of our hearts. I argue that faith must surpass rationale when pitted against each other.
Ontological Argument
In attempt to argue in favor of the existence of God, Anselm lays down a very clever reduction. First, he defines God as “a being greater than which cannot be thought of.” In other words, God is the greatest possible thing one can think of, or conceive. Armed with this concept, he goes further to say that God most definitely exists in thought. Suppose God exists in thought alone. Also, it is conceivable that God exists in reality too. It is greater to exist in reality and in thought than to exist in reality alone. Thus, it is conceivable that there is something greater than God…but that is absurd. He therefore proves that God exists.
However, Guanilo counters the argument by saying that one can simply replace “God” in the equation and replace it with “a perfect island” and could thus prove that “a perfect island” exists. However, I have a problem with Guanilo’s argument that I must address because I feel a little confused by it. I don’t think you can simply replace the “God” variable with the “perfect island” variable (or any other variable for that matter). This can’t work because before constructing the equation, Anselm had to first define God as “the greatest thing one can possibly think of.” I don’t think any other variable would work in place of “God” because God is obviously greater than anything else. Thus, “God” is greater than “the perfect island.” Once again I will try to outline my argument for better clarity.
1. God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived
2. I can conceive of such a being
3. It is greater to exist in reality than merely in the imagination
4. Therefore the being of which I conceive must exist in reality
Again, what Guanilo did was simply replace God with a perfect island. However, I think this already fails on the very 1st line because only God, not a perfect island, is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Does Intention Matter?
In his Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill proposes a moral philosophy that demands the following principle – do that act which will result in the greatest amount of pleasure/happiness and the least amount of pain. It sounds simple enough and is very appealing, because everyone wants to experience more pleasure and less pain. However, I do not find such a consequentialist philosophy to be sufficient.
A troubling issue I have with Mill is his theory that morality comes more from results rather than from intentions. This surely cannot be the criteria for virtue. To illustrate this, I will pose the idea of self-sacrifice. Mill seems to argue that a sacrifice is only virtuous if it leads to success and happiness. I can easily think of scenarios where seemingly less moral people could act in a way in which they would somehow unintentionally enable better results than seemingly more moral people. For example, say a good man loves his family and his community, so when a war comes around, he wants to sacrifice his life to defend his village. So, he valiantly fights in the war until he is killed, only for his village to be eventually destroyed. Now, say another man is an evil psychopath, charged with several murders, fights for another village that is being attacked. However, he is military against his will, and fights he wants freedom to kill as many people as he can, eventually until his village is saved as a result of his murderous killing spree. Would Mill argue that the second man is morally more virtuous? The second man’s action resulted in more happiness and less pain (for his own community at least ha), but I doubt his character is superior to the first man’s.
A troubling issue I have with Mill is his theory that morality comes more from results rather than from intentions. This surely cannot be the criteria for virtue. To illustrate this, I will pose the idea of self-sacrifice. Mill seems to argue that a sacrifice is only virtuous if it leads to success and happiness. I can easily think of scenarios where seemingly less moral people could act in a way in which they would somehow unintentionally enable better results than seemingly more moral people. For example, say a good man loves his family and his community, so when a war comes around, he wants to sacrifice his life to defend his village. So, he valiantly fights in the war until he is killed, only for his village to be eventually destroyed. Now, say another man is an evil psychopath, charged with several murders, fights for another village that is being attacked. However, he is military against his will, and fights he wants freedom to kill as many people as he can, eventually until his village is saved as a result of his murderous killing spree. Would Mill argue that the second man is morally more virtuous? The second man’s action resulted in more happiness and less pain (for his own community at least ha), but I doubt his character is superior to the first man’s.
Moralistic Therapeutic Deism
I read an article about a belief system called Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. According to the article is a rather popular belief system amongst teenagers. The main ideals are that a creative God exists, he wants us to be good moral people, he wants us to be happy with ourselves, he is not too involved in our lives unless we need him to resolve a problem, and good people go to heaven when they die. It sounds pretty simple and straightforward. However, I am not too sure what to think about it. The article criticized Moralistic Therapeutic Deism as not being totally consistent with any real religion, but a new one that pick and chose aspects from other established religions.
To me, this seems to be somewhat of a middle ground between a religion and a utilitarian philosophy. Although the existence and dependence on God is noted, the relationship between God and man is very minimal. There is a stress on finding happiness, and a slight reliance on God, but neither seems to outweigh the other. I don’t fully agree with this belief system, but I honestly don’t have much of a problem with it.
Of course, most of the information provided in the article is based on the supposed beliefs of teenagers. I am not sure how reliable the information is, as teenagers still have much more to learn/experience. Furthermore, many are likely to be a bit confused on what they actually believe. I suppose that in time they will eventually develop a concrete belief system, and only time will tell if they continue to be Moralistic Therapeutic Deists.
To me, this seems to be somewhat of a middle ground between a religion and a utilitarian philosophy. Although the existence and dependence on God is noted, the relationship between God and man is very minimal. There is a stress on finding happiness, and a slight reliance on God, but neither seems to outweigh the other. I don’t fully agree with this belief system, but I honestly don’t have much of a problem with it.
Of course, most of the information provided in the article is based on the supposed beliefs of teenagers. I am not sure how reliable the information is, as teenagers still have much more to learn/experience. Furthermore, many are likely to be a bit confused on what they actually believe. I suppose that in time they will eventually develop a concrete belief system, and only time will tell if they continue to be Moralistic Therapeutic Deists.
Prudence and Courage
Just as Aristotle spoke of phronesis, or prudence, as a virtue, Josef Pieper discusses prudence and claims that it is the most essential and most necessary of all the virtues. He calls it “the mother of all virtues.” In fact, he supposes that without prudence, other virtues cannot exist. Furthermore, he claims that from prudence comes unity of the virtues – the idea that if you have one virtue, you have them all. Prudence can be described as the ability to make good choices. It is concerned directly with choosing appropriate means to some end. Furthermore, it is closely related to conscience and “right reason”.
Depending on the definition of courage, I once thought that one can be courageous but lack prudence. For example, if courage means fearlessly putting yourself in danger for the good of others, then one can imagine a situation where one could make a foolish, yet courageous act. For instance, if president Obama put his life on the line for some individual citizen, however courageous, it would surely not be prudent. For, if he were to put himself in danger, our country could find itself in a state of leaderless disorder. Surely his national contributions are more objectively vital than assisting a single individual.
However, according to Pieper, courage is only virtuous if it is done in accordance with prudence. He would suggest that a non-prudent courageous act does not exemplify courage at all. As Aristotle might put it, it would be rashness – the excess of courage. To Pieper, courage means making oneself vulnerable to a recognized danger with the prudent knowledge that they are doing it for some deeper, greater good. Thus, courage depends on prudence.
Depending on the definition of courage, I once thought that one can be courageous but lack prudence. For example, if courage means fearlessly putting yourself in danger for the good of others, then one can imagine a situation where one could make a foolish, yet courageous act. For instance, if president Obama put his life on the line for some individual citizen, however courageous, it would surely not be prudent. For, if he were to put himself in danger, our country could find itself in a state of leaderless disorder. Surely his national contributions are more objectively vital than assisting a single individual.
However, according to Pieper, courage is only virtuous if it is done in accordance with prudence. He would suggest that a non-prudent courageous act does not exemplify courage at all. As Aristotle might put it, it would be rashness – the excess of courage. To Pieper, courage means making oneself vulnerable to a recognized danger with the prudent knowledge that they are doing it for some deeper, greater good. Thus, courage depends on prudence.
Josef Pieper's Insights On A Few Virtues
I was reading A Brief Reader on the Virtues of the Human Heart by Josef Pieper, and I found several of Pieper's thoughts to be very insightful. First, I was impressed by his description of patience. He says that patience is not the indiscriminate acceptance of any kind of evil, but is rather the ability to not allow the serenity and discernment to be taken away from one's soul. People often get patience confused with indifference, but as Pieper shows, it is much stronger than that. Patience is rather a recognition the evil, but yet some kind of strong resistance to it.
Also, I am encouraged by his description of discipline. Pieper explains that discipline is selfless self-preservation. Contrastingly, indiscipline is self-destruction through selfish debasement of powers intended for self-preservation. People seem to confuse discipline with a selfish ambition, but it is interesting to note that discipline's opposite is in fact the real selfish quality. There have been times when I felt discouraged because I questioned if much of my hard work (whether it is in school, at work, at the gym, or even around the house) was for selfish ambition. Pieper’s description gave me an encouraging new revelation on the nature of discipline.
Finally, his insight that anger is not necessarily a vice is very interesting. In the power of being angry, the human nature speaks most clearly. So, anger can be used in overcoming licentiousness, I think through clearly seeing the lack of real satisfaction that licentiousness brings. Whatever he was trying to get at, I think his insight on anger is interesting.
Also, I am encouraged by his description of discipline. Pieper explains that discipline is selfless self-preservation. Contrastingly, indiscipline is self-destruction through selfish debasement of powers intended for self-preservation. People seem to confuse discipline with a selfish ambition, but it is interesting to note that discipline's opposite is in fact the real selfish quality. There have been times when I felt discouraged because I questioned if much of my hard work (whether it is in school, at work, at the gym, or even around the house) was for selfish ambition. Pieper’s description gave me an encouraging new revelation on the nature of discipline.
Finally, his insight that anger is not necessarily a vice is very interesting. In the power of being angry, the human nature speaks most clearly. So, anger can be used in overcoming licentiousness, I think through clearly seeing the lack of real satisfaction that licentiousness brings. Whatever he was trying to get at, I think his insight on anger is interesting.
Nietzsche and Forgetting
In his Genealogy of Morals Friedrich Nietzsche explores the meaning behind “the right to keep promises.” At first, he marvels at the idea of the opposing force – forgetfulness. Nietzsche explains that forgetfulness is the active process of repression, which allows us to be free of our unwanted, over-produced consciousness, and that without it “there could be no happiness, no cheerfulness, no hope, no pride, and no present.” He follows to say that we humans have since developed the opposing faculty of memory, a continual active desire or will that something should not be forgotten. He continues to express that in order for this memory to be attained, in a world of constant distractions and different circumstances, one must become calculable, regular, necessary, and secure in one’s own future. Thus people had to become disciplined, conditioned by society, and responsible. Finally, he who is fully responsible is eligible to make a promise.
This brings forth a troubling thought. If in order to develop our faculty for memory, we have to abandon much of our forgetfulness, is it really worth it? According to Nietzsche, forgetfulness allows us to be happy. Is ignorance really bliss? I have thought about this several times. In fact, I have found myself doing whatever means I could find to “block my memory” so to speak. It is no secret that a huge number of people drink and do drugs in an attempt to escape the confines of reality. Should they?
Based on my past experience, the answer is a clear “no.” As Mill puts it, there are qualitative differences between pleasures and goods. The pleasure gained from a brief escape from reality is qualitatively inferior to that gained from truth.
This brings forth a troubling thought. If in order to develop our faculty for memory, we have to abandon much of our forgetfulness, is it really worth it? According to Nietzsche, forgetfulness allows us to be happy. Is ignorance really bliss? I have thought about this several times. In fact, I have found myself doing whatever means I could find to “block my memory” so to speak. It is no secret that a huge number of people drink and do drugs in an attempt to escape the confines of reality. Should they?
Based on my past experience, the answer is a clear “no.” As Mill puts it, there are qualitative differences between pleasures and goods. The pleasure gained from a brief escape from reality is qualitatively inferior to that gained from truth.
Freedom in Kant's Ethics?
In one of my other classes, Introduction to Ethics, we discuss several different moral theories and ideas. Since ethics is a very interesting philosophical subject, (and I won’t lie, since I need to finish 12 blogs ASAP and I need some material to work with) I will share some of what I have learned. The first major ethical theory we learned about is from Immanuel Kant.
Kant proposes that rationality must be our basis of ethical conduct. He suggests that we may exist transcendentally solely through our ability to reason. That is, our reason may exist in and of itself independent of outer influences. Also, according to his philosophy, we can freely control our rationality but we cannot control our desires. Furthermore, he supposes that every human being is rational, or capable of rationality. He also says that rational beings are ends in themselves, and that we must realize that other people are ends in themselves as well, and treat them accordingly. So, he developed a categorical imperative – the law that suggests that a person should do that maxim which he could rationally make a universal law. He proclaims that his categorical imperative is an applicable universal objective law of morality.
Kant then suggests that we are most free when we submit to universal objective laws of morality. I find this a bit paradoxical. He explains that if we submit to our sensible desires, we are merely being influenced by outer causes in the phenomenal world. On the other hand, he proposes that if we rationally lead ourselves noumenally through rational submission to universal laws, we are indeed free. This is troubling to me because I feel that it begs the question, "why can't we freely choose to satisfy our drives and desires instead of reason." Perhaps our only freedom abides in our ability to choose what we submit to - desire or reason.
Kant proposes that rationality must be our basis of ethical conduct. He suggests that we may exist transcendentally solely through our ability to reason. That is, our reason may exist in and of itself independent of outer influences. Also, according to his philosophy, we can freely control our rationality but we cannot control our desires. Furthermore, he supposes that every human being is rational, or capable of rationality. He also says that rational beings are ends in themselves, and that we must realize that other people are ends in themselves as well, and treat them accordingly. So, he developed a categorical imperative – the law that suggests that a person should do that maxim which he could rationally make a universal law. He proclaims that his categorical imperative is an applicable universal objective law of morality.
Kant then suggests that we are most free when we submit to universal objective laws of morality. I find this a bit paradoxical. He explains that if we submit to our sensible desires, we are merely being influenced by outer causes in the phenomenal world. On the other hand, he proposes that if we rationally lead ourselves noumenally through rational submission to universal laws, we are indeed free. This is troubling to me because I feel that it begs the question, "why can't we freely choose to satisfy our drives and desires instead of reason." Perhaps our only freedom abides in our ability to choose what we submit to - desire or reason.
Introduction
Hello fellow bloggers/philosophers/classmates. My name is Derek Torres. I know that we were supposed to write our introductory blog about a semester ago, but better late than never, right? I started out my college experience as a business major, but quickly discovered that I had no interest in it whatsoever. My major was Sports Sponsorship and Sales because I love sports. Unfortunately, I soon realized that the criteria was actually more like straight “Sponsorship and Sales.” They pretty much took sports out of the equation. So, I thought about what I actually like. I took a few philosophy classes because I thought they would be interesting, and found that philosophy was basically the only class I was interested in. So, I switched my major to philosophy and have not looked back.
As many of you know, philosophy majors do not exactly have a straightforward path to any specific career. They say it will either take you anywhere or nowhere. I figure the most viable options for philosophy majors are either to be a professor… or a lawyer. I think I am going to go with the latter. I am pre-law and I plan to take the LSAT this coming fall. I bet many of my fellow classmates are probably in the same boat.
Anyway I love philosophy amongst many other things. I enjoy basically any kind of physical activity – sports, cliff jumping, floating rivers, working out, running, the outdoors, etc. I also like to just chill with my friends and watch TV (mostly sports; can’t wait for the World Cup this summer!), watch movies, play videogames, listen to music, etc. I also like sleeping, travelling, hot-tubbing, and going out to new places. I used to love to get drunk and high and party all the time, but then I found Jesus and He changed my life. He is REAL and GOOD to have around. If any part of my blog posts are taken with a grain of salt, let it be the previous sentence.
As many of you know, philosophy majors do not exactly have a straightforward path to any specific career. They say it will either take you anywhere or nowhere. I figure the most viable options for philosophy majors are either to be a professor… or a lawyer. I think I am going to go with the latter. I am pre-law and I plan to take the LSAT this coming fall. I bet many of my fellow classmates are probably in the same boat.
Anyway I love philosophy amongst many other things. I enjoy basically any kind of physical activity – sports, cliff jumping, floating rivers, working out, running, the outdoors, etc. I also like to just chill with my friends and watch TV (mostly sports; can’t wait for the World Cup this summer!), watch movies, play videogames, listen to music, etc. I also like sleeping, travelling, hot-tubbing, and going out to new places. I used to love to get drunk and high and party all the time, but then I found Jesus and He changed my life. He is REAL and GOOD to have around. If any part of my blog posts are taken with a grain of salt, let it be the previous sentence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)