Now, If we can get our potential participants to sign in and give some thought and comment to an opening date, we can then work on publicity.

I've got it ordered and should have it in hand in a few days.

Best

LJ

LJ.....Larry H. gave me the key to get in, so consider me signed on for the discussion.

I will not try to suggest a time for you, I am going to be having a "relocation" problem somewhere between Oct.l and the end of the year. My retirement is happening right now, and will be moving back to my home in Tyler, Tx. from up here in the panhandle. I will be in and out...but I will have read the book long before then, and will join in as I can. Actually, I should stop buying books and do more packing, but we all have our weakness...don't we?????

I will go with what is best for others that will participate.

Sun

Let's see, : Court is 9/30, Guys is 10/15, How the Mind works is 10/30 and the other one is 11/30? December is the NY Trip. How about the new year? I read part of the Will and Ariel Durant series when I was just a sprout. Enjoyed it immensely. Would that fit in here also? I will try to join this one.

Surely youall aren't going to be in "New York" for a whole month.

The consensus thus far is for adequate "Lead Time, and I gather 12-1-98 or 1-1-99.

Still would like to hear from the others.

Best

LJ

Aren't we staying a month??

Ginny hahahahhahaha would like to, have a month's worth of talking to do!

I plan to participate. I think I can fit in any date after October 15th so any time in November, or December is ok with me.

Question: what effect does Xmas and the hollidays have on such discussions? If the start is delayed until tne last month of the year might it be best to wait until after the new year. But I repeat the earlier dates are ok with me.

Harold

Lost my post here...will try again, if I repeat something, forgive.

Hist. of Phil. arrived from B&N, and I am tempted to read it right now, but need to read 'Court' first due to start date. They both look good. (Thanks for the Click reference)

Going to check out both How Mind Works, and Species books, but will reserve judgement there...due to running out of time. Will decide later.

BTW...Larry, or someone needs to add this to the RoundTable Index, the only Potpourri there is the old one. You can find it under Books and Lit...but not the Index.

Later,

Sun

Are all agreeable to 11-30 as a starting date? That would give everyone time to be ready (Even including Symbolic species and How the mind Works)

Best

LJ

Sun, Thanks for the heads-up on the addition needed in the Index. It is easy to overlook getting something in there when added to the Books and Literature folder. It is in the Index now.

Larry

Larry:

I will be delighted to join the discussion on the Russell book. I've been looking for it for a long time and will be happy to get it from Seniornet. I've been trying to update my philosophy background with Sophie's World and the David Denby book. Will look forward to it.

Charlotte

Charlotte, Wellcome to our group. It should be a very informative and provocative discussion. I think Bud will be an exciting leader and I'm anxious to get started on the reading. I DO have the book in hand and plan to begin soon.

We're looking forward to your thoughts and comments.

Best

LJ

I would like to join in this reading forum. I have never participated in any of the book forums, but I am about ready to join in some friendly type of conversation. I have been too long in the Religion column. Am I correct that this discussion will begin Nov. 30? I am really looking forward to it.

Jenny

Jenny, Wellcome aboard. We seem to be developing a fairly respectable group for this discussion and YOU are certainly more than wellcome and wanted.

Nov 30th is the opening date for discussion. If you (as many do) wish to read the material as we discuss it, We'll take it at a pace which should be reasonable. Personally, I like to read and annotate the books ahead of time (Except in the "Great Books" folder) then I can rethink what I've read as the discussion progresses.

Bud Hughes, our official discussion leader has also been "Drawn in" from the religion section of the round tables.

Best

LJ

Jenny! Welcome, welcome! We are delighted to see you here and look forward to your opinions. This is shaping up to be a very nice discussion with a grand group. I look forward to watching it.

Ginny

Welcome, Jenny!!

Glad to see you in this Books and Literature folder. Yes, the Religion folder can become quite noisy sometimes!!

Pat

I think I'm already on the list for this, but if not I'd be glad to join. Not sure how all this works, since this is my first discussion group. I've ordered the book and will boost it to the top of the reading pile once it arrives.

Richard, You're IN, You're ON, and that's how it works.

I've still got to finish "The Symbolic Species", "Under the Tuscan Sun" and "The Other Side Of the River" as well as "How the Mind Works" and get a head start on this one before the discussion begins.

Best

LJ

Richard, how marvelous! Delighted to see you here and very much look forward to your opinions, was much moved by your post in the non fiction books.

This discussion ought to be one to remember, I'm glad we're archiving our discussions for ever!

Ginny

This is my first time trying this. I am in the tutorial stage.

Dennis!! Welcome, Welcome!~! We are so glad to see you here, and I think you'll enjoy this discussion. You seem to be doing fine!

Ginny

Dennis and Richard. You are both on the list of people interested in this discussion, which promises to be one of the most monumental in book club history.

Bud Hughes, has written that he will be unable to handle the "Discussion Leader" position. I realize that we could easily portion the book into workable segments and procede apace, but it would be nice to have an "Interloquitor" or something of the sort. Does anyone know a "Philosopher"?

Best

LJ

"Tempus Fidgits"

I'm certain I will not have read and digested this "Tomb" before we begin its discussion, but we can readily begin with chapter one on the first day. "The Rise of Greek Civilization" will make a good "Kick-off"

If there are no objections, I think we should proceed with deliberate lassitude in order to give all an opportunity to get on board.

For those involved in the other major works we're reading ("Man the Symbolic Species" and "How the Mind Works") be reassured that the pace will not be exhausting, even with the "New York Bash" and Christmas season thrown in.

Best

LJ

LJ: Thanks for the reassurance. I don't have the book yet, so will certainly be slow to start. (Payday is next week.)

This one is a bit "Slow" reading. I suspect we'll have to go almost at the "Great Books" pace.

Best

LJ

LJ:

I've been trying to understand philosophy ever since my belated college education. (I began college in my forties during the 1960's). I still find it difficult.

I have the Russell book and read some. Will reread and comment.

For a really fun book on the subject, there is SOPHIE' S WORLD by Jostein Garder. It's a novel about the history of philosphy and was a best seller in Scandinavia and other parts of the world.

The fun part is that it is also a mystery story which is intertwined with the history. A great book for grandparetns, as well as teen-aged grandschildren.

Charlotte

Please to not overlook the introductory discussion on pp. xiii-xxiii.

Russell states at the beginning his own presupposition that science is the only way we can achieve definite knowledge, dismissing the dogmas of theology. It seems to me that this claim, whether or not true, is one that needs to be supported by philosophical argument.

He does concede that "all of the questions of most interest to speculative minds, are such as science cannot answer..." He goes on to say that "the studying of these questions, if not the answering of them, is the business of philosophy."

This is the first hint of his own understanding of "philosophy." I believe that the question "What is philosophy?" is itself a philosophical question. The history of philosophy can help us understand what others have meant by philosophy. Perhaps we can say that philosophy is what philosophers do. That is circular but it may be the best we can say. We should know more about what philosophy is after studying this book.

Indeed Floyd, I found the introductory material very stimulating (Certainly moreso than Aristotelian logic). I won't repeat his rather scathing comment on theology but must add that although he separates Greek philosophy from theology in the introduction, he mentions "Soul" with literary aplomb in the Platonic/Socratic sections.

Its great to see you here.

Best

LJ

I will be looking for a discussion of why Russell devotes so much attention to religion in the ancient world (in Chapter I) Most histories of philosophy plunge more directly into the beginning of philosophy with Thales. This chapter probably gives us a clue to what is distinctive about this History of Western Philosophy.

SOME THOUGHTS CONCERNING PHILOSOPHY

To start the discussion on The History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell

Next to the supreme satisfaction of worship is the exhilaration of philosophy. Never do you climb so high or advance so far that there do not remain a thousand mysteries which demand the employment of philosophy in an attempted solution.

Unity is best found in human experience through philosophy. And while the body of philosophic thought must ever be founded on material facts, the soul and energy of true philosophic dynamics is mortal spiritual insight.

But not all the suppositions of natural philosophy are valid; for example, the hypothetical ether, which represents an ingenious attempt of man to unify his ignorance of space phenomena. The philosophy of the universe cannot be predicated on the observations of so-called science. If such a metamorphosis could not be seen, a scientist would be inclined to deny the possibility of developing a butterfly out of a caterpillar.

Bud

"Supreme Satisfaction"? "Exhileration"? "Worship"? "Philosophy"? Interesting.

Best

LJ

Floyd:

I've been confused about what Philosophy is ever since college. Now I decided to look it up in Webster.

The dictionary defines it as follows: It is "all learning exclusive of technical precepts and paractical arts."

The Columbia Encyclopedia says:

It comes between the dogmatic teachings of religion which tells you what to believe and the facts which are the teachings of science.

The trouble is that there are many aspects and manifestations according to the problems involved and the method and approach by the individual philosopher.

I have always found it difficult to remember who said and taught what.

Charlotte

I have been studying Russell's "Introductory."

On pag xviii he tells us about the Fransican friars who were at variance with the Pope, that Frederick II tried to found a new Anti-Papal culture, while Thomas Acquinas remains as the classic example of Papal philosophy to this day.

"DANTE some fifty years later achieved a synthesis and gave the only balanced exposition of the complete medieval world of ideas."

I see this as a great reason for our studying Pinsky's remarkable translation of Dante.

Charlotte

Russell locates philosophy in the "No Man's Land" between science and theology. In the history of western thought religion develops before science. I suppose that is why he devotes so much attention to the religions of the ancient western world. Perhaps he thinks this is a good way to prepare us to see the difference between religion and philosophy.

Some of the religious ideas he discusses, especially those of the Orphics, will enter into later philosophies. When he turns to the Milesian school, we will need to consider whether Thales et. al. were precursors of science or philosophy, or perhaps both.

The introductory material of only 23 pages quickly (perforce VERY quickly) summarize the outline of this 836 page booklet (Not counting the appendices)

There is some space given to the author's personal evaluations, but at least one point is worthy of not for our ongoing reference as we read. "To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps thwe chief thing that philosophy, in our age can still do for those who study it."

Definitions as noted by Charlotte "All Learning" or that which is between "Science and Religion" and the differences between these (three things) as suggested by Floyd will be things to keep in mind.

Unfortunately or perhaps fortuitously, throughout the text we will find that Russell himself becomes a bit "Muddy" in his perceived definitions.

Best

LJ

I am here , interested and reading the book and your posts. See you all tommorrow

Jenny

Well let me check in with this initial short post. I was late in getting the book but completed the Preface, Introduction and the first 4 chapters Sunday evening. I too found the book a bit difficult and perhaps a bit intimidating. As some of you know from previous discussions. I have read a lot of history, but I must admit I have not penetrated very deep into philosophy which is somewhat outside my usual range of interest. There was only one undergraduate sophomore elective survey course some 45 years ago. Perhaps not surprisingly, the organization of that course was quite parallel to the organization of this book. No doubt the Instructor who carried impresive academic credentials had read the book (which was first published in 1945). I see many of the indivual philosophers discussed in the book correspond to names I vaguely recognize from that course.

I may end up more of a lurker here than an active participant. I will, however, continue the reading of the book and from time to time I expect I will weigh in with comments.

No one need merely "Lurk". I strongly suspect that the least of us is as expert as all but one of us (And that ONE is NOT me)

In the first chapter the invention of Science, mathematics, history (AND ?) Philospophy (Is it separate?) is attributed to the ancient Greeks., but written communication is credited to the Egyptians. I suspect that there are some primitive scripts which in recent years have been questionably attributed to an earlier date and "Pictographs" as such were possibly an attribute of much more primitive cave painting.

The undeciphered Cretan script referred to, was a primitive Greek "Linear type B" script which was deciphered about 40 years ago.(only six or seven tears after the publication date of this book)

I, too had only one survey course in philosophy and a required course called "History of Civilization" (Dreadful experience) and as Harold says, the names are nearly all familiar.

I suspect that in my dotage I am now ready to learn and digest the material with greater ease and much more willingness than it came to me that half century ago.

Best

LJ

I have had difficulty identifying the location of the ancient Greek cities and have copied a map of Ancient Greece circa 450BC . This has helped me. The map came from a Grolier Encyclopedia that came with the computer when I bought it. If any one is interested, I have a scanner and would gladly share the map if you would instruct l me as to how to send pictures over the net.

There are two types of script found in ancient Crete. There is a "linear A" which I do not think has been deciphered and is older than the "linear B" Russell speaks about. What was interesting to me was the fact that before the Greeks, ancient scripts, like the Egyptian, Hebrew, Sumerian , consisted of only consonants and interpreters left to guess the meaning through association with other known words in the writing etc. The Greeks were first to insert vowels between the consonants and Russell attributes the rapid advance of Greek civilization to this faster and easier form of communication and expression --- more letters, but not that many more, = clearer meaning = clearer thinking? Perhaps. Could this also in some way contribute to a more rapid decline?

I found the expository on Science and Theology preceding Russell's idea on what philosophy can do for us, as mentioned by LJ (pg. xiv) also interesting.

Jenny

Being very interested in your subject, I will not be "paralized with hesitation" but will read all your posts fervently; perhaps even add a post of my own now and then (given LJ's permission, haha). I do believe we are all living without certainty - what is certain in this life, but death. Read something the other day - "What people usually ask for when they pray is that 2 and 2 do not make 4." Apt perhaps. Will be back to learn more from your discussion. Do not have time to read the book right now.

Wow, what a delightful group, and whether you read or not we're pleased to hear and benefit from your comments.

I thought the picture he painted of this time in history was clear and helpful. It seems that Zoroaster, Buddah (Some authorities date him a millenium earlier too), the text of Homer's epic, the cradle of civilized growth in the city-states where fertility cults were the status of theology is like the begining of a movie. I can just see the people whipping a statue of Pan because the harvest wasn't adequate.

Would anyone care to comment on a definition of "CIVILIZED"?

Best

LJ

I believe it was Karl Jaspers who referred to the period when several founders of world religions lives as "the axial age." Russell calls attention to developments in the Middle East and the Far East which shows how much creative intellectual and spiritual development was taking place at the same time in the world.





I was disappointed that he included no references (as far as I could see) to what was taking place in the prophetic movement in Israel during this same age.





In regard to Civilization it seems that the Ancient Greeks thought of themselves as civilized, in contrast to the barbarians, those whose speech was unintelligible to the Greeks. That is a useful reminder that "civilized" is a relative term.

I haven't read PART II yet, but there is a chapter on the development of Judaic Philosophy.

Since I first learned the word "Barbarian" I've visualized mentally a grunting savage in animal skins with an axe, wantonly killing all those "nice" people who lived in houses, and who worked for a living, slept on beds and cooked on a stove.

I suspect that most of us consider "Civilized" to mean modern. educated, cultured and constrained. The word itself implies "Law", but this alone is no more pertinant than primitive tribal law.

As you say Floyd it's a relative thing (Some of my "Relatives" have been a bit uncivilized)

Russell makes a pretty good attempt to include women in his analysis. Somehow, the image of the women celebrating a bacchanal on a hillside in the middle of the night, while tippling, amused me. And their husbands were miffed to boot, but did not want to anger the gods. I suspect, they probably did not dare to anger their wives. More seriously, these rituals of women often have more to it than may be the obvious, especially if the observer or reporter or historian is a man. The tension pointed out between the need to "throw caution to the wind" so to speak and the "civilized' conforming to the law citizen is interesting. So much conforming leads to stress leads to wildness and orgies?

Floyd, what was going on in Judah at this time that you think would have added to the development of Greek thought and philosphy? A time check as to what the rest of the world was doing seems a good idea, especially to me, a beginner.

I do not want to offend any, but I see a correlation between the rites of Dionysius and the communion rites of Christianity. I mean the eating of the flesh and blood. Does this get tied in anywhere by Russell? I am only reading the chapters we are talking about at the present ( Thanks for the schedule LJ)

I do not understand how and where Orpheus appeared to modify the bacchos to a gentler group believing in the transmigration of the soul. But not important maybe.

Good stuff from all

Jenny

Jenny, Good Points. As we read it looks like the Orphean concepts are a major thread. The cannabalism has other counterparts in primitive/tribal rites. Rites, in general would make an important discussion, but I doubt it will be followed in this book. (There is some discussion of the principles in "The Symbolic Species)

Best

LJ

I doubt if the prophets of Ancient Israel contributed directly to the development of Greek Civilization. My complaint about Russell failing to mention them is in reference to his statement at the bottom of page 12. "At the same time events of fundamental importance were happening in other parts of the world. Confucius, Buddha, and Zoroaster, if they existed, probably belonged to the same century." Why not include the fact that the Hebrew prophets also belonged to that century? They had no less to do with Greek civilization than Confucius, Buddha and Zoroaster.













This is not a very important point. I am just senstive to any indication of bias in the selection of material by Russell.

It seems to me too that some mention of Jewish philosophy development during the early period would be appropriate. It is certainly a part of the western mainstream. Of course there is a chapter later opening the discussion of catholic philosophies, albeit its purpose seems merely to set the starting point for Christian philosophy.

One of the things which impessed me with the achievments of these early Greeks is the continuing applicability of their work in todays world. We still more or less are attracted to the Bacchic. Who has not use the Pathagorian theorem and the mathematic system which he made possible. And Anaximander suggested evolution near 2 1/2 milleniums before Darwin.

Floyd/ Harold: I agree completely with both of you, but BR is trying to limit himself to so called Western Philosophy wehich is an artificial boundary, and it becomes obvious as the book progresses that the contributions of Eastern thought are almost studiously ignored. A real pity since the two are inseparable (Like mind and Body).

As we follow the thread, it seems to me that the important starting point for modern Christian thought is with Orphism and his historical thread begins in earnest with the heyday of Athens. I think tat we will also see a growing change in the definition of "Philosophy" as we progress

Best

LJ

I know little of the Eastern thought accompanying that time period, except for a smattering of history in the Levant. I have noticed , previous to Thales, the pre-occupation with water as a spiritual symbol --- the well-springs leading to the nether worlds --- I hope BR doesn't indulge in too much more algebra and theorems --- totally lost there, having had little exposure to and experience with geometry and algebra.

I will be gone for about a week, but will keep reading

Jenny

It would appear that the Milesian school was rather primitive but carried forward from babylonian thought to concepts in science and astronomy. At this point we must consider "Philosophy" as inclusive of ALL knowledge (And in some sense it remains so. I recently found a dictionary definition of the word "Semiotic" as being the "Philosophical theory of signs and symbols)

I noted here a reference to "Soul" as something a magnet has because it can move metal, but I saw no discussion of a definition. Indeed by the end of Part I, I doubt we'll have a "Real" definition of this word.

Best

LJ

Thales may appear rather ignorant and naive to a modern reader, but we should not overlook the significance of his contribution. He was one of the first in Western civilization to use his senses and his intellect to discover what the original stuff was from which all things comes. Others had sought the ultimate through religion, but Thales is more scientific in his approach.





One characteristic of Western philosophers is the way they deal with the problem of the One and the Many. The Milesians assume there is one reality from which come the many things that we observe.





Thales says the one thing is water. In evaporation, water becomes air; in rain, air becomes water; in the formation of a delta, water becomes earth; in spring, eath becomes water. The earth is a flat disc floating upong water.





Thales says that "all things are made of gods." Some interpreters think this means that the ultimte stuff is active--water has the principle of motion in itself.





The real significance of Thales is not his answers to the questions about the origns of things, but the fact that he asked the questions at all. He set up the problem--his successors will attempt to solve it.

Yes, it is hard to look back to the Pre-Socratic philosophers with their crude attempts to understand the world, and to realize just how important these attempts were. I read somewhere that these men were the first ones who exchanged mythology for reason. Prior to them, myths were created to explain things. They tried to look at the world and discover what it was actually made of and how it worked. When I think of it that way, I am really impressed by what they did.

Anaximander, a younger contemporary of Thales, agreed that that there is some one things from which everything has come. But he differs with Thales about what this one stuff is, concluding that it is a "boundless something" (apeiron). I think we see in Axaximander a movement towards more abstract thought.





Anaximander also says the world as we know it is made up of opposites--hot and cold, wet and dry, etc. (Sounds a little like yin/yang in Eastern thought. He offers an explanation of how the many comes out of the one. Particular elements are "separated out" by a kind of circular motion like an eddy. (Perhaps he had seen some whirlpools in the sea.) He is one of the first to present a theory of evolution. Life emerged in the sea and humans evolved from a fish!

A warm welcome to you SHASTA SILLS. Please contribute frequently and extensively to this discussion. We are delighted to have you here.

Floyd, Your clarifying commentary helps in picking out the important points in the text. I think it especially helpful for us to note instances where so-called Eastern and Western thought come together.

Best

LJ

Perhaps one lesson we learn from the Milesians is that philosophy does not necessarily move forward in a straight line. For example. in some ways its seems that Anaximenes represents a step backwards. Anaximander engaged in abstract thought, refusing to identify the original stuff as some definite element, such as water. But Anaximenes feels a need to once again identify a concrete element as the basic stuff, so he says it is air.





The idea that air is the basic stuff may have been suggested by breathing. We live as long as we breathe; air seems to be the principle of life. (Compare the Hebrew notion of Ruach, which can be translated as wind, breath, or spirit.) Anaximenes says our soul is air.





In order to explain how concrete objects develop from air, he introduces the notion of condensation and rarefaction: condensed air becomes water; in rarefaction air becomes fire.





























Whereas Thales thought the earth floats on water, Anaximenes thinks it is like a leaf floating on air.





























It is hard to think of Anaximenes as improving on the view of Anaximander, though he may be easier to understand because his thinking is more concrete (less abstract.) Once again, we can thank the three Milesians for at least raising the important questions and seeking answers based on reason rather than a special revelation. Thales deserves to be called "the Father of Western Philosophy."

Once this "Thinking" got started it was probably inevitable that "Religion" be developed. Pythagoras, whose fame in mathematics is unrivaled, seems to have been an early religious leader as well. Interesting that his theo-philosophy interdicted eating beans rather than sex.

Best

LJ

I thought that was funny about the beans too. Why on earth would anybody object to beans?

Russell said of Pythagorus: "I do not know of any other man who has been as influential as he was in the sphere of thought." He also said: "Mathematics is, I believe, the CHIEF SOURCE OF THE BELIEF IN ETERNAL AND EXACT TRUTH." I'm sorry now that I didn't pay more attention in my algebra and geometry classes; I didn't realize math was so important. But then Russell was a mathematician himself. Wasn't he the co-author of that 3-volume "Principia Mathematica."?

In message #55 L.J. wrote

Once this "Thinking" got started it was probably inevitable that "Religion" be developed. Pythagoras, whose fame in mathematics is unrivaled, seems to have been an early religious leader as well. Interesting that his theo-philosophy interdicted eating beans rather than sex

But the religion thing was with the human race long before the time of the Greeks. The general motavating force was the need of the early primitives to appease nature and the forces that effected their every day lifes. The Greeks were never very deep into deep theological thought. Their gods as BR pointed out were nothing more than super humans endowed with immortality. Their concept of the after life in hades made it not a particularly happy place; certainly it was no Christian heaven.

Was it not the early Jews that developed the complicated moral theology that is the basis not only of Judaism, but also Christianity and Islam? The early Jews who developed Judaism were much earlier than the Greeks. Though "thinking" certainly was involved in the development of Judaism, I don't think it was influenced by Greek thinking. Perhaps we have here another reason to critizing BR for not saying more about the early Jews.

There is some dispute about whether Pythagoras prohibited eating of beans; but assuming he did, this probably illustrates the ascetic and religious characteristics of the Pythagorian Society.





Yes, Russell was a mathematician and he does emphasize the important contribution mathematics makes towards the development of philosophy, though he thinks Pythagoras was mistaken in his views about the nature of mathematics. Pythagoras said "all things are made out of numbers."





Later we will see how this view of mathematics and the Pythagorean belief in the transmigration of souls influenced Plato's thought.

Isn't it interesting that Heraclitus spoke of God rather than the gods. Does that mean he was monotheist among all those polytheists? Xenophanes also believed in one God. I wonder if this wasn't pretty unusual among the Greeks.

Heraclitus' assertion that all things are in a state of flux seems to be a very early assertion of the principle that "Everything changes always". It would seem (paraphrasing) that the search for "God" and "Immortality" are ongoing philosophical efforts to find permanance outside of "Reality" (i.e. Time). I guess this is where Parminides starts.

Best

LJ

Heracleitus is skeptical about the popular religion of his day. He does speak of God but that seems to be a word he uses for the totality of things.He said, "God is day and night, summer and winter, war and peace, satiety and hunger.

He rejects the teachings of Parmenides and the Eleatics that everything is permanent and unchanging.Heracleitus says Being is identical wih Nonbeing.Every existing thing is the harmony of opposite tensions. "Strife is the father of all things."

Although everything is in flux, there is an orderly principle, the logos (Reason) God as Reason is present in all things. (But God is material in nature, not a spiritual reality.

It will be interesting to observe the development of the concepts of "Soul" as well as "God" and where possible to compare them with "Eastern" thought which at this stage may have some related concepts but as far as I've been able to ascertain no "Word" for "Soul"

I gather that Empedocles' "Philosophy" was a mixture of Science and Superstition" with a bit of "Megallomania" thrown in.

Best

LJ

The philosophy of Parmenides shows how rationalism can lead to views which appear contrary to our sense experience. He says that contrary to Heracleitus there is no change of any kind. Nothing comes into being or passes out of existence.Whatever is simply is.

That means there is no motion. How, then, do we explain the fact that we can move from one location to another? Parmenides says there really is no motion, and Zeno presents logical arguments to show that movement is impossible.His examples of the racecourse, Achilles and he tortoise, and the arrow are worth considering. On a strictly logical level, Zeno's Paradoxes ared hard to refute.

This may be a sober reminder of the limitations of logic and reason. We simply cannot ignore the testimony of our senses. This sets up a battle between Rationalism and Empiricism. We will see that this continues to be a dispute throughout the history of philosophy.

Of course the "Half the Distance" stories with which most school children wrestle ignore more than just the reality of our senses, but the reality of time and the physics of motion as well. Its usually a matter of arguing from incomplete data or consideration of variables. (the stuff up against which "Pure theory" must come before further progress can be made)

Best

LJ

Parmenides sounds like pure nonsense to me. I try to follow a philosopher's thinking as long as it makes any sense at all. But what is the point in trying to prove that motion doesn't exist when we know very well that it does? And why try to prove that nothing changes when we know things change all the time?

Even when philosophers defend what seems to be nonsensical conclusions we can learn something from them. Heracleitus thinks nothing is permanent; Parmenides thinks nothing changes. They leave us with a problem. If there is an unchanging reality, how then does change take place.If there is change, what is it that is changing? This is the problem of permanence and change.

This is expressed in the words of the hymn "Abide with Me." "Change and decay all about I see; O Thou who changest not abide with me." Plato's philosophy,which we will soon consider, tries to explain both permanence and change.

Floyd, that does simplify things and make the debate more comprehensable. As is noted in the short chapter on Athens and Greek Culture, apparantly Plato and Socrates are essentially the realy pertinant figures in Ancient (Western) Philosophy.

Best

LJ

Okay, maybe you're right about Parmenides. I like Empedocles better though. He had quite a theory of evolution, didn't he? But when you consider the bizarre array of life forms that evolution really did produce, he wasn't so far from the truth.

His idea that there are two underlying principles (Love and Strife) that govern existence seems more logical than Heraclitus' theory of one (War). He was describing the creative and destructive cycles that repeat themselves throughout history. You can't just keep tearing things down if you don't create something to tear down.

But alas, Empedocles had a problem with beans! Why were beans so irresistable to the Greeks? To us they are just boring veggies that are supposed to be good for you. Could it be that they weren't eating the same beans we eat? Could it be that they ate pods from a plant that had some kind of psychedelic properties?

When Empedocles was raving about being a god, he sure sounded like he was on some kind of "trip." Did the beans deprive him of his reason? Is that why he jumped into Etna and roasted himself whole? I can't help wondering what kind of beans those Greeks were eating.

The brief summary of Greek history (Mostly repeated later, near the end of the section on Ancient Philosophy) is interesting and succinct. It is followed by Anaxagoras (Presageing the Atomists) and his (to me) most interesting thoughts on the idea of "Soul" (?) i.e. He stated that "Mind, is the source of all motion" Whereas, previously the thought was that "Soul" was the thing in a magnet that caused motion in iron filings.

Best

LJ

Some Remarks about Pluralism and Atomism

We learned from the Milesians that one of the fundamental philosophical problems concerns the relationship of the One to the Many. If we start with one basic stuff, how do we account for the many objects of experience? If we start with the many, how do we account for the fundamental unity of all things?

Empedocles, Anaxagoras and the Atomists refuse to reduce reality on one basic stuff. Empedocles reduces everything to four basic elements: earth, air, fire, and water. One kind of matter cannot become another kind of matter. Objects come into being through a mingling of those elements. There are two kinds of motion--Love and Strife.

Anaxagoras, the first philosopher to settle in Athens, thinks there is a plurality of independent elements, which he calls "seeds." One of his most interesting ideas is that "in everything there is a portion of everything." If grass becomes flesh, there must have been particles of flesh in the grass!

Probably the most important contribution of Anaxagoras was the introduction of the principle of Nous or Mind. Did he think of mind as a physical or as a spiritual principle? Interpreters disagree; Anaxagoras probably was not aware of this kind of distinction. Aristotle criticizes Anaxagoras for introducing Mind but then not making more use of it in his philosophy.

It is clear that Russell is very impressed with the work of the Atomists, because they reached conclusions similar to some of those reached in modern science. Yet they did this largely by reasoning not through scientific observations.

The Atomists believed there are two kinds of being: atoms (physically indivisible particles) and empty space. Atoms are neither created nor destroyed. They move in empty space (some thought they fall) and become entangled with one another forming objects.

This is a materialistic, deterministic, and mechanistic understanding of the world. There is no room for purpose or final causation (such as we find in Aristotle.)

The bias of Russell in favor of Atomism and in opposition to later idealistic theories comes out plainly on page 73. He thinks later philosophers placed too much emphasis on man, not enough on nature. That is an issue for us to consider.

I'm always interested in how people know the things they know--how they arrive at their conclusions. For instance, how did the ancient Greeks know that moonlight was reflected light? How did Anaxagoras discover that? I look at the moon and I ask myself: "If I didn't know its light is reflected, would I be able to figure that out?"

How did they arrive at the theory of atoms? Russell says Democritus observed the motes in a sunbeam. Well, that makes sense; we've all seen those motes. But for the most part, the Greeks seemed to rely on speculation more than observation. Their theory of atoms seems to have been mostly just a lucky guess.

Shasta, you have asked a very important question. Modern thinkers generally tend to be empiricists, i.e. they believe that sense experience is the only basis for knowledge of facts. We learn from history that there is no consensus about this among philosophers. Rationalists of different sorts have claimed that we can gain knowledge of the world through pure reasoning.

We have seem some instances where the Pre-Socrates did start with some basic observations about the world, but their theories are developed much more on the basis of rational thought. If one assumes that the world itself has a rational structure, that might explain how reasoning can lead to knowledge of the way things are. Unfortunately, I doubt if there is any direct proof that the world has a rational structure or, to put it another way, it is possible that the rational structure we think we discover in the world was put there by our own mind. When we get to modern philosophy, we will note with interest what Kant had to say on that point.

"If one assumes that the world itself has a rational structure, that might explain how reasoning can lead to knowledge of the way things are." Oh, I do hope the world has a rational structure! I can't bear to believe that it doesn't.

In reviewing some of the Pre-Socratic philosophers and their efforts to understand the world, it seems that they tried almost everything:

Thales -- water, Anaximenes -- air, Heraclytus -- fire, Xenophanes -- earth and water, Empedocles -- all four

So who is right? All of them. They all had a piece of the truth. Earth is our Mother and certainly the source of all life on our planet. But where did Earth come from? From Water. The continents emerged from a flooded earth. But where did the Water come from? From the Air. It condensed and poured all that water on the earth. But where did the air come from? From the burning stars. And where did the stars come from? From God. He said snapped his fingers and said: "Let there be life!" And when God snaps his fingers, it causes a Big Bang!!

I insist on a structure that makes sense to me.

My thought about Democratus, whose name stands outas the inventor of the "Atomic theory" is: If everything happens according to natural laws and nothing is left to chance, how does this "Square" with events on an atomic (These days, subatomic) level where interactions are dependant on other interactions over a time line?

Did anyone care to comment on the equation of "Sophists" with "Corporation Lawyers"?

Best

LJ

I think Russell's discussion of the Sophists is very clear and accurate.The questions raised by Shasta were precisely the ones which troubled the Sophists. The failure of the philosophers to reach agreement on the nature of reality led the Sophists to become skeptics and to turn their attention to human and social concerns.

Unfortunately, our perceptions of the Sophists have been distorted by the way they are decribed by Socrates and Plato.They are accused of "making the weaker argument appear the stronger." It is said that they were more interested in winning arguments than discovering the truth. (L.J. perhaps that is the comparison with corporation lawyers!)

One of the most unfair accusations is that the Sophists took money for their teaching Perhaps aristocrats did not need money for their work, but why was it wrong for teachers to take money for their services?

The Athenian democracy needed leaders trained in logic and rhetoric. The Sophists met that need.

Protagoras says, "Man is the measure of all things." That might be understood in two different ways. It could mean that each individual man is the judge of what is true or false, right or wrong. That is an extreme form of relativism. But perhaps mean that humanity collectively must be the judge of what is true or false, right or wrong. That seems to be a fairly reasonable position.

FLOYD,

I'd wonder if either position, taken to the extreme, would be acceptable.

Best

LJ

There is certainly some basis for criticizing the Sophists and there arereasons why "sophistry" has become a term of reproach.I should also point out that the Sophists do not meet the critera of good philosophers in Russell's opinion. I think he would agree that the Atomists should receive far more praise. He thinks the shift from a concern about a knowledge of the world to a preoccupation with humans and ethics represents a decline in philosophy.

When we examine the Socratic method we need to consider to what extent his own approach may be a form of sophistry. It would be helpful to read one of Plato's Dialogues as evidence for the Socratic method.

I've been pushing for the Platonic Dialogues in the "Great Books" folder for nearly two years, but so far not much luck.

Best

LJ

I have caught up in the reading and am grateful to read everyone's astute comments about the previous chapters.

Plato's Socrates seems a very strange fellow. If BR did not mention the fact that he rarely drank wine, I would have suspected him of imbibing some sort of drug. Perhaps I am not fully aware of just how strange others behaved in that particular period of time.

I gather his philosophy one of "thinking" or musing in a way as to produce clear thought and using the dialectic as a means of achieving the same. It is interesting that BR attributes his arrest to the fact that he traveled in aristocratic circles. sort of a trouble maker there. I would like very much to read Plato's Apology because it seems Socrates somewhat of a trickster by what information BR provides. The apparent disdain or lack of concern for the body comforts and ability to apparently transcend physical discomfort is so weird, as is his cataleptic trances --- if that is what they were. Socrates wanted to die and I cannot figure out the reason except that he perceived total bliss as the next step, but why bother waiting for the trial then.. Socrates' references to God seem eerily modern. He insisted yet that he was not a very wise man. Was this suicide another lesson --- the ultimate lesson or trick? If you want to find out about death, you cannot ask a dead man. And it is an intriguing question as to why he did not write anything. Or did Plato really make it all up? another trick?

The reference to virtue and knowledge as being a Greek concept not embraced by christian thought, where virtue is perceived as arising in the heart is new

Here again Russell uses science as a model to point out the shortcomings of the Socratic method of inquiry. One thing for sure --- from what he says about prefering a philosophers criticism over the comments of one, even though they be complimentary, who knows zip about philosophy tells me he would turn over in his grave should he be able in some way to read my post! Sorry Bert

Jenny

Thank you Jenny for highlighting some important points about Socrates.

There are problems in getting an accurate historical picture of him. Most of our opinions are based on the picture presented by Plato, his beloved disciple. Xenophon wrote memoirs which portray Socrates as an ordinary man who lived a virtuous life, but he is so noncontroversial one can't understand why Athenians wanted to put him to death.

Aristophanes, the playwright, presents a caricature of Socrates, as a man who ran "a thought factory" and floated around in a basket so he could commune with the clouds. In order for a caricture to work there must be at least an element of truth in it.

I am inclined to accept the description of Socrates in the Platonic Dialogues. The Apology is especially important.

Socrates said that his critics mistakenly identified him with the Sophists or with the earlier nature philosophers.He said he had no interest in speculating about nature and that he was not a paid teacher of virtue. He uses irony to profess his own ignorance, saying he had nothing to teach to others.

Socrates began his mission after a friend went to the oracle at Delphi to ask if there were any man wiser than Socrates. The oracle said there was not. This puzzled Socrates for he did not think he was wise. So he began questioning the politicians, thinking some of them were surely wiser. But he could not find any wisdom among them. He had the same results when he questioned the poets. He did find that the artisans knew how to make certain products, but their mistake was that they thought they knew other things which thy did not know.

Socrates concludes that what the oracle meant is that the only wise person is one who knows that human wisdom is worth nothing, and that Socrates was an example of such a wise man.

Socrates decides that his mission is to question others, thus exposing their ignorance. This resulted in him making many enemies.

The two charges brought against Socrates--atheism and corrupting the youth--may have been partially the result of the caricature of him as a nature philosopher and sophist, but it was the direct result of anger at his way of questioning others.

Socrates was a strange looking dude, with protruding eyes and a strange gait which resembled the strut of a waterfowl. He was also known to fall into a trance and remain in one position for hours. He claims to have been guided by "a voice."

I do not believe it is accurate to say that Socrates abstained from wine, at least if we can believe Plato. In The Symposium he describes a banquet where Socrates literally drank his companions under the table. In that same dialogue there is discussion of his love for young men, the highest form of love in ancient Greece. Plato assures us that i was their minds not their bodies that he love. Perhaps!

T

S

I think the most important contribution of Socrates was his courage in facing death. When one reads The Apology it appears that Socrates had many opportunities to escape death. He could have presented a defense that created less outrage among the jury. He could have proposed a more reasonable fine. Or he could have chosen to go into exile.

He gives several reasons why he did not try to avoid death. It all rests upon his basic assumption that "the unexamined life is not worth living." He could not give up his philosophic mission.

Furthermore, his "voice" did not tell him to avoid death. He was an old man and he thought it would undermine his message and mission if he tried to cling to life by making compromises.

In keeping with his usual professions of ignorance he claimed that he did not know what would happen after deatH: (1) Either it would be like a deep and lasting sleep or (2) it would be like a journey into a foreign country. Either alternative was acceptable to Socrates.

Russell thinks Socrates was really convinced that his soul was immortal. He thought death could touch his body but not his soul.

It is interesting to contrast the way Socrates faced death with what we know about the death of Jesus. Whereas Socrates was very calm in the face of death, Jesus diligently prays that his Heavenly Father would remove the cup of suffering and death; and on the cross he cries out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Does this mean Socrates had more courage than Jesus. Not necessarily, I think their different attitudes had more to do with the contrast between Greek and Hebrew views of death and the significance death had for each man. Socrates was old; Jesus was young. Socrates thought his death was something he had to accept to be true to his mission; Jesus thought his death involved the taking of the guilt of the world upon himself, i.e. that somehow or other his death had a redemptive purpose.

Ginny, I don't think Socrates actually wanted to die, but he was brought to trial, and was too lofty-minded to resort to avoiding this challenge. He lived his whole life at the level of thought, and when he had explained to the Athenians why he was not guilty, he refused to stoop to pleading for his life or trying to escape. This is all a little too lofty for me, but then I don't walk on ice in my barefeet either.

His crime was that he was teaching the youth of the city to think for themselves and question authority. Socrates is not the only person who was executed for this unwise activity. Athens was a democracy, but not that democratic.

Note also Russell's comparison between the Greek equation with Virtue and Knowledge as opposed to Christianity.

I have some doubts about Russell's opinion that the Socratic method of teaching, i.e. his insistance that he (Socrates) is only eliciting knowledge already posessed by the man, is unsuitable to the empiric sciences. Russell goes on to mathematics, i.e. Geometrical problems, in which to ask leading questions would be disallowed by any "Judge".

Russell may be right about Judges and Sophists, but the fundimental underpining of the Socratic method is NOT dialectic alone. The Idea is to ask questions, the answers to which a student does not know, but which he can fathom on the basis of the knowledge which he posesses. Often this is a multistep progression in teaching and learning.

Russell seems to suggerst that the method should ignore use of the process of teaching as a means of imparting knowledge along the way. (This, indeed may be "Modern Platonism") He would limit the method to teaching only what is logical rather than factual. Personally, I fail to appreciate that dichotomy as valid.

Two other gravid points are made here: First, that, "The habit of unfettered discussion tends to promote logical consistancy" and Second, that Philosophy, "Might be defined as the sum-total of those inquiries that can be pursued by Plato's methodology"

Best

LJ

I see LJ's point. Inquiry in dialectic should be just as valid a learning process whether it be about the soul or about scientific fact. But if clear thinking or logic be the ultimate goal, the initial premise, if a fact, must be correct in order for the rest to make sense. And correctness in fact depends not upon that which one may already know somewhere in the mind or experience.

In view of his ability to completely disregard his body it is easy to see why Socrates did not fear death. To him, his body could be made "dead" at will, and what remained was the mind(soul?) in which he bathed gloriously. He certainly did choose to die rather than live, but is it because he thought he could no longer pursue his mission (an unexamined life is not worth living) or because of his natural inclination toward curiosity --- to "find out" and being an old man facing the sooner or later, he choose the sooner . I am not sure I would call him a martyr or a man who died for a cause, or because of a principal. Anyhow, he had it relatively easier than Jesus, by drinking the hemlock.

I also found the idea that the more knowledge one has, the more virtuous one becomes perplexing. What exactly did the Greeks consider "virtue"? Any ideas?

Now the chapter on Sparta is somewhat fun to me. I do wish at times that historians consider when they write history that half the history includes not just a man's viewpoints, but a woman's contribution to the way things were. it would be enlightening to know, for example, how the women of Sparta felt about training their bodies, or dancing naked to entice a husband. Oh well --- to get on --- Russell gives us several conflicting impressions of Sparta, depending upon who was doing the reporting. Sparta was the ultimate military machine.( why were women disdained for being in control at the end?) The reality and the myth, BR separates --- but what the point was is fuzzy. I think he says it in the next chapter. Isn't it strange that the Spartans were admired by others because of their stability? No one apparently ever questioned or revolted --- or did those who did get killed off immediately and was fear a way of keeping everyone in line, or was it desensitization or mind control that kept the Spartans stable.

Thanks

Jenny

Happily, I have found a web site that includes all of Plato's works, plus Aristotle , Conrad and Dostievsky

PLATO

Jenny

Socrates thought virtue resulted from knowledge, because he thought people only behaved badly out of ignorance. It would be nice if that were true, but I don't have that high an opinion of human nature. I wonder why Socrates himself admired Sparta. The self-discipline, of course, appealed to him; but there was certainly no emphasis on knowledge in Sparta. Sparta lived for war. I agree with Russell that this sounds a lot like Nazi Germany. The reason why nobody revolted is that they were brainwashed from the time they were born. Boys were taken from their families and drilled for war. It sounds like an utterly hideous life to me.

The identification of knowledge and virtue is problematic. Much depends on how each of those words is defined.

For Socrates/Plato knowledge is something more than a grasp of facts. It involves insight into the good. Perhaps this is something like the insight which comes from psychotherapy. Now if a person has that kind of insight, it is at least possible that they would then live virtuous lives.

Sophists thought of virtue as the ability to get along in society. Socrates/Plato think of it as the qualities of a healthy soul, when all parts are functioning well. (We will see this developed in the Republic.)

I think this optimism about knowledge and virtue overlooks what Christians call "original sin," and what Kant called "radical evil." As the old southern evangelist, Sam Jones said, "A bad man without knowledge may steal a spike out of the railroad. If that bad man is educated, he will likely steal the whole railroad."

Floyd:

Thanks for your wonderful posts. You make a subject which has always been murky for me so clear. I never did like the Socratic method of teaching. I think it's purpose is primarily to embarass as you point out, though Socrates may have been only trying to obtain knowledge by asking questions. Also enjoyed your description of him. Now I see him as a real person rather t han in David's portrait of him drinking the hemlock.

Charlotte

Thank you Charlotte for your kind remarks. I have mixed feelings about the Socratic method. I do think we can make some advance towards grasping the truth through dialogue among friends. At its best that is what happens in our Seniornet discussions.

On the other hand, when I read the Platonic Dialogues I find Socrates playing word games with people, ridiculing their definitions of terms, and virtually laughing at their ignorance. Those criticisms were made by those who fell victim to his dialectic method. They criticized him for asking questions but never giving answers.

This has to be seen in the context of Socratic irony. He insists that he possesses no wisdom of his own, and therefore he cannot give answers to questions. His criticism of other Athenians is that even though they were also ignorant they pretended to know what they did not know. He took delight in exposing their ignorance.

Some of the young people were happy to see their elders ridiculed and exposed in public forums. That, in turn. led to the suspicion that Socrates was corrupting the youth.

There is also a hint that his accusers thought he was guilty of treason. They were barred from prosecuting him on that ground because of a general amnesty. Socrates tried to demonstrate his loyalty to the state by telling how he had served in the army with courage.

One interesting charge is that Plato's presentation of the story of Socrates lays a trap for unsuspecting students, who admire him for permitting the state to put him to death. Some critics think that gives the state power it should not have. They think it would have been more noble for Socrates to resist the decrees of the state.

Floyd:

You are right about what happens in Seniornet discussions when they are at their best. And I am pleased that we are posting together so it really seems continuous.

I was in college in the sixties, an observer rather than a participant, since I was twice the age of my fellow students and had attendant family responsibilities. I also was friendly with supervisory personnel in the public school system and saw the terrible rift between the generations. Perhaps this was a reenactment of what was happening in Athens.

But to get back to the present day, I think Clinton's behavior in insisting on continuing to do the job for which he was elected by the people is a noble and right thing.

Charlotte

Your discussions are so interesting to me. I would like to say that this book can be overwhelming and confusing to one who is a novice (me) because the references have not meaning. So now I have had to first of all find at least a minimum amount of a bio on Lord Russell (never knew anything about him) and have had to read Plato. This is not bad - nor a chore. I began reading the Republic after reading the Apology. I am so thankful for some informed input as it is difficult to proceed along those lines by oneself. But I will say this:

I am happy to see my impressions of Plato's Socrates not off in left field. I have felt that he deliberately commited suicide, and if indeed he did have a mission, it would not have been hard to pursue that mission to its end. Would he not have been better off continuing on the mission as his legacy, rather than the choice of death he made? Suicide here seems quite selfish. If knowledge and wisdom and the pusuit of truth precious, why cop out? Would he not have accomplished more by continuing to bring the message in whatever way he could to his pupils. And I thought him a trickster also. But then, this is Plato, the pupil and the writer philosopher speaking, and not actually Socrates. Considering the time ( had to read history too) and the rivalry between Sparta and Athens, it was thought that a true democracy the destroyer of truth and wisdom also. How much of that is included within Plato's description, hidden or otherwise, of Socrates' trial?

The next thing is , though, that Socrates is included as one of the three "greats" of Greek philosophy. Russell takes issue with this and says he will treat them as modern day philosphers, thus he brings down the awe felt by many toward these Greek thinkers. I am not sure if this is quite fair --- Our world and theirs are separated by two thousand years. It seems to me that there is more to analysing this early philosophy than just reading the words --- other considerations, economic, social should be brought into the equation. Was the philosphy a result of the conditions of the times or was it vice versa? I am really getting mixed up reading the dialectic Book one of the Republic, but sticking with it in the hopes some intuitional enlightenment will suddenly appear in my mind. As long as Russell doesn't start analysing with mathematical concepts and formulas that are beyond my understanding, I may just be able to follow.:>)

What of this republic as described by Russell? Pretty weird to this modern day woman.

Merry,Merry, holidays to all

Jenny

LJ: I get your point about asking questions to which the student does not know the answers, but which he can fathom on the basis of the knowledge he possesses. Certainly that takes much time and could provoke embarrasment. When I was student teaching in the 70's, there was much concern about kids lack of interest in education. Student teachers were taught to say "Yes" rather than "No," (which was the approach of my Participating Teacher.) We student teachers were encouraged to get off the pedestal of authority by accepting whatever the kids said and encourage them to participate.

Floyd: I think I am enjoying this discussion, more than I would in general conversation, because of the opportunity to scroll back and see what had been previously said. You said something previously about the need for the study of philosphy is to ascertain the facts. Did I get it wrong? Isn't the reason for the study to reflect on ethics and human behavior?

Charlotte

Charlotte/Floyd:

I do understand your natural antipathy to a round table "Socratic" situation, and have indeed seen many bright students who were unaccostomed to the method seriously frustrated by it, but in an academic setting it is dramatically exciting and stimulating to students who are receptive and who's ego is not threatened by being required to "Think" rather than "Know". My experience with the method has all been at the post-graduate level. The intellectual sophomores, easily bruised egos, and the "Fuzzy" thinkers drop out promptly. The realy adept students thrive and usually end up as intellectual giants. Its a question less of teaching a subject than teaching students "How" to think.

Admittedly, in its modern form, the method does insert "Factual knowledge" at appropriate points, but its beauty is in challenging the frontal lobes to use all of the levels of reference available to them.. Additionally, it takes advantage of the "Recently discovered" principles of "Group learning"

As a student, I became enthralled by the method upon my first exposure, and I doubt that I will ever be as good at useing as a method of teaching as I am at useing it as a means of learning.

Best

LJ

I do not think the primary goal of the study of the history of western philosophy is to gain knowledge of facts, though it is necessary to have some facts about the philosophers and their teaching. I believe a more important goal is to learn how to "do philosophy" by entering into dialogue with the philosophers and those those who interpret them today.

I agree with L.J. that the dialectical method is exceiting when it stimulates thought among mature students. The immature take offense too easily. By the way, maturity is not just a matter of how long we have lived.

So then, my dear Floyd, would you agree, maturity can be obtained at any age?

Jenny

Yes, Jenny, I still am trying to decide what to do when I grow up.Perhaps there is yet time for me to reach maturity.

Plato seems to assume that one will not gain a vision of the good until relatively late in life. A timetable for the education of a philosopher is found in the Republic. It requires years of physical training, a thorough grounding in mathematics, and a study of dialectics. As I understand Plato, the vision of the good finally comes as a sudden insight, though it does not come without the prior preparataion.

I believe Russell is correct in saying there is a religious element in Plato's thought.At least there is a mystical element. The search for the good is a rational process, but there is not a straight logical pogression that reaches the good. One must "see" the light.

Charlotte, it would never have occurred to me to use to use the word "noble" to describe Bill Clinton. But he certainly does have the ability to go on functioning in the face of disaster. I think he could face down the Devil himself without batting an eye. You have to admire that kind of stamina.

Jenny, the Republic is just one of 35 dialogues that Plato wrote. The Crito is the one that explains why Socrates was willing to die. If we would read that, we could add Plato's theory to our own. I don't think I'll attempt it, but if you decide to read it, let us know what he said.

The Republic is supposed to be a demonstration of justice in the ideal state. I've puzzled over Plato's definition of justice. How did the Greek concept of justice ever evolve into our concept of justice? It seems almost to mean something opposite to what we mean by justice. To us it is means equality for all; to them it seemed to mean inequality for all. Their idea seemed to be that we are not born equal and the sooner we accept that, the happier we will be. I have to admit there's a certain truth in that; but being an American, I can't help preferring a flexible society where one's status can change.

I am striving diligently to follow the biblical injunction, "Whoso keepeth his mouth and his tongue keepeth his soul from trouble" Hence, I've commented on the political and theological aspects of Socrates and Plato as little as possible. (For me, this is an unaccostomed stance)

I was interested in the discussion in which Thrasymachus says that Justice is nothing more than the interest of the stronger. This is apparantly not adequately refuted by Plato and the point is ultimately raised whether, if God is good, does that imply that there a goodness standard independant of God's will? and, will this discussion devolve always into the conclusion that objective truth is that (and only that) with which essentially everybody agrees.

There is a further development of the concept of "Soul" (That which gives "Power" and can be identified as present if "Power" is observed in action). Useing dialectic and blandly determining that life and death are opposites, one proves that souls of the dead exist and return to earth (Sometime) because opposites beget each other and since life begets death, then death must beget life. Of course, this presumes the existance of "Soul" in the first place. There is more discussion of the indivisable and eternal nature of "Soul"

This seems as reasonable as the conclusion that only true philosophers who are entirely pure at the time of their demise will go to heaven.

Best

LJ

Floyd I was spoofing a bit and hoped you would connect your idea that we should "do philosophy" to my question. :Your lighthearted answer tells me you did not, to my relief, take me too seriously. I did have a next question in mind but too trivial to post.

I must say I agree somewhat with Russell's comments at the end of chapter 16. Keep in mind, all, my very limited exposure ( as I am doing myself.) Feel free to disagree with me and say it. My feelings will not be hurt.

On the subject of opposites. I think our language holds us back somewhat. Is there absolute black and absolute white? As forms or ideals yes, but in practice --- humans communicate with words and the use of opposite, or the concept of opposites may screw up one's clear thinking. Is the opposite of life, death? First, one has to define life. We are prisoners of our language sometimes.

The reading of this book offers little insight unless one reads or has read and remembers, the dialogues of Plato, Russell refers to. One simply must trust Russell otherwise. Is this wise?

I am perceiving a lack of compassion in Socrates (Plato) although in Phaedo his friends weep for his death to come. Is this the way to "do philosophy"?

Separation of the body and the soul . Interesting --- debateable

Jenny

Jenny, you are right; we are always prisoners of language. There is no way to communicate without it, and it is often inadequate.

In the chapter on "The Theory of Ideas", Russell discusses Platonic forms, a concept which has always fascinated me. I've studied Jungian psychology, and his theory of archetypes is similar. I suppose the general idea is that abstract universals pre-exist and generate concrete particulars. Russell says Plato's theory of forms is partly logical and partly metaphysical. The logical part has to do with the meaning of general words, and the metaphysical part has to do with God. Universal forms are created by God, and all the phenomena of nature are reproduced by these forms.

Russell was interested in the fuzziness of language, and worked to develop clear and precise use of language. He belonged to a school of thinkers who believed the clarification of thought depended on the clarification of language.

Well, we are told that Aristotle came at the end of the creative period in Greek thought, and that not much of importance happened philosophically for the next two thousand years. In fact, progress has depended upon an attack on Aristotelian thought throughout those millenia and continues so to the present day.

He (Aristotle) does seem to advance the concept of soul, moving it up to what Eastern thought would call "Entity", i.e. By observation we each "Appear" to be humans, and thus we have the "Nature" of men and women, but each of us is a particular person or "Entity".

Of course, a pebble which I might pick up off the ground also has appearance, nature and entity, and later it is said that soul is equated with life, so one would presume that the definition refers only to living beings.

He seems somewhat vague on "Mind", but at least we can translate "First Cause" as "Creative Force", but it seems to me that from the start the idea of the force that promotes equivalant decay/change is almost universally ignored, but surely must be the same, "First Cause".

Best

LJ

a universal is described as predicated by many subjects, but proper nouns, names , --- called a substance.

universals cannot exist by themselves, as in Plato, but are realized IN things (predicated) A thing that is a "this" is a substance but a universal is a thing "such as " So Aristotle 's view on Plato's forms is different.

Aristotle thinks the " universal" dependant upon the substance for its existence and cannot exist of itself. Russell finds this argument weak. The problem , he says, is one of semantics and language and therefore the theory of universals will always remain weak unless we begin a whole new language.. . "House" would not exist without an idea of a dweller of some sort, an occupant, say Jane, but Jane could still exist as farmer, CEO, dancer or poet.Aristotle) But house could exist without that particular occupant, Jane. ( House built of stone?)" The supposed ground for the distinction between things and qualities seems to be illusory" he says. So Russell finds Aristotle;s universals mired in the fallibilities of language, as Shasta has pointed out, Russell desired language to be clear , not fuzzy. Here he says by the time those in earnest would build a new language that would eliminate confusion, the issues being discussed would not be recognized.

Here I have not recognized myself what I have said but it took me so long to write it that I am punching the "post my message" anyhow. I may give the "soul" issue a try too, maybe later.

Jenny

The references to Aristotle suggest I am lagging behind in this discussion. I want to digress, or go back to Plato, to comment on his views of the ideal state.

Russell is very critical of Plato's theory of the ideal state, claiming that Plato is heavily influenced by Sparta. I have to agree that Plato appears to be an enemy of the open society; he certainly is opposed to democracy, thinking it ultimately leads to tyranny.

Plato's professed interest in The Republic is to understand the meaning of justice in the individual soul, but thinks it is easer to discern it in the state, where "it is written large."

I believe Plato used the word "justice" in much the same way that we speak of "morality" or "righteousness." He uses the word "virtue" to mean that quality which enables a person or a think to perform its function well.

That leads him to analyze the nature of a state that is functioning well. It is one characterized by wise rulers (philosopher kings!), brave soldiers, and a working class submitting to wise rulers, performing their productive functions well. When all parts of the state are in harmony, we have the virtue of temperance. Justice is the virtue present in a state where everyone minds his or her own business, doing what he or she alone alone can do, or do best.

Democracy is a perversion of justice. Instead of wise rulers we have men and women who are controlled by appetites and lack the wisdom to run the state well. They are directed by "opinion polls," and try to give the people what they want, even when it is bad for them.

It is like turning the helm of the ship over to passengers who know nothing about seafaring. Those of us who participate in a democratic society may chafe at this condemnation of democracy, but there seems to be an element of truth in the criticism.

Now are we moving on to Aristotle? I will try to catch up.

Floyd, I agree it would be wonderful to have wise rulers running the state, but do you really think these Guardians that Plato has dreamed up could do it? They can't marry or raise a family. They practice promiscuous sex and murder any babies that are born without state approval. He says sisters and brothers should not marry, but since nobody knows who their sisters and brothers are, how do they know whom they are marrying? They can't own property or maintain their own households, so what do they know about practical affairs? All they really know how to do is sit in their study and think. I wouldn't want them running any state I lived in. The Republicans and Democrats are bad enough.

Jenny, I have been cracking my brain trying to figure out exactly what the difference is between Plato's Forms and Aristotle's Forms. I think you have clarified it somewhat for me. Plato's Forms are separate from matter, and Aristotle's forms are bound in matter. I suppose Plato thinks matter is illusory as the shadows in his cave, and Aristotle thinks it is real, and is necessary to actualize Forms. I'm not sure Russell, with all his emphasis on language, makes things very clear sometimes.

Yes, the big difference between Plato and Aristotle is that whereas Plato thought of the forms as separate from matter Aristotle believes they are instantiated in forms and have no reality apart from them. As Russell says Aristotle tries to combine Plato's philosophy with common sense. Aristotle said, "Plato is dear but philosophy is even more dear." Loyalty to Plato did not blind him to the fact that the separation of forms from matter is fundmental mistake.

Yes, and to take it one step further, Russell thinks Aristotle 's concept of universals not the clearest either, as he attempts to show in his example of a football game.

LJ, like you, I am always searching for a definition of "soul." When Aristotle used the word "soul", he divided it into two parts--rational and irrational. Did he mean the rational soul was what we call mind, and the irrational soul was what we call instincts and emotions?

The concept of the soul has evolved as humans have learned more facts about nature. Early humans recognized that there was a life force flowing through the world and animating it. They even thought a magnet had a soul because it could cause movement. Now, we understand the pull of magnets and don't call it "soul" any longer.

We also distinguish between instincts, emotions, and intellect. We have some knowledge of the principles of nature, and no longer call the natural life force "soul." But there is always a mysterious element we don't understand, and this we call "soul." My own belief is that there are two life forces animating existence--the spiritual (God) and the physical (Nature.) The natural life force produced instincts, emotions, and mind. The spiritual life force produced soul.

But not everybody would agree with that. Some people think the mind and the soul belong in the same category. The Greeks were much more impressed by the human intellect than we are today. Philosophy was so new to them that they thought it was sacred, and to them, soul probably meant mind.

When you try to find a definition of the soul concept, you find that there are many different definitions, depending on which period and culture you are investigating. So in the end, I suppose every person has to develop his own concept of soul according to what seems right to him.

Who was asking what the Greeks meant by virtue? Was it you, Jenny? Well, here's your description of a virtuous man in Chaper XX. Didn't you get a laugh out of Russell's comment, "One shudders to think what a vain man would be like." Of this paragon of virtues, he also remarks: "There can't be very many of him in a community." Indeed not; he sounds like a rare breed, maybe one of a kind.

You will notice that there is no such description of a virtuous woman. The Greek notion of a virtuous woman was one who stayed in the kitchen and kept her mouth shut. A woman was a subhuman, about on the same level as the animals, but not as valuable as a horse. If a man's wife got sick, he would shoot her. If his horse got sick, he would take it to the vet.

My understanding is that Aristotle thinks soul is the form of a living object. Soul and body are not two separate substances; they are inseparable elements in a single substance.

All living beings, whether they are plants, animals, or humans have souls with a nutritive faculty, whose ultimate aim is the preservation of the species. This is the capacity to assimulate food and to reproduce.

In addition animals have a sensitive faculty, a perceptive capacity to assimulate the form of a thing without its matter. (I see the rose; I usually don't eat it!)

Humans are distinguished from plants and animals by having souls with a rational faculty. Thought is receptive of intelligible form as sense is of sensible forms. The rational faculty is divided into passive and active reason.The rational soul passively receives intelligible forms and the active reason than acts upon what is received.

There is disagreement about whether Aristotle thought the soul could survive the death of the body. Given his view of the inseparability of soul and body (form and matter) one might think the answer is clearly "no." But there are passages where Aristotle seems to say that the active function of the rational soul will survive death. Aristotle's writings sometimes lack internal consistency.

"Can we regard as moerally satisfactory, a community which by nature....confines the best things to a few and requires the majority to be content with second best??. Plato and Aristotle say yes, Nietzsche agrees, Stoics, Christians and Democrats say No".... I found this to be a most interesting analysis.

Russell's analysis of the fiscal basis of religion on page 187 was also rather clear and perceptive.

I wondered about an old "Hymn" in response to the comment that "Its impossible to be friends with God because He cannot love us" Gee, What a friend we have in Jesus.

Best

LJ

Floyd--good explication of Aristotle's soul-concept. But you made one statement I can't quite follow--"The rational soul passively receives intelligible forms..." Receives these forms from where? From what source?

LB--in one sentence you have summed up my religious belief. I used to think that the God of the Jews was such an advanced concept-- a holy, invisible God, vastly superior to the gods of the pagans--that the Christian Christ was almost a step backward. Did we really want to return to worshipping a visible, human God? But life has taught me that we do indeed need an intermediate form of God--a more personal God. (As you say, the friend we have in Jesus.)

God is too remote and abstract for the human mind to comprehend. God is an abstract force, totally devoid of the values humans have developed. If this were not so, there would be no accounting for the evil in the world. That is, what we humans recognize as evil. God is beyond good and evil, indifferent to both. We need to believe in a closer, more human God, who shares our values. When Aristotle said: "God cannot love humans," I think he was right. But it is also true that humans cannot love a God they don't understand. So we needed Christ.

There could be no other way for Aristotle to describe God, or the unmoved mover, and have his motion and causes theory correct. If God can love then he would have motion and since motion always has a "mover", there would be a forerunner to God. God as the initial cause has motion from the love we give him. I do not think Aristotle was concerned about religion as much as motion and cause.

The question of loving an unknowable is interesting. It is almost impossible to avoid politics or religion when discussing this book.

The description of a tyrant and Russell's little aside where he says it is most practical for analysis in our times is cute.

Jenny

Russell does not seem to be particularly enamored of Aristotle. It will be interesting to me as the book goes on to see where it is Russell hangs his hat. I agree though and I have had this intuition from Socrates on, that " humaness" is absent from these discourses of the Athenians. It will be interesting to me to see just where I will hang my hat! Could be the Bacchics, except that I am a vegetarien.:>)

Jenny

Shasta, the form that is received by passive reason is received from our perception of objects. The sensitive faculty receives the specific form of an object, through one or more of the senses; the rational faculty abstracts the universal from from those perceptions. For example, I can touch, smell, and taste a specific apple, then by rational reflection I receive the universal form shared by all apples, that which makes an apple and apple. The final step in the rational process is when the active reason uses the received universal forms as a basis for speculation. Aristotle invented logic as the way this reasoning takes place.

I want to add someting else about Active Reason as it relates to the question of immortality. I think Active Reason for Aristotle was the highest kind of reality; it is his God. When an individual reasons, it is this highest principle that is at work. And that is the only part of the soul than can survive death. So perhaps all Aristotle is saying is that Active Reason is immortal; death cannot destroy it. But that has nothing whatsoever to say about indiviudal immortality.

Before we go completely beyond Aristotle's metaphysics I want to comment on his analysis of causation, which is his explanation of the process of change.

For Aristotle, there are four questions we can ask about anything: (1) What is it? (2) What is it made of? (3) By what is it made; and (4) for what end is it made? To answer those questions he identifies four causes or explanations for things.

(1) The formal cause determines what a thing is; (2) The material cause is that which it is made of; (3) the efficient cause is that by which a thing is made; and (4) the final cause is the end for which it is made.

In modern thought we use the word "cause" almost exclusively in the sense of efficient cause. A billiard ball strikes another ball and causes it to move. That is efficient causation. Modern science gave up the search for final causes. This is a major difference between Aristotle and modern thinkers. His thought was teoleological; modern thought is more mechanical. This teleological emphasis (final causation) is very important in the development of Aristotle's Ethics.

Floyd, okay. Now I understand. Thanks.

Floyd

I am lost when you say modern science has given up a search for final cause and that modern thought is more mechanical.

I thought Aristotle's logic and the Athenians paved the way for the inductive reasoning methods that followed for two thousand years, which is what I believe scientists use in the " scientific method."

Jenny

Aristotle contributed more to the logic of deductive reasoning by inventing the syllogism. It is true that modern science continue to use deductive reasoning, but also depend on inductive reasoning, and this was developed more by people like John Stuart Mill.

My main point had to do with whether one should look for a final cause, or the purpose of a thing. Aristotle believes everything strives to achieve the highest goal. An acorn seeks to become an oak tree. Thus to understand a thing one must understand its purpose or its end.

This is not the way modern science seeks understanding. They do not find it helpful to talk about the purpose or a thing. Rather than talking about what an acorn is striving to become, we should look at the efficent causes which brings about changes in the acorn.

Yes, that is clearer. I think I got my terms a little reversed too. Thanks

Jenny

We use the word "physics" to mean nature, but Aristotle used "physics" (phusis or physis) in a different sense. It seemed to mean growth or the potential for growth. "Those things are natural which by a continuous movement originated from an internal principle, arrive at some completion." Did he mean that nature only included living things and not inanimate things like rocks?

Why does Russell say that this conception of nature became a great obstacle to the progress of science?

Shasta, I think he meant that all things, not just living beings, have an entelechy, i.e. an inherent tendency to move towards an end. In other words, everything moves from potentiality to actuality. That is what causes change and motion is one form of change.

That is where God as the Unmoved Mover becomes important. God produces change not as the efficient but as the final cause. In other words God is not pushing things forward as an efficient cause; God is the highest and most perfect reality, and it is that perfection which is the lure attracting everything to seek its own highest good.

This teleological understanding of nature is the basis for Aristotle's Ethics. Humans, like everything else, seek the highest good. Aristotle thinks there is general agreement that the highest good for humans is happiness.

Aristotle distinguishes between pleasure and happiness. He uses the Greek word "eudaimonia," which might better be translated as "well being" or "living well."

The highest good for humans is the life of reason. But Aristotle distinguishes between practical reason and contemplation. We use reason in a practical way to make choices between good and bad; contemplation is the enjoyment of truth in itself without practical consideration.

The man or woman guided by practical reason follows "the golden mean," the life of moderation. Virtue is the mean between extremes, but not everything has a mean. Courage is the mean between cowardice and rashness, but there is no mean when it comes to something like adultery, i.e. one cannot be virtuous by only committing adultery with the right person, at the right time, in the right way!

Russell may be correct in saying that Aristotle largely reflects the ethical views of his own society. It is an ethics for middle aged men, even as his politics favors a middle class society. And his belief that the contemplative life is the best life reflects his vocational bias as a philosopher.

I like that explanation of God as the final cause rather than the efficient cause. It suits my sense of God's remoteness. I can never believe that God meddles in the world very much.

Russell's admiration for Aristotle was in the field of mathematics, and to some extent biology. His biology was impressive, but not flawless. For example, he thought men have more teeth than women do. He probably arrived at that conclusion through deduction rather than induction:

l. Men are superior to women. 2. Women are inferior both mentally and physically. 3. Therefore, men have more teeth than women.

All he had to do was ask his wife to open her mouth and count her teeth.

In Deacon's book on Man, The Symbolic Species, He calls Aristotle's formal causation --- "Compulsion". The Symbolic capacity of the human mind seems to have brought with it a compulsion to project itself into what it models. We don't just see a world of physical processes, accidents, reproducing organisms, and biological information processors churning out complex plans, desires and needs. Instead we see the handiwork of an infinite wisdom, a divine plan, children of a creator and a conflict between good and evil. Coincidence, bad luck and disease don't just "Happen", They're signs and symptoms of an all knowing consciousness at work. We are "Symbolic Savants"

Even when we don't believe in it, we find ourselves captive to fetishes, numerology, astrology, of global theories of conspiracy, mystical, mythical and religious traditions.

Best

LJ

Shasta, I loved your suggestion that Aristotle should simply have asked his wife to open her mouth so he could count her teeth! That empirical approach seems so obvious to us. but Aristotle was still under the influence of Plato's rationalism.He is trying to break away from pure a priori thinking, but his common sense approach is still influenced by the deductive model.

I do not think Aristotle was captivated by mathematics as Plato was. In fact, one reason he broke with the Platonic Academy was that he thought too much emphasis was placed on mathematics. At least he was trying to reach biological conclusions based on his observations.

A commernt about Aristotle from linguists, mind analysists, and those involved in semiotics (The philosophical theory of signs and symbols); In his book, "Women, Fire and Dangerous Things", George Lakoff argues (Cited by Steven Pinker in "How the Mind Works") that pristine categories are "FICTIONS". They are artifacts of the bad habit of seeking definitions, a habit that we inherited from Aristotle and now must shake off. He defies readers to find a sharp edged category anywhere in the world. For example "MOTHER", seemingly straight forward, i.e. "Female Parent", but what about adoptive, surrogate and foster mothers. How about egg donors or even, "The Mother of Vinegar"?

Best

LJ

L.J., you make a very important point. In fact, I think we see in Aristotle how the logic of language lies behind particular metaphysical views. Aristotle applies the distinction between subject and predicate to his analysis of objects, resulting in a distinction between substances and their attributes. One of Bertrand Russell's major contribution was his work in mathematics which led to the development of modern logic. He takes the ancient problems of universals seriously and reformulates language in a way that he thinks resolves the problems. Perhaps he will explain how he does that later in this book. I have never understood it very well.

If we discard the habit of seeking definitions, what would we use in its place?

AHHhhhhh Shasta. We have, and we have it. Comprehensible Language.

Best

LJ

Language is the prime invention of humanity, the prototype of its thinking brain's "Modus Operendi". With its symbols, categories, and icons arranged in multi-layered registers, it is capeable of nuance, innuendo, implication, revision and a whole host of other manipulations. Without it we are no more than primitive Apes. It is that which makes "Philosophy" possible.

Best

LJ

Come on, LJ! I know language is man's finest achievement. But what's the difference between definitions and comprehensible language? Definitions make language comprehensible. I think you are using the word "definitions" in some special sense that isn't obvious to me.

How bout something like this (from a recent book selection) "Bundy beats chair with reversal"

It was not I (Though I wish it were) who first said, "Words are but an approximation of reality"

Consider that not only may the problem be, of my use of "Definitions", but also of your use of "Comprehensible".

Without even deep reflection, its obvious that "Definition" changes with time, place, context, sender, receiver and references.

Best

LJ

Shasta:

I've always wondered why men could possibly consider themselves biologically superior to women. They may be stronger, but they die earlier and they have none of the innards which are capable of producing other human beings.

There is also the belief that women's brains are smaller than those of men, but this may be a fallacy engendered by centuries of denial of ducation. Women think differently than men, are more creative and caring. Men are beginning to realize this and are adopting some feminine characteristics. I think that men who do this are more well-rounded. They make greater contributions to the arts, as well as to the future of humankind.

Charlotte

LJ, you have convinced me. I have burned all my dictionaries.

Charlotte, I didn't know women's brains are smaller than men's brains! What a useful piece of information. I wish I had known that back in college when I flunked algebra and geometry. I could have explained to my father: "It's not my fault. My brain is not large enough to contain all those mysteries."

It's a shame we don't get to choose our brains before we are born. I would have chosen Einstein's brain and given him mine. Then I would understand relativity and he would be trying to figure out how much 9 times 12 is. But I guess we all just have to do the best we can with what we have.

Since I am nearly as interested in politics as philosophy, I read with interest Russell's discussion of Aristotle's Politics. Russell does not think it has much to say to us today about how states should function, but believes it does provide useful information about the Greek city states.

Aristotle believed that humans are "political animals." Politics is not some artificial human construction; it is part of our human essence. The State is composed of families; thus Aristotle's discussion begins with the family. (Perhaps he would have been pleased with the current emphasis on the family in political rhetoric.) He deplored the views of Plato concerning the family.

We are likely distressed by Aristotle's assumption that some men are slaves by nature. We should recall, however, how similar arguments were used by our slave-holding ancestors in America.

Even though there are three forms of good governments--monarchy, aristocracy, and constitutional government (polity), I believe Aristotle prefers polity, because there is less likelihood that bad rulers can corrupt this form of constitutinal government. Once again we see the commonsense of Aristotle.

When the Greeks came into contact with other cultures, it wasn't the superior religions of the Jews, Persians, and Buddhists that impressed them. It was the astrology and magic of the Babylonians. "Astrology fell upon the Hellenistic mind as a new disease falls upon some remote island people." Isn't that sad. "Even the philosophers fell in with the belief in astrology."

Human history is one long battle of reason against superstition. The Greeks made their stand for reason, and then even they succumbed to superstition.

Very perceptive Shasta, and Floyd; I was under the impression that a "Benevelent Dictatorship" might also be considered a "Good" form of government. (At least as long as the benevelence lasted)

Along the lines of political philosophy, I was impressed with Russel's summary with contrasts and comparisons of the far east (Singapore. Shanghai, Hong Kong)and white commercial Aristocracy, and pre-civil war United states where white Aristocracy without slaves had to become farmers and thus still have a hold on the land. All in a framework of Alexander and the Eastern parts of his empire. (P220-221) there's a lot to "Chew on" in those two paragraphs.

Shasta! Don't burn those dictionaries. They tell us how to pronounce things.

BestLJ

In both his Ethics and Politics we see Aristotle following "the Golden Mean." He seeks moderation in all things. In this day of extremism and culture wars we might learn something important from Aristotle.

On the other hand, we remember the words of Barry Goldwater about moderation and extremism. Even Aristotle said that some actions and passions are bad in themselves and there is no proper mean.

I personally think that the conflicts within our society are out of hand and we need mature people who will seek to promote understanding through the expression of moderate perspectives.

Floyd, Although I wouldn't debate the issue in this forum, may I suggest as an example of the impracticality of your "Utopian" concept, the question of Creationism versus Evolution?

Best

LJ

Speaking of extremism, those Cynics really went to extremes, didn't they? They were against everything--all comforts and pleasures of the senses, all emotional attachments, all possessions, religions, conventions.

Diogenes even lived in a pot as a protest against worldly possessions. Can you imagine such a thing? He lived in a pot and begged alms from passersby. He said, "Be indifferent to the goods that fortune has to bestow, and you will be emancipated from fear."

The followers of Diogenes modified his philosophy so some extent though. They decided it was okay to enjoy life's comforts as long as somebody else provided them for you.

It is difficult to live consistently as an ascetic. Perhaps, however, a counter-cultural lifestyle, such as that lived by the Cynics, conveys a message to us. We get too hung up on conventions and material possessons. I say this typing away on my expensive computer. I doubt if the Cynics would have owned one.

Shasta: In " The Alaphabet Versus the Goddess," Leonard Shlain says that men have more fully developed right brains whiich results in their being more linear, sequential, ;reductionist and abstract in their thinking.

Women have more fully developoed right brains which is the hemisphere for tolerance, caring, creativity and respect for nature.

I find that I have a very poor concept of spatial relationships which resulted in my flunking geometry and barely passing algebra. Don't even mention physics.

When we travel, I follow landmarks while my husband sticks closely to his map. Of course we're different. And I say Vive La Differnce!

Charlotte

Charlotte, this right brain/left brain physiology is fascinating, isn't it? I need to do some reading on this. Do you suppose one side develops more than the other side as a result of our daily activities? Or is it the other way around?

Well, to get back to philosophy, I think we're on the Skeptics now.

Pyrrho founded the Skeptic school of philosophy, but there had been a lot of skepticism in Greek thought all along. Democritus had questioned the veracity of sense perception. The Sophists argued either side of an issue without regard for the truth, Protagoras maintaining that all knowledge is relative. Gorgias thought nothing could be known for certain. Pyrrho just collected all these doubts into a system, and declared that one action was as good as another.

Timon, however, advanced an argument which especially appeals to me. In Greek logic, all deduction has to begin with self-evident principles. Timon said there is no such thing as a self-evident principle.

Skepticism is a healthy attitude because it promotes rigorous analysis, but it has nothing positive to offer. After you've questioned everything, you need to come down on one side of the fence or the other.

Floyd, I was thinking about your comment on how hard the ascetic life is. I hadn't even thought about how hard it it; I was thinking about how pointless it is. What good did Diogenes do anybody, sitting there in his stupid pot and begging? Suppose all those hard- working people who fed him should decide to sit in a pot too?

Shasta, the positive element I find in Cynicism and other forms of asceticism is that it makes me think about the extent to which I define my own existence in terms of material possessions and social approval. It shows me that my values are not necessarily the correct ones.

That is not to say that I choose asceticism as the best way to live. It is noteworthy that Siddharta Gautama sought enlightenment through extreme asceticism and nearly died in the process. Only after taking food and sitting under the Bo tree to meditate did he experience his awakening. So as the Buddha he taught the Middle Way. (Sort of reminds me of Aristotle.)

I find Skepticism performing a similar service in the area of thought. I may assume that my strongly held beliefs are self-evidently true, but the Skeptics remind me that they are not self-evident. The Cynics help me question the way I live; the Skeptics help me question the weay I think.

And of course, in this chapter the other comparison is essentially one of extremes, i.e. Cato and Carneades (similar to our politics today): The one "Brutal through a morality that was too strict and too traditional and the other ignoble through a morality that was too lax and too much infected with....social dissolution"

Best

LJ

I continue to seek the Middle Way between the extreme positions so often expressed today. I do understand that there are differences betweem people with strongly held convictions that are difficult to over come. The ongoing conflict between those who hold a Pro-Life position and those who are Pro-Choice in regard to abortion is a good example.

I believe one of the great values of a study of the history of philosophy is that it opens our minds to new ways of looking at issues. Some critics point to the disagreements among philosophers as evidence that philosophy is of no value. On the contrary, it is precisely through reflection on these different philosoophies that we are able to overcome our own limited perspectives.

My definition of philosophy is the human effort to find meaning in life. Since I'm engaged in this effort myself, I'm always interested in how other people have handled it, whether they have had any more success than I have had. It doesn't bother me that there is no agreement among philosophers, and it doesn't even bother me that most philosophies are flawed. Even though I constantly criticize other people's efforts, the thing I admire is that they made the effort. I often think that the only reason God hasn't erased the human species from the face of the earth--as he did the dinosaurs--is that he looks down at us and thinks: "Well, at least they keep trying."

Now, speaking of flawed philosophies, here we are with Epicurus. It's hard to believe that Epicurus was an epicure. He was certainly not what we call an epicure today. He did declare the beginning of all pleasure to be the stomach; but poor guy, how would he know? He never ate anything but bread and water. He thought pleasure was the main goal in life, but he really didn't seem to know much about pleasure.

Russell said the age of Epicurus was a weary one; the fear of death was strong, and the fear of punishment after death. The general population believed plagues, earthquakes, war, and other calamities were due to the whim of the gods. The way Epicurus handled all these sources of anxiety was to simply avoid everything that could disturb his peace of mind--marriage, politics, religion, sex, and all philosophy other than his own.

He said, "Absence of pain is in itself pleasure." Since immortality was fatal to the hope of release from pain, he cancelled that too. Clearly, this is a man who had enough Hell in his life, and didn't think he needed any more.

Shasta, you are certainly correct in pointing out that Epicurus was not an "epicure." I think he really did believe that pleasure was the only good in life, but for him pleasure consisted primarily in the absence of pain. If one develops a taste for expensive food and drink, he or she is likely to experience the pain of unsatisfied desire; therefore, for Epicurus, it is better to be content with simple tastes, for they are more easily satisfied.

Russell uses the word "equilibrium" to refer to the goal of Epicurus. He also points out a strong religious element in the view held by Epicurus, even though he was a critic of the popular religion of his day.

He felt that the fear of the death was the cause of much pain in life. For that reason he turns to Atomism as a basis for saying there is no need to fear death. Our souls, like our bodies, are composed of nothing but physical atoms, which are dispersed at death. After we die there cannot possibly be sensations of pain, for there are no sensations at all.

It is also interesting to note that Epicurus continues to believe in gods, but he thinks they are totally unconcerned about us, so we need not fear that they will punish us. The gods, too, are made of material atoms.

Another interesting point is the way Epicurus argues against necessity. He introduces the notion of free will by saying that the atomes, which fall down in space, sometimes swerve. The swerve of an atom is what we experience as free will. I think this is a very weak argument, which does not provide a real basis for a belief in free will.

Your comments about atomism remind me of something that happened to me many years ago. You said atomism was a basis for not fearing death. "Our souls, like our bodies, are composed of nothing but physical atoms, which are dispersed at death."

I was very ill and running such a high fever that I began to hallucinate. I thought I was disintegrating. I could feel the atoms of my being separating and floating off into space. It was very peaceful and pleasant. But I suddenly realized I was dying and cried, "Stop it, Shasta!"

I've always remembered that pleasant sense of peace, and I suppose it's why I don't fear death. But I'm not sure I want to believe that the soul is made of physical atoms. It seems to me there are two kinds of atoms--physical and spiritual. When the body dies, it releases the spiritual atoms that it held captive.

Well, what do you think, Floyd? Is the Senate going to impeach Clinton?

Shasta: To answer your question about left-brain, right brain I'd have to read Shlain's book. I heard him on NPR. He says that society was matrilineal before literacy appeared. Only the men were educated so they took over. I hopeful idea he advances is that we may be entering a golden age when men are adopting some feminine characteristics like nurturing, caring, interest in the arts, etc.

I've been almost off-line since the holdidays, recovering from having 7 adults for the whole week (4 adults and 3 kids). Have been reading about Lycurgus of Sparta and Solon of Athens. Have to get back to Russell.

Charlotte

Shasta, my short answer is "no." But don't bet the farm on my response; I am sometimes mistaken!

In regard to death Russell says: "The fear of death is so deeply rooted in instinct that the gospel of Epicurus could not, at any time, make a wide popular appeal; it remained always the creed of a cultivated minority."

On the other hand, Christianity attracted many followers, at least in part due to its promise of life after death. There is a natural longing to continue to live. Only those disillusioned with life are likely to find comfort in the teachings of Epicurus.

St. Paul seems to have had the Epicureans in mind when he said in the fifteenth chapter of first Corinthians that if there is no resurrection of the dead we might as well eat, drink, and make merry, knowing that tomorrow we die.

Actually, I probably agree more with Epicurus than with Paul on that point. I think we can find life worth living even if we are convinced that death ends it all.

Shasta:

I also had some strange experiences during illness. When I had polio at age 28 and was isolated in a room by myself, everyone who came into the room looked absolutely beautiful, even if they were not.

When a friend send me a lovely picture of Half Moon Bay in California where she lives, it seemed to sparkle with sequins. When I recovered from that illness, I saw there were no sequins on the card.

Charlotte

I've come in to say that our LJ has had a heart attack, and has come home from the Emergency Room to recuperate at home. He also plans to resume driving Monday, in true LJ fashion. This is a good time to send a card.

Ginny

I've come in to say that I'm still kicking.

Floyd, Along those lines Wu-Wei (Rhymes with Whoopee) an ancient Chinese philosopher thought along those same lines, essentially saying that as long as no harm was done to anyone else, let it all hang out"

Best

LJ

L.J.--- Sorry to hear about your heart attack. I hope you will be able to get some rest and give yourself a chance to recover. But just from reading your posts on SeniorNet, you sound like an over-doer who doesn't know what it means to slow down. My recommendation is "Try life in the slow lane for a while." That's what I'm doing and it isn't so bad when you get used to it. Best wishes.

I can't get excited about Epicurus' philosophy. No matter what philosophy I try to adopt, I will fall far short of its objectives, so if I'm going to fail anyway, I would rather fail at something worthwhile. Something noble and far beyond my ability--like Stoicism. I have no problem being cynical or skeptical or even mildly epicurean, but stoicism is entirely beyond me.

I love this: "God is not separate from the world; He is the soul of the world, and each of us contains a part of the Divine Fire. All things are parts of one single system...." But then he goes on to say this system is Nature. For me, Nature is only part of the system.

I sense the unity in the universe, but I am also aware of what the Chinese call "the ten thousand things," and I refuse to deny the validity of these ten thousand things. So I always arrive at this thorny point in my thinking and cannot resolve it. Somewhere there has to be some way to combine unity and disparity into some harmonious whole.

Charlotte, get out your book and join the discussion. It's more fun than anything!

L.J., please take care of yourself. I hope you have a speedy recovery.

Perhaps it would be appropriate for me to tell my friends here that I am presently receiving radiation treatments for the recurrence of prostate cancer (having had radical surgery for it four years ago.) I drive to Columbia each day for the treatment. This winter weather makes that somewhat difficult, but I have received nine treatments with 29 more to go.

Perhaps the Stoics offer a philosphy that can help us remain calm in the midst of life's troubles.

I am presently reading Tom Wolfe's "A Man in Full," having just completed the chapter on "Epictetus Comes to Da House." Conrad, who has been sent to jail because he refused to plead guilty to a minor offense, finds encourament in the writings of Epictetus, with whom he identified as a fellow-prisoner.

As Russell points out, Stoicism went through changes, but there is general agreement that there is a purpose in the world, a course of nature ordained by a divine lawgiver. The sole good for humans is virtue, which consists in living in harmony with Nature.

I have found comfort in the Serenity Prayer: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference."

This is my Christian Stoicism. The Stoics teach me that I often cannot control external event; I can only control my attitudes towards those events. "Stone walls do not a prison make, nor iron bars a cage." I can be free even when I am imprisoned by circumstances.

This is not my final word on Stoicism. I know that Russell finds fault with it and there are aspects of it I do not accept. But there is too much truth in their view of life for me to reject it altogether.

Floyd: Just read your post and here are best wishes for your speedy recovery, too!

How do you like A Man in Full ? I love it, and love reading this discussion tho it's way over my head, am proud to have it here in the Books.

Ginny

I am slowly making my way through "A Man in Full." I will delay my final evaluation of it.

I want to make a couple of qualifications of my endorsement of Stoicism.I believe that the God who governs nature is a personal God and is not simply to be identified with Nature. But I do think this God is immanent in nature.

I also have problems with the Stoic ideal of apathy. They are so concerned with maintaining peace and calmness in the midst of difficult circumstances that the supress emotions to the point of eliminating them altogether.

I believe both Plato and Aristotle have a better understanding of a healthy soul or personality. Plato uses the analogy of the chariot driver trying to control two horses. Reason must be in control of the spirited and appetitive elements in human nature. Emotions are to be under control but are not to be eliminated.

Floyd--I am so sorry to learn that you have cancer. You always sound so calm and controlled that I would never have guessed you were fighting this terrible battle. You must be a true Stoic. I had cancer l2 years ago but recovered from it. I had 25 radiation treatments, and a good surgeon who left me lop-sided but alive. As I've said before, I'm no stoic. My method of dealing with crisis is to do a lot of moaning and groaning and gnashing of the teeth. Like Job, I didn't hesitate to call God to account for my misfortunes. And in the end, Job had an answer--not the one he expected, but a better one. So I don't think God minds a little raving and ranting on our part. He can take it. And sometimes it helps.

I wonder what Plato would have thought of Marcus Aurelius? Here is an example of a "philosopher king." I said before that no philosopher could rule effectively because he is not interested in the mundane activities of government. Where Marcus Aurelius is concerned, I was partly right. He would have preferred a quiet life away from all the stresses and strains of the Roman Empire. But it seems to me that his Stoicism enabled him to perform his duties, rather than handicapping him. He ruled conscientiously for l9 years.

Russell says Marcus Aurelius was "pathetic." To me his self-control and diligence seem admirable. Could he have been more effective, more forceful? Could a man of greater vision and zeal have abolished the gladiatorial fights and the persecution of the Christians? Or did he do the best that could be done under the circumstances?

Thanks FLOYD, not only for your support, but for your leadership and contributions to this discussion. Your comments are indeed, more important than the reading itself.

SHASTA, Thanks to you for the advice (I hear the same thing from my children) bht regardiong the unity of things, have you come across an old book titled "The Tao of Physics"?

Best

LJ

The fact that both a slave and an emperor were Stoics tells us something about the universal appeal of this philosophy. I find Epictetus especially interesting. His views on the equality of all men (and women?) contributed to the Christian idea of the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man.

Epictetus is also an inspiring example of how a person can deal with hardship while keeping his will in harmony with Nature. There is a story about how the master of Epictetus was twisting the leg of his slave. Epictetus calmly said, "Bones have been known to break under such pressure." The master continued twisting it and the leg broke. Epictetus calmly siad, "See it is even as I said."

Whether or not this story is true we do know that he was crippled for life. He also had spent time in prison and taught that we are all prisoners.

Whether or not one is attracted to the Stoic ideal may depend on basic personality types. Some are able to take life calmly; others rant and rave and curse the storms. I certainly have no criticism of either response. I think we have to be true to our own nature.

L.J. -- Do you mean "The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra? Yes, I have that book. I didn't realize it was an "old book" though because the ideas in it seem so fresh and new to me. I had to check the copyright date in it -- l975. Twenty years ago. Well, when you're as old as I am, twenty years is nothing.

Here's a statement that puzzles me: "Constantine's most important innovation was the adoption of Chritianity as the State religion, apparently because a large proportion of the soldiers were Christians."

Why would Christianity appeal to Roman soldiers?

"Turn the other cheek."......."Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."......."Thou shalt not steal."....."Thou shalt not kill."......Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife or thy neighbor's goods."

Which one of these concepts did the Roman legions understand? This fierce, murdering, looting, raping military machine. Or were they like all the rest of us--in need of high aspirations to counteract our lowly activities?

The Military Machine (soldiers) and Christianity (Along with Right Wingers) all seem to go together, Even Today. Perhaps it's Paul's chauvinism that attracts them.

As an aside, historically, its doubtful that Constantine was a "Christian". He WAS a Sun worshipper, and he was certainly a shrewd polititian.

I thought Capra's book pulled together the unity of the universe rather nicely, at least for me. (Of course, it's been 20 years since I read it)

The arguements against God, although primitive, were at least a starting point and must be addressed effectively and inclusively before an adequate comprehension of a "First Cause" can be developed. (We've got another 600 pages to do that)

I was disappointed in Russell's dismissal of Eastern "Religions" as "Superstition" and his apparant certainty of the "Triumph" of "Christianity"

Best

LJ

One story I have heard (don't know whether it is true) is that when Constantine was going into battle against his rivals he saw the sign of the cross in the sky and heard the words "In this sign you will conquer." In response, Constantine had all his soldiers baptized, though Constantine himself was not baptized until he was on his death-bed.

Emperor Constantine used Christianity as a means of maintaining unity in his Empire. When the Christans started fighting among themselves about the nature of God and Christ he summoned the bishops to an ecumenical council and ordered them to reach unity.

I was glancing through "The Tao of Physics" again today. I read it about five years ago. It really is fascinating and I need to read it again. But I don't know if my one-track mind can focus on Eastern philosophy and Western philosophy at the same time. Here is something I had underlined:

"Eastern philosophy, unlike that of the Greeks, has always maintained that space and time are constructs of the mind. The Eastern mystics treated them like all other intellectual concepts: as relative, limited, and illusory."

Eastern philosophy is brilliant, but Western philosopy is pretty good too. It seems to me that the basic difference is that one is based on intuition and the other on reason. Both are normal functions of the human psyche, and I have never understood why they are so alienated from one another. Somewhere, way back in human history, the human psyche split. The East went in one direction and the West in another and it really seems that "the twain will never meet." Isn't it strange that we are so totally separated?

Is it because there was a need to develop intuition and reason both, but it was impossible for one people to work at both levels? If modern physics really has arrived (through science) at the same conclusion that the East reached (through intuition and meditation), then maybe the time has come for the human race to heal its split psyche.

L.J.---Do you really think Russell considered Eastern religion to be superstition? On page 227 (in the paperback I am reading) he said, "Jews, Persians, and Buddhists all had religions that were very definitely superior to the popular Greek polytheism" Later, he says, "Astrology fell upon the Hellenistic mind as a new disease..." I think he meant astrology and magic were stuperstitions, not Eastern religion. Of course, he focuses on Western thought because that is the subject of his book. In l957 he wrote, "Why I Am Not a Christian." I would like to see what he had to say about that.

I think Russell's attitude to Eastern thought was a quick "Brush off".

I HONESTLY do not think there is a fundimental difference between Eastern and Western thought,but that would be a monstrous big discussion in itself. Let me simply compare the biblical interdicts of "Prayer and Meditation" with the Eastern emphasis on "Meditation".

Does that suggest fundimental similarity? or difference?

Best

LJ

It appears that my post with a summary of the Neo-Platonist, Plotinus, was deleted; so I will repeat it.

Russell correctly says that Platonism has an important influence on the development of early Christan thought. The writings of Aristotle were virtually lost and unknown, until Islamic scholars reintroduced them to European scholars.

I find the following summary of Plotinus in my history of philosophy notes.

1) The One is absolutely transcendent. Nothing can be predicated of the One.

2) Finite things are emanations from the One. (Compare the rays of the sun.) The firest emanation is Nous (Mind or Spirit) Nous knows the One and also itself.

3) From Nous proceeds the World Soul, the connecting link between the super-sensual and the sensual world.

4) Human souls come from the World Soul. Souls exist before birth and will continue to exist after death. The fall of the soul takes place when it enters a body.

5) The material world also emanates from the World Soul and ultimately from the One, but it is the antithesis to the One. It is the principle of evil, which is the privation of the good.

6) The soul is purified by rising above sense-perception into the realm of thought, achieving union with the Nous. The ultimate goal is a mystical unio

Floyd, That's a stimulating summary, and it is indeed "Meat" for contemplation (and meditation).

I will avoiod inserting my own thoughts about "Nous" /"Soul" in our discussion except to say that "They" are the essence the esoteric and occult, the very "Stuff" of "Life"

Best

LJ

Shasta, Floyd and LJ:

I'm back. Glad to hear you are all doing moderately well and are still alive and pushing. I'm still trying to recover from the holidays.

I started a long post here, but aol wiped it out. So will make this one brief.

I guess I will read Main in Full, but prefer the poetic writing in the Poisonwood Bible.

Will spend this worst day of the year on Plato and post soon.

Charlotte.

Shasta:

A repeat of my quote from the Columbia Encyclopedia.

"Philosophy comes between the dogmatic teachings of religion which tells you what to believe and the facts which are the teachings of science."

Webster's Dictionary:

"Philosophy is all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts."

Charlotte

Floyd---I appreciated the notes you shared with us on Neo-Platonism. I printed them out when they first appeared, and then couldn't figure out where they disappeared to. One of the mysteries of Cyberspace, I guess.

Hi Everyone: There are so many ideas packed into this that I must ask you to study along with me An intermingling of intellect and mysticism.

January 15, 1999

PLATO

Russell says: “It has always been correct to praise Plato, but not to understand him. He further says that he will treat him with as little respect as if he were a contemporary advocate of totalitarianism (That makes me feel a lot better about not having understood Plato up till now.) He tells us of the derivation of his ideas from previous philosophers and then asks, “How is all this connected with authoritarianism in politics?”

Since Goodness and Reality are timeless, Plato argues the best state would copy the heavenly model, with a minimum of change and a maximum of static perfectionism. In my humble opinion this would not allow for growth, or improvement in society. Nor would there be any opportunity for movement within the class into which an individual is born.

Like the Pythagorean Plato, further asserts that a man who is a good statesman must know the Good through a combination of intellectual and moral discipline. Those who have not had this experience, will inevitably corrupt government.

Mathematics and science must be an important part of a leader’s education, for without it no true wisdom is possible From Heraclitus he derived the doctrine that nothing is permanent in the sensible world. . If this is true, how can the facts of Math. and Science be accepted?

Then Russell asks “Is there such a thing as wisdom?” It is not a skill, but is derived from a knowledge of what is the Good. But if there is such a thing, “is there any form of constitution which will give government to the wise?” He then discusses the choices of leaders who came from various aspects of society in the past and concludes that no selection of citizens is “likely to be wiser in practice than the whole body.” and that “the problem of finding a collection of wise men and leaving the government to them” is insolvable.

However to acquire wisdom, individuals must have leisure and freedom from having to earn the basic essentials of life. Primitive societies have given this role to aged sages who have lived among the people and acquired knowledge and experience through longevity. In our present society does this not suggest a new aspect of activity for some seniors?

Further supporting Ruseell’s view that Plato smacks of totalitarianism, is his banning of the arts because they inspire an excess of emotion., and he also bans pleasure in sex and food.

He would destruct family relationships and says everyone should be related to everyone else. And also says that LYING should be the prerogative of the government, just as giving medicine is the prerogative of doctors.

Russell says that the myths Plato promulgates would result in stunting intellectual growth.

Plato proposes ideas rather the specific rules. I feel that if they are instituted. the only result, other than everyone having enough to eat, would be developing skill in war. I would mourn the loss of the arts and opportunity for individual expression.

Charlotte

It is not at all clear to me that Plato thought of the ideal state as something that was attainable. He does say that whether or not it can be attained it remains the ideal. Charlotte is helpful in pointing out good reasons for rejecting that ideal.

One makor influence of Platonism on the development of Christianity is that its distinction between the ordinary world of sense experience and the ideal world of forms. We see that contrast developed in Christian distinctions between this world which is temporal and will pass away and the kingdom of heaven which is eternal.

Under Platonic influence life after death was interpreted as the immortal soul leaving the mortal body. I think that has caused many Christians to overlook the centrality of the New Testament teaching about the resurrection of the body.

When we reach the study of St. Thomas Aquinas we will see how he used the philosophy of Aristotle to restore a more holistic view of human life. Unfortunately, even St. Thomas could not fully escape from the Platonic philosophy.

In assessing Platonism I think we should keep in mind the statement by Alfred White Northhead that the safest generalization one can make about the history of western philosophy is that it consists in a series of footnotes to Plato. This does not mean that later philosophers merely repeated the teachings of Plato. Many of the footnotes consist of criticisms and revisions of his philosophy.

Charlotte, I enjoyed your review of Plato's theories, but I am afraid you and I are both a bit negative about the value of his ideas. I can't seem to grasp the importance of his thinking, and I know I must be missing something.

I would like to hear somebody compare Platonism with Neo-Platonism. Which of Plato's theories actually carried over into Neo-Platonism, and which were rejected?

Neo-Platonism, we must remember, is Platonism. But it is a form of Platonism which emphasizes the religious and mystical aspects of Plato's teachings, while placing less emphasis on mathematical and logical analysis.

New ideas in Neo-Platonism include the use of "emanations" as a way of explaining how the many finite things come from the infinte One. Plotinus has sort of a trinitarian explanation of levels of reality, comparable to the doctrine of the Trinity in Christian thought.

The utterly transcendent One is similar to God the Father; the Nous corresponds to God the Son, also called the Logos; and the World Soul corresponds somewhat to God the Spirit,the teaching that God is immanently present in the world.

Although Plato taught that there is an important distinction between the real world of Forms and the visible world of visible objects. I think Plotinus emphasizes that much more. Plotinis contributed to what has been called "the great chain of being," which is also a hierarchy of values. The One is the highest form of being and also the highest good. In contrast, the material world is the lowest form of being and is evil, in the sense that it is a deprivation of the good.

The religious aspect of Neo-Platonism is also seen in its doctrine of salvation. One achieves union with the One by ascending from the limited world of sense experience up through the Nous towards a mystical union with the One. Again. there are some signs that Plato was thinking along those same lines, but he does not develop this them nearly as much as the Neo-Platonists.

It appears that the next section starts with the neoplatonism under discussion, especially the dualism of the spirit and the flesh.

An example of "Dualism" (Implied by Russell) is that "Christian humility is preached by the clergy, but practised only by the lower classes"

Best

LJ

Shasta: I think my negativity towards Plato comes from Russell and what Russell led me to believe.

Charlotte

Chapters I and II of The Fathers seems to be a reasonable accurate and fair presentation of the religious development of the Jews and of Christianity during the first four centuries. Most histories of philosophy do not include this discussion; it is characteristic of Russell to provide a more general background for philosophers.

I will have several comments to make about Saint Augustine, but will wait until everyone has completed reading and discussing Chapters I and II.

From an historical perspective the developements in Judeo-Christian thought from about 50 B.C.E.(B.C.) through 400 C.E.(A.D.) and their biblical counterparts are the most interesting, controversial and least known or understood in Western thought. On the other hand, the ongoing revelations from Archaeological studies during the last 50 years are doing much to clarify this era.

For purposes of this discussion it would be well to concentrate on Augestine since his was the greatest influence on on-going mainstream thought.

Best

LJ

When Isaiah prophesied the coming of the Messiah, why did he speak in past tense rather than future tense? It sounds like he was describing an event that had already occurred.

Are we having technical problems? I posted a reply to Shasta about Isaiah two times but it is not here. My point was that many of the passages from Isaiah which early Christians interpreted as prophecies of the coming of Christ very likely had a different meaning to his own generation. For example, Isaiah 7:14 speaks of a young woman who would give birth to a child and that his name would be called Immanuel, which means God with us. Isaiah was very likely speaking of a woman of his own generation, whose son would be a sign to Israel. Christians, using the Greek version of the Old Testament, interpreted this as a prediction of the virgin birth of Christ. Deep texts have several levels of meaning and may lead to different interpretations.

If this gets posted, I will move on to a discussion of Saint Augustine.

Sometimes we can understand a philosophy without knowing much about the life of the philosopher, but in regard to Augustine this is definitely not the case.

Russell provides us with the basic facts about the life of Augustine. He was born in North Africa in A,D. 354, the son of Christian mother and a pagan father.He received the best education available and experimented with different current philosophies.

Cicero's writings awakened in him love for truth. He was attracted to the heretical Manichaeans by their emphasis upon reason, which to him was an attractive alternative to the blind superstition of orthodox Christians.Their meetaphyical dualism also helped him understand the problem of evil, which was becoming all too real in his own life. They helped him escape guilt for his "sins of the flesh." Since his body was evil, he could not really be held responsible.

Inconsistencies in Manichaean teachings then led Augustine into skepticism.He went to Milan and came under the infuence of Ambrose, who was an eloquent preacher. Ambrose helped him see how the Bible could be interpreted allegorically.

In Milan Augustine also comes under the influence of Neo-Platonism,which enabled him to think of God as a creative force, not an anthropomorphic artist. It also seemed to solve the problem of evil.The whole world is good; evil is the privation of the good. Neo-Platonism opened his eyes to a spiritual world.

Various influences led to Augustine's conversion to Christian faith, including the pleading of his mother, the preaching of Ambrose,his deepening feelings of guilt, and a mystical experience in the garden, when he hears a voice saying, "Take up and read." He picked up the book of Romans and read instructions to put off the flesh and put on Christ.

I want to suggest that even though Augustine was converted to orthodox Christianity he never ceased being a Neo-Platonism. His philosophy, as we shall see, is Christian Neo-Platonism.

It seems to me that with Augustine we see a true consolidation of Western religious thought and a stifling of chokeing off of more broad minded views of "Christianity" from both the past and extending into the future. Admittedly Russell makes no (or very little) mention of the systematic destruction of the elements of independant Christianity which survived the "Dark Ages" (Especially the Ancient Irish thread).

One sees a "Presumption" of Biblical Inerrancy and such concepts as the inherrant evil of sex (read: Humanity). One also grasps a solidification of the concept of a "Party-Line", i.e. the direction of all thought was becoming centralized in Rome and tolorance of any other ideas was discouraged if not severely punished.

Best

LJ

People develop a concept of God that reflects their perception of their world. The Greek gods were so irresponsible and immoral because the Greeks felt that a fickle fate controlled their lives and they were helpless to do anything about it.

But hadn't the Jews and Christians developed better concepts of God? The Jews considered God to be just and moral. The Christians considered God to be a loving father. But St. Augustine was so guilt-ridden that he projected his own sense of sin on the whole human race. He felt that God was justified in randomly punishing or rewarding humans regardless of their merits or demerits because the whole human race was so saturated with sin that they had no right to expect justice or salvation.

His concept of God doesn't sound like much of an improvement over the Greek gods, and yet he professed to be a Christian.

Shasta, Throughout the Old Testament history of the Jews the God concept varied dramatically from polytheism (The Elohim) through Adonoi and Yahweh, and in places "He" was indeed an exquisitely cruel and vengeful "God"

Best

LJ

LJ, there is an element of truth in what you say about Augustine choking off of other interpretations of the Christian faith. He certainly becomes a champion of Christian orthodoxy and argued strongly against what he considered heretical intepretations of Christianity.

On the other hand, Augustine, as opposed to Tertullian, does seek to combine faith and reason, Greek philosophy and Christian theology. He starts with faith but says faith must seek understanding.

Augustine accepts the Neo-Platonic notion of the One and asks the question, "What is the relationship between this One and the God of Christian faith?" His reply is that they are one and the same. This is an extremely important development in both the history of Christianaity and of western ph

What on earth is Arianism? Is this one of those isms that Christianity choked off? And what's the difference between homoousion and homoiousian? I tried to look it up, but it's Greek to me.

Arianism taught that Christ was the first creation of God but not of the same substance as God.

Those who were willing to say Christ was homoiousion were saying that Christ was like God; whereas those who inisted on homoousion insisted that Christ was of the same substance as God. This is word which was included in the Nicene Creed; it became the orthodox teaching of the Church.

This ancient dispute seems highly irrelevant to many modern thinkers. It does show how dependent early Christianity became upon Greek modes of thought, using such philosophical terms as substance, essence, being, etc.

Those who favored the homoousion formula prevailed largely because Bishop Athanasius linked it to the doctrine of salvation, insisting that if Christ were not of the same substance as God he could not save us fro

From what, Floyd? Did the computer goblin eat up part of your post again? He gets pretty mean sometimes.

What a lot of changes Christianity has undergone through the ages. But 2000 years is a long time, so I guess it's to be expected. Russell says the Christian religion, as it was handed over by the Roman Empire to the Barbarians, was a blend of Orphic mystery, Platonic philosophy, Jewish history and morality, and Christian humanity.

I never realized how many elements had gone into the making of Christianity. Or how many other elements could have gone into it but were rejected--like Gnosticism, Manichaeism, and Arianism.-- some of those isms that L.J. says Christianity choked off. Of course, the Manichaeans forbade sex, even in marriage, so they would have put themselves out of business without any help from the Christians. The Gnostics had a few good ideas. They worshipped wisdom, whose name was Sophia. You can see why the male-oriented Christians got rid of that.

There were so many isms and schisms, and chasms and frazzems, that it rattles the brain trying to follow Christianity's zigzag trail through history.

The complete statement was that if Christ were not God he could not save us from our sins.

Russell recognizes that Augustine made a contribution to philiosophy by his attempts to explain time. Augustine believed that time was created with the rest of creation.

When asked what God was doing before he created the world, Augustine said something to the effect that God was preparing hell for people who ask such trite questions! His serious point was that there was no time before creation.

Actually, Augustine's view seemed to be that only the present is real. The past exists in the present in our memories; the future exists in the present as expectations. He acknowledges, however, that time is difficult to understand and explain.

Now we come to the "Pelegian Controversy" and the doctrine of "Original Sin" which I confess, to me, simply means that the Human Animal is an animal. not "God". As a child, I recall this idea as being unacceptable to my "Catho;ic" friends.

Best

LJ

Augustine's opposition to Pelagianism has its source in his philosophy of man, which is based on his own experience and his interpretation of Genesis and the teachings of Paul.The disagreement is about the ability of men and women to achieve their own salvation, or at least play some part in saving themselves.

Augustine believes that man was created to live in fellowship with God. As he says in his prayer, "Thou hast made us for Thyself and our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee."

Human beings are creaed in the image of God and are a compound of soul and body. The soul is immaterial, the principle of life in the body. Humans are endowed with free will. The first man had the possibility not to sin, but also the possibility of sinning. The cause of sin is a deficiency in the will as a result of lack of perfection, which is due to the fact that we are created out of nothing.

The fall was the result of pride and fallen men and women are slaves to sin. It is no longer possible for fallen men and women not to sin. The human will is corrupt; it is divided against itself in a state of civil war.

Only the grace of God can rescue humans from this fallen condition. Pelagius mistakenly taught that men and women are capable of good works. Not so, says Augustine, only the grace of God can make good works possible, restoring the possibility of not sinning. This grace is prevenient and irresistible. (Prevenient in the sense that it precedes anythings men and women can do to turn to God; irresistible in that it overpowers the human will and causes us to turn to God.

We are really moving from Augustine's philosophy to this theology, though in his case it is difficult to keep them separate.

For many of us one of the most troubling aspects of Augustine's thought was his teachings about predestination. It is not my intention to defend his views,but I would like to clarify a few points.

Augustine's doctrine of predestination is based on his understanding of the sovereignty of God, the corruption of men and women which destroys their ability to do good works, and his understanding of the irresistible grace of God. Those views are based upon his reading of the theology of St. Paul.

Augustine believes that God predestines some people to be saved by grace and that God gives them eternal life in the kingdom of God. Does he also believe that God has predestined others to spend eternity in hell? On first reading it appears that he does believe in this "double-edged predestination." What he actually says is that God passes over the remainder of people leaving them lost in the corruption of sin.

Logically, it would seem that if some are predestined to heaven then the others are predestined to hell. John Calvin did not hestitate to follow that logic to its bitter end, but I am not convinced that Augustine went that far. His own views were shaped more by his own experience of the grace of God; whereas John Calvin, trained as a lawyer, was equally concerned about holding a completely logical position.

The debate over free-will versus determinism has continued throughout the history of philosophy, and it remans to this day an unresolved dispute. I think it is possible to make a strong argument for predestination, but I will not try to develop that argument here.

But L.J.---the human is an animal and a god both! Therein lies our problem. One or the other we could handle, but the two together, body and soul, locked in perpetual warfare, is what creates the human dilemma.

It seems to me that the weakness in St. Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin is that it relieves human beings of the responsibility for their own actions. If we are hopeless sinners and only God can save us, then there is no use in our trying to improve ourselves. We might as well go our sinful ways and let God run the show any way he wants to.

I've never really believed in determinism, but the older I get, the more I think there might be something to it. The DNA we are born with seems to determine our lives a lot more than I thought possible. As I look back on all the people I have known well, I am amazed at how little anybody has changed, including myself. And I have tried desperately to make changes in myself. It's been a rather disillusioning process.

Shasta points to what appears to be a contradiction or at least a paradox in theories of predestination. Not only Augustine but also St. Paul and John Calvin combined a belief in predestination with an insistence on human responsibility. Augustine even wrote an essay on "The Freedom of the Will." The grace of God makes us free once again to avoid sinning, a possibility lost in the fall. But there is nothing we can to do merit that deliverance; it is all of God's grace.

Further tension is found in Augustine's thought when one compares his view of sin, grace and salvation with his doctrine of the Church and the Sacraments. Even though it is the sovereign grace of God which determines who will be saved, that grace is dispensed through the sacraments of the church. If one is so unfortunate as to be born in a society where the church is not available to dispense grace, that just indicates that they were not among the group predestined to salvation. Sorry, Augustine, that just won't do!

Was Augustine's "God" Anthropomorphic?

Best

LJ

Augustine tried to bring together two strains of thought in his doctrine of God. One reason he had hesitated accepting orthodox Christian teachings was that he was bothered by the anthropmorphic view of God. The Neo-Platonic conception of the One seemed more reasonable to him.

As a Christian philosopher he tried to embrace both the biblical and the Neo-Platonic views. According to the Hebrew Bible, the first characteristic of God is oneness. "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." God had revealed his name to Mosesas "He who is." "I am who I am." Thus it seemed natural to identify the Christian God with the Neo-Platonic One. Thus there is a blending of the personal and philosophical approach to God.

Augustine acknowledges the difficulty of talking about God. We can only say what God is not; thus he influenced the development of what has been called Negative Theology.

Augustine does make statements which seem more positive. God is Being -Itself. God is unchanging. God is the creator of the world. He wants to say that only God is real, but he wants to say the world is also something. It has a being that is derived from God.

What Augustine say about creation may sound like Neo-Platonism but there is a difference.God creates the world out of nothing; it is not an emanation from God.It is hard to make sense out of this notion of creation.Augustine denies that it is like a human being fashioning a body from another body.But once you deny the anthromorphic and metaphorical story of Genesis what remains of the idea of creation? Augustine cannot really answer that question in a positive way.

Augustine contributed to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. This is probably his most important contribution to the doctrine of God. He affirmed that there is One God in three persons. He was never satisfied with his ability to explain this. He says we speak of three persons not because it is adequate but in order to avoid saying nothing at all.

All gods are anthropomorphic. What else can they be? All we know about God is what our minds can conceive, and our minds give a human form to every idea. We can't imagine a God that is totally different from us. Our minds don't have that capacity.

I wanted to say one more thing about Original Sin. Somehow, it never really meant anything to me. The nuns did their best to hammer this into my brain, but I resisted it. I didn't understand exactly how Original Sin was supposed to have originated, but I knew I didn't do it, and I wasn't taking any blame for it. I had enough sins of my own to deal with and nobody was going to saddle me with Adam's. If old Adam couldn't keep his hands off the apples, that was his problem, not mine. I got into enough trouble stealing figs from my grandfather's tree, but I had nothing to do with anybody's apples!

Through the years, my understanding of Original Sin may have matured a little, but basically it hasn't changed.

I agree with Shasta that anything positive we try to say about God will be anthropomorphic, ar at least it will require us to use images drawn from our finite experiences. That is precisely why Augustine and others followed the way of negation. Each positive statement has to be corrected by negation. God is not a man though we may use human terms to talk about God.

I have said that Augustine thought of God as Being-Itself. In this century Paul Tillich said that is the only non-symbolic statement we can make about God.

I certainly do not accept the doctrine of Orginal Sin as presented by Augustine. God does not punish us for the sin of Adam; nor is that sin transmitted to us through the sex act, as Augustine seemed to say.

Yet there is some truth in the doctrine of original sin, when it is understood as the story of each one of us. Each one of us has fallen away from the perfect good, because in our pride we have trusted too much in ourselves and made ourselves the center of the universe.

Irenaeus presened an interesting alternative to Augustine's interpretationn of the fall of man. He thought Adam and Eve were created as innocent chlldren who had to grow up as adults. What is called a fall by Augustine is actually the achievement of adult independence and responsibility.

This battle between Cyril and the Nestorians is so hair-splitting that I can't even figure out what they were arguing about. Nestorius said Christ was two persons, one human and one divine. He said Mary was the mother of Jesus, but not the mother of Christ. God was the father of Christ, but Christ had no mother. Now, Cyril was violently opposed to this view, but what his own view was, I can't figure out. Whatever it was, he must have won the argument, because he ended up a saint and Nestorius ended up a heretic.

This book has been a real education to me, obviously because I have no background in philosophy, let alone theology. I had no idea so many people had struggled so hard to work out the doctrines of Christianity---which I received as a finished product. I guess I thought Christianity sprang full-grown from Jesus's brain and Paul put the finishing touches on it. But it wasn't like this at all.

I remember when I was young, there was a controversy between the Baptists and Methodists in my hometown, concerning baptism. The Baptists believed in immersion and the Methodists believed in a light sprinkling. The Baptists said you couldn't become a born-again Christian without full immersion, but the Methodists said they weren't as sinful as the Baptists and didn't need all that much water to wash away their sins. I don't suppose this controversy has ever been settled.

And just today, I read in the paper where the Pope has issued a new book of instructions for exorcising the devil. Theology is not the cut-and-dried product that I thought it was, but an ongoing process, isn't it?

I have been trying to catch up on your group discussion. Rough going! S0.....I decided to skip abit and read Chapter 4, in book 2. Saint Augustine's Philosophy and Theology. And as they say, "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." However, Saint Augustine's rather exasperated cry, "If no one asks of me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I know not." I think I am comfortable with that statement.

I remember as a child I thought a reprobate was an old MAN sitting in front of the local courthouse spitting tobacco juice and watching the people go by. I remember when, as a child, my mother and I would pass the courthouse with its eternal collection of old men sitting on a park bench; she would stiffin and mutter, "The old reprobates." Imagine my surprise when I read Augustine's declaration that there are just two types of people - the elect and the reprobates. To discover that women could be reprobates startled me. Anyone can be a reprobate and they don't even have to spit tobacco juice!

Of course, I am speaking of predestination. Does any formal religion, as practiced today, still believe in predestination? I think, perhaps the Jehova Witnesses do. To be of the elect one must not question and accept the scripture as put forth; of course that takes in the Baptist, too. I am in trouble! I, in my wildest dreams never thought I would be a reprobate. I don't even chew gum and I never spit!

Cathy---I'm glad you are joining our discussion. There was something St. Augustine said that I found touching. He was trying to figure out the nature of time, but he didn't quite think he had it right. He said he prayed to God to help him understand this mystery, which I thought was very humble of him. I wonder if Einstein ever asked for God's help. I can sympathize with Augustine on this business of time because I can't understand it either, but his theory sounded pretty good to me.

It seems that my most recent post has disappeared. I am beginning to develop a complex!

I want to join in welcoming Cathy to our discussion. In regard to whether there are churches today which teach predestination, I point to Presbyterians, the Reformed Church, and many Baptists. Even in those churches, however, one may not hear as much about predestination as we once did.

Other demoninations have agreed more with Arminianism, which emphasizes free will and the ability of men and women either to accept or reject God's grace. Calvinism and Arminianism have both influenced Baptists, resulting in differences between Particular Baptits and General Baptists.

Shasta, the Christological controversies involved much passion on all sides of the disputes, but they do not seem that important to most p;eople today. The major dispute was between the Monophysites, who said that Christ had only one nature, which was fully divine. The Nestorians said that Christ was actually two persons, one divine and one human. The Chalcedonian formula rejects both views, concluding that Christ was one person with two natures, truly man and truly God.

Cathy,

I chew tobacco, but I NEVER spit. I think is called either having the courage of one's convictions or having an iron-clad stomach.

To amplify Floyd's comment, there is even a sect of "Orthodox Prebsbyterians" who fully accept predestination - without fudgeing.

Floyd, In theological circles does "Man" have a dual nature?

Best

LJ

LJ, I believe those who still accept orthodox Christology, as formulated at Chalcedon, would say that only Christ was truly God and truly man. On the other hand, they also believe that man is created in the image and likeness of God and, especially in Eastern Orthodoxy, it is said that in the end humans can achieve a divine nature.

My problem with the way the Christological controversy was settled is that it arrived at a formula which uses the metaphysical categories of Greek philosophy; such as, "substance," "essence," "being," et. al.

A more promising way of understanding Christ was developed by the late D. M. Baillie. He uses the "paradox of grace," as stated by Paul:

"I have been crucified with Christ; nevertheless, I live; yet not I, but it is Christ who lives in me."

Applied to the nature and person of Christ it means that Christ lived a human life; yet he lived in such complete harmony with God that it was not really just his own human life he was living; it was God who was living through him. In other words, Christ was "a God receiving man," one in whom God dwelt fully.

LJ, I think that might lead to the view that this is an experience which is possible for all men and women. The Christian view, as I understand it, is that this is possible only by individuals relating to Christ through faith, permitting Christ to live through them.

In my pluralistic view, that is a possibility for people of other religious traditions as well; but in that regard I begin to depart from orthodox Christianity.

Floyd, I've been thinking about what you said about original sin. I know the Adam and Eve story is attempting to explain some basic condition of human existence. Where we went wrong and how we brought so much trouble down on our heads. You said Adam's sin was pride. He wanted to replace God, as the center of the universe.

I understand that whatever the problem was, it is an ongoing problem, and not a one-time event. Otherwise, this Adam and Eve dilemma would not continue to hold our interest. I don't think humans really want a godless world; I think it was God's choice to abdicate his position in the world and turn it over to humans to run. It is as if he said, "I have created a workable universe; now, let's see what you can do with it." I don't believe there was any original sin at all.

We poor Adams and Eves have done the best we could in the circumstances we found ourselves. We have suffered so much--- my God!, you can't read history without wanting to weep over the suffering human beings have endured. So we try to figure our why all this suffering came about. We either have to blame it on God or blame it on ourselves. So we choose to exonerate God and take the blame ourselves.

Think about that! Here we have this omnipotent, omnipresent God who is capable of anything and everything, and then we have these pathetic humans who just came down out of the trees a few generations back, and stood on their hind legs and tried to develop a usable language. And WE are supposed to take responsibility for all the evils in the world? I think if God wanted the world to be any different than it is, he would be perfectly capable of accomplishing that.

Shasta! You do touch a nerve! Someone said, I don't recall who, that: "We are born homesick for Heaven." I am of that stripe, darn it!

Your facination with the "time" problem has plagued me, also. How does one recognise the time puzzle? Man in his present and ever present being, invented time; as in the calendar. If one is alive in considering THE time puzzle, there is room for discussion. Of course if one is dead, it has no relevance;, and if one is yet to be born it has no relevance. Only if one is present does time exist. Where in the heck I am going from here is anybody's guess.

I was probably a fool to enter this discussion. I will not cop out; howeverI, I will just withdraw and recoup! I am just filling up space right now and will plunge ahead, in my fashion, and reveal my insight; should it happen!

Cathy, your quote about being homesick for heaven seems very close to Augustine's famous prayer: "Thou hast made us for Thyself and our hearts are restless until they find rest in Thee."

It was this spiritual hunger that movtivated Augustine to seek God and to seek greater understanding. After one ignores or rejects many things he said, he or she may continue to read the writings of Augustine, attracted by a thirst similar to our own.

Floyd---I was just thinking that your posts shouldn't disappear like that. That's too frustrating. I know absolutely nothing about computers, but there must be somebody who can explain this problem. I was fussing at my daughter for not answering my E-mails, and she said she was answering me but her mail wasn't going through. She lives in a small town that isn't serviced by any of the major internet providers, so she uses a small company that isn't very efficient. She found out that her mail was being hung up by her provider, and she resolved it somehow. Maybe you have a similar problem. Surely, some of the experts at SeniorNet could give you some suggestions.

How are you doing with your treatments? When I was receiving radiation treatments, I asked the technician when I would begin glowing in the dark. She said I wasn't getting enough radium for that to happen. I hope your treatments are going well.

Shasta, thanks for your interest and concern, I think I figured out what happened to my recent post (a computer error). Notice I did not blame it on the computer user!

My treatments are going well and so far I am not glowing in the dark.

LJ, we need some guidance about where you think we should be now in our discussion of the book. It seems we sort of jumped ahead to the Christological controversies. At the appropriate time,I want to comment on Boethius and also John the Scot. (John Scotus Erigena)

Floyd,

You are right on schedule!!!!

The general outline of chapters and dates of proposed discussion are listed at the top of this page.

I have taken the liberty of truncating the list as we have progressed in order that it would be easier for all of us to find our present place in the discussion..

Catholic Philosophy, Part I, "The Fathers", Chapters 4-6 is our present location and should continue through Feb 7th (Actually, that's a week longer than originally intended, but back in November someone-guess who- misread the calendar.)

Discussion of Boethius and John the Scot would be appropriate now or anytime between now and Feb. 7th.

Best

LJ

Yes, let's talk about Boethius. I never even heard of him before, but he seems to have Russell's complete admiration. "No trace of superstition or morbidness, no obsession with sin, no straining after the unattainable, a man of perfect philosophic calm, great learning, and zeal for the public good."

But I'm not sure what the "privative theory of evil" is. Does it mean evil is merely a lack of virtue?

Boethius said virtuous men are always powerful, and bad men are always weak. Now, where did he get an idea like that? More often, it's the other way around. But I suppose he meant virtuous men have spiritual power.

If I read Russell correctly, it seems he interprets Boethius as a Neo-Platonist. F. C. Copleston, a highly respected historian of philosophy, says the most important contribution of Boethius was his use of the philosophy of Aristotle. He translated some of Aristotle's writings, used his logical categories, and adopted many aspects of Aristotle's metaphysics. Thus Boethius becomes a bridge between Aristotle and Medieveal Christian thought.

On the other hand, Copleston does acknowledge that Neo-Platonism had some influence on Boethius. The privative view of evil is certainly Neo-Platonic. It is an idea also accepted by Augustine. It means that evil is not a positive reality, it is a privation of the good, even as blindness is a privation of sight. There is no efficient cause of evil, there is only a deficient cause.

It seems to me that Boethius is more of a philosopher than a Christian theology, yet it seems he was accepted by the Church as an orthodox Christian.

His book "The Consolations of Philosophy" is still worth reading. In this book he tries to reconcile a belief in free will with the fact that God knows all things . As I understand him, he is saying that there is no past and future with God; all events are eternally present. It follows that even though God knows what we will do in the future God does not cause us to act in a certain way, anymore than the fact that we know what someone else is doing right now implies that we cause them to do it.

Boethius sounds like somebody I ought to read, but probably never will get around to.

Russell says that St. Anthony was the first hermit. But surely there have always been hermits? For l5 years the man lived alone in a hut--an early Thoreau without a pond to keep him company. Then he got really serious and spent the next 20 years in the desert, where Satan constantly assailed him with lustful visions. Any time you put the body and mind through too much stress, you can trigger hallucinations, without any help from Satan. Starvation, dehydration, and sleep deprivation can cause a weakening of the reason's control over instinctual processes, and result in psychotic reactions.

What puzzles me is why anybody would want to do this to himself. Who needs to go to the desert to find pain? Doesn't ordinary life provide all the pain we need?

And what about those early monks who thought uncleanliness was next to godliness? "Lice were the pearls of God, and the mark of saintliness." How revolting.

Shasta, you could read "The Consolations of Philosophy" in less than an hour. It is an imaginary conversation between Philosophy and Boethius, whos is very discouraged about the bad things that have happened in his life.

I agree with your sentiments about the life of a hermit. It certainly would not be the life for me.

Perhaps you have heard of Thomas Merton, a brilliant young scholar and gifted writer, who decided to become a Trappist monk, taking the vow of silence. He joined the Gethsemane community in Kentucky but even the life of silence with other monks did not satisfy him, so he received permission to live by himself in a little hut in the forest. Then he complained because people did not come to see him!

A biographer of Merton said that he wanted to be a hermit, but he wanted his hermitage to be located in the middle of Times Square!

I suppose I should add a little gossip. Merton became ill and was sent to a hospital in Louisville. There he met a nurse, fell in love with her, and after returning to the monastery, arranged for her to visit him. That's what happens when you try to live alone!

Floyd, as I sit here, I see on my bookshelf "Run to the Mountain" by Tomas Merton, and I haven't even opened it. I'm always buying books that I plan to read in the future, and I never get caught up with what I intend to read. I wish I could get myself better organized, but at this late date, I suppose it's hopeless.

Picking up the subject of time again I am befuddled on Saint Augustine's, or is it Russell's statmemt that: "time was created when the world was created." Somewhere in time, when I was in the process of learning, I was taught that time was an invention of man. It was man's attempt to measure the immeasurable in order to provide social order.

As difficult as it is to grasp the meaning, or even the existence of time, it certainly boggles the mind that God is outside the stream of time. Russell's use of the word stream seems to give time "essence".

It was with amusement that I read of St. Benedict's attempt at "hermithood" and his battle with: "temptations of the flesh, cast off his garments and jumped in thick briers and nettle bushes and wallowed so long that, when he rose up, all his flesh was pitifully torn: and so by the wounds of his body, he cured the wounds of his soul." I could not help but think that perhaps St. Benedict would have timely advice for certain "current" leaders!

Back to time - Floyd, if God is to judge us, and our whole Christian philosophy says he will; how can He do so if there is no memory of OUR past? If God has memory, isn't that the definition of "past" and His possible presence within it? Being outside of time gives me the picture of a LIVE video playing and no one watching because they know the outcome already, which in essence is the past! I don't get it!!

Cathy, it is very difficult to explain time; Augustine acknowledges that fact; but both Augustine and Boethius believed that God is not part of the temporal process. Thus God does not experience events as past or future, but only as present experiences. God does not remember George Washington crossing the Delaware; that event is perceived as part of the eternal present.

This all might seem like utter nonsense, but Einstein's theory of relativity makes it appear more plausible. (Please don't ask me to explain Einstein's theory; it remains in the area of mystery for me.)

It would seem to me that "God" in time, with reference to "Past" and "Future", are inextricably intertwined if "Predestination" is to be considered.

Best

LJ

L.J., you are very good at the condensed sentance and the condensed question. Yes, it would seem that a philosophy of predestination would call for a time call. Of course predestination is already in the past as has been determined. When does the future begin or does it? Geeeee! What a mess!

The advocates of predestination attribute it to God's eternal decree. They do not think it is a decision made by God within time. In other words God does not determine in 1999 what will happen in 2000. That determination is grounded in eternity and nothing can change it.

One might think that a belief in predestination destroys free will and human responsibility. There are a number of phiilosophers, however, who are "soft determinists." They belive that when we say in ordinary language that a person has acted freely we do not mean there was no cause for his or her action. What we mean is, "If x had chosen to do otherwise, then x would have done otherwise." Thus my typing at this moment is a free act for if I had chosen not to type I would not be typing. That is not to say there is no cause determining that I will type.

This is the so-called Compatilist Theory, i.e. a belief in determinism (or predesintation) is compatible with free will and human responsibility. Jonathan Edwards, best known as a hell-fire damnation preacher, was also the first great American philosophy. He argues for both predestination and free will. There will be opportunties to explore this Compatilist theory as we work our way through the history of western philosophy.

Floyd, then you are saying that the fact I am typing in response to our discussion now has no bearing whatsoever on what you have already thought as of this day, February 1st, after 12:00 noon. It is now 6:46 p.m. and it is too late to influence you what took place before 12:00 noon? My head hurts, does yous?

Temporal causation does involve a relationship between the past and the future. Part of our meaning of the word "cause" is that it is an event A which precedes event B.

But that is not what the predestinarians are saying, They are simply affirming that God eternally wills certain events to take place. This decree is not like ordinary causation working within time.

This gets tied up with a belief in God's foreknowledge. God knows everything that is going to happen tomorrow because tomorrow is a present experience to God.

Of course, that raises other serious questions. If God knows what I will do tomorrow, it would seem that I have no freedom not to do it. Boethius denies that conclusion by pointing out that the fact that I know what a person is doing right now does not imply that I am causing her to do it; likewise the fact that God knows what will happen tomorrow (because it is part of God's present experience) does not imply that God causes tomorrow's events to happen.

Cut that as you will I still think it amounts to saying that everything is determined by God. That is why some philosophers cannot believe in a traditional God. For example, Jean-Paul Sartre could not believe in God because for him the most important is "we are condemned to be free."

I want to call your attention to a Pseudo-Dionysius, a philosopher discussed only briefly by Russell. (see page 403) This Neo-Platonic Christian had a major influence on the development of philosophy in the Middle Ages. Part of his influence came from the mistaken belief that his writings were the work of Dionysius the Areopagite, a convert of St. Paul. He, much more than Boethius, influenced Christian thiners to adopt the Neo-Platonic philosophy.

He especially influenced the man Russell calls John the Scot, one of the most innovative and creative philosophers not only of the Middle Ages, but perhaps of any age. I will have some further things to say about John the Scot in my next post.

I know I can't understand this discussion about predestination and free will, so I am not even going to try.

What I'm trying to figure out is how all this political and ecclesiastical history is related to philosophy. It seems that St. Ambrose established the Church's authority over that of the State, at least in spiritual matters. I suppose the implication is that the church preserved whatever remained of Greek and Roman philosophy; and if the Church had collapsed, this ancient philosophy would have been lost forever. Charlemagne set up the Holy Roman Empire and attempted to preserve classical culture. He was an interesting and able ruler. An illiterate barbarian, Russell calls him, but he encouraged education in his realm and temporarily lit a light in the Dark Ages.

I want to add a few more words about the Pseudo-Dionysius before moving on to John the Scot.

Pseudo-Dionysius, whoever he was, addressed the question of how we approach God, distinguishing between the affirmative and the negative ways. The affirmative way ascribes to God the perfections found in creatures, those that are compatible with the perfection of God. (For example, we can affirm that God has Life and Goodness.)

The negative way excludes from God he imperfections found in creatures. When the mind has stripped away from its knowledge of God inadequate conceptions of the Deity, it enters upon "the Darkness of Unknowing." This is the province of mysticism.

I believe there is an agnostic element in Christian theism and that Pseudo-Dionysius emphasized the limitation of human knowledge in regard to God.

Neo-Platonic influences on Pseudo-Dionysius probably led him in the direction of an unorthodox doctrine of God, which places the emphasis on God's Oneness, not upon the Trinity. In regard to God's relationship to the world, he uses the word "emanation." but F. C. Copleston denies that he wa

Floyd---an agnostic element in Christian theism? What on earth is it? I knew there were all sorts of agnostic elements in my personal theism, but I thought most Christians were pretty sure of what they believed.

Shasta, the agnostic element in Christian thought has been preserved in the mystical tradition and is recognized within both the Roman Catholic and Anglican Church. Some of us have mainly encountered a form of Protestant evangelical and fundamentalist preaching that gives the impression of possessing complete knowlege of God, thus losing this agnostic element.

Bertrand Russell says that John the Scot is the most astonishing person of the ninth century. He provides us with the background information we need to understand his life. My comments are limited to his daring speculative metaphysics presented in his book "ON THE DIVISION OF NATURE."

The whole of Nature is divided into four classes: (1) what creates and is not created; (2) what creates and is created; (3) what is created b ut does not create; and (4) what is neither creates nor is created.

John means by Nature the totality of things that are and are not. So Nature includes not only the natural world, but also God and the supernatural sphere. It refers to all of Reality. Thus it seems that John was a Pantheist; i.e. he identified God and Nature. Russell interprets John in that way, but others point out that there are passages in which he denies that he is a pantheist.

Nature which creates and is not created is obviously God, who is the cause of all things but is not caused by anything else. He may have intended to preserve a distinction between God and the creation, but he uses illustrations which suggest that God is actualized in the creation. He follows Pseudo-Dionysius in using both the way of affirmation and the way of negation in trying to speak of God.

The second divison of nature is the realm of Ideas (Plato's forms). They are God's ideas, corresponding to the Christian concept of the Logos, the Son of God.

The third division of nature is nature in the narrow sense. Creatures were made by God out of nothing. They emanate from the divine ideas, like water flows from a fountain.

The fourth division, that which neither creates nor is created, is the end of all things. This is the stage of the return of all things to God. Even as everything proceeds from God, so shall all things return to God. In the end God will be all in all; nothing will exist but God alone.

Those of you who have studied Hindu though will recognize similarities between John and the Hindu teachings about absorption of all things in Brahman. John insists, however, that we will continue to exist as individuals within God.

It would seem that we poor creatures are no more than skin cells that die and are replaced by others on the surface of the planet (God), or if you will - Pantheism.

I have never understood how the philosophers come to their conclusions. Example: If this be so (often assuming so), then it naturally follows that this be so. They assume a premise and off they gallop. Pantheism is one of those gallops.

The possibilities of God as discussed by the ancients is almost a "any thing" goes to discuss the unknowable, and I guess that is so. Some of the philosophers make Genesis seem sensible by comparison.

A pantheist must cringe everytime violence is done to a forest, a river polluted, a smoke-stack unfiltered, a runaway government unchecked. Pain in living is unavoidable is all I know for sure. Perhaps that makes me a Pantheist.

For a nature-lover like me, pantheism offers no problem. I'm not familiar with the Hindu concept about the absorption of all things in Brahman, but I was thinking about one of the current theories in physics---that all matter is slowly expanding and will eventually begin to contract until it returns to its source. This sounds like John the Scot's theory that all nature will eventually return to God.

Russell states that God's being is the Father, his wisdom the Son, and his life the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is a concept I have never understood. Every time I ask somebody to explain it to me, I suspect they don't understand it either. Is it the life force that animates the world? "Under the influence of the Holy Ghost, these prime causes (Ideas) give rise to the world of particular things."

I would like to hear some clarification on this.

Explanations of the Holy Spirit have never been as clear as those of God the Father and God the Son. Russell says that according to John the Scot, "In the being of things God's being can be seen; in their order...His being is the Father, His wisdom the Son, His life the Holy Ghost."

He goes on to say, "The world of ideas is eternal, and yet created. Under the influence of the Holy Ghost, these prime causes give rise to the world of particular things, the materiality of which is illusory."

So the Holy Spirit is a creative force which cause the divine ideas to give rise to material things. This is a very philosophical concept of Spirit, and even though John claiims to believe in the Trinity, it is not clear that he is orthodox in his understanding of the Trinity.

John, like other pantheists, deduces the particular from the universal. I think they start with the presupposition that God is identical with Nature and they then develop a logical metaphysical system.

One exciting aspect of John's formulation is its clear universalism. All things will ultimately return to God; no one will be eternally lost. Even the devil will eventually be redeemed. I don't know if that is true but it is a comforting thought to me. It does seem consistent with the way God is often portrayed in the New Testament. Consider the parable of the prodigal son. God is the loving Father who waits for His son to return home. In the end God will be All and in all.

Floyd, it gives me no comfort to think that all sinners will eventually be redeemed. I don't want Hitler to ever be redeemed. I honestly don't believe in eternal damnation; what I really believe is that the wicked are too weak in spirit to pass over into eternity, so they will simply vanish (which is what I expect to happen to me.)

HOWEVER, I retain in my private theology a Hell for my bitterest enemies, and I want Hitler kept there forever, with flames coming out of his ears! You can see I'm no true Christian.

But that's not what is bothering me now. Every time this subject of the Holy Ghost comes up, I start trying again to figure it out. You say it is a creative force which transforms divine ideas into material things. Now, Floyd, that's what the life force of nature does. Isn't the Holy Ghost just the life force that flows through nature and creates all these different kinds of matter?

Where did the concept of the Holy Ghost originate? Was it with the Jews? Or was it with the Christians? Why did they think they needed this Third Person in order to complete their understanding of God? I know that your mind is stocked with all kinds of theological facts, which I don't have access to. Tell me something that I can use, and you will have done your good deed for the day.

I am having problems with John the Scot’s claiming evil has no ground with God. That God has no opposite. I was always taught that the Devil was God’s opposite. Of course, I was taught many things that are not true. But John seems to make a distinction between sin and evil. If I read him correctly, he says sin results when, in our free will, we stray from God. When does evil enter the picture? Is it a matter of degree? Was Hitler, as Shasta suggests, the epitome of evil? When does sin become evil? Or does it? What did John mean when he said that evil is a privation of good?

Concerning the Trinity, I have yet to have anyone explain that one to me. Most, even the fundamentalist, can’t explain it. I don’t think John has convinced me at all of the Trinity. The Trinity, in my opinion, was an attempt to explain an impersonal God in becoming a personal God to give us poor creatures comfort.

Cathy, I've never distinguished between sin and evil. I thought they were the same thing. Maybe I'm mistaken. When evil is defined as the privation of good, I understand that to mean that evil is not a positive thing, but just the lack of goodness. It's like saying there is no such thing as darkness; it's just an absence of light.

As for the Trinity, I really would like to hear an expert explain that. For some reason, humans decided that there were three aspects of God. I understand God the Father to be the original God. The Son is--as you say--a personal God to give us comfort. But we'll have to wait for Floyd to tell us what the Holy Ghost is.

Shasta, I was trying to state what John Scotus says about the Holy Spirit; I certainly was not trying to state my own understanding of the orthodox teaching of Christianity about the Holy Spirit. It would take a very long book to answer the question you are asking; I will suggest only a few points.

1) The Hebrew word "ruach" may be translated either as "wind," "breath," or "spirit." In the Genesis story of creation "ruach" is said to move over the waters. Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, the word is used in various contexts to refer to the presence and power of the LORD. The Spirit is said to come upon the Judges giving them unusual power (as in the case of Samson) or the Spirit moves the prophecies to speak the word of the Lord. Isaiah says the Spirit of the Lord will annoint the Messiah. The prophet Joel speaks of a time when God's Spirit will be poured out on all flesh, both men and women, and they will all prophesy.

2) In the New Testament the Holy Spirit is involved in the birth of Jesus (he was conceived by the Holy Spirit.) When Jesus was baptized, the Spirit descended upon him as a dove and a voice from heaven declared that this was God's beloved Son. Jesus said that even as men give good gifts to their chidren, so the Heavenly Father will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him." Jesus told his disciples that he was going away, but that he would send the Paraclete (the Comforter or Counselor) to be with them. He said, "You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall be my witnesses...." This promise was fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost, when the Spirit came like a rushing mighty win and the disciples received power to bear witness to Christ. The promise was given that all who believed in Christ and were baptized would receive the gift of the Spirit. The fruit of the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit are mentioned by Paul in Galatians. He also says in Romans that as many as are led by the Spirit are the sons of God. He said the Spirit helps us pray.

I could go on and on but weil not do so. My point is that there are biblical teachings about the Holy Spirit which provide the basis for the Christian understanding, apart from what philosophers may have to say on the subject. The basic theme seems to ref

Floyd, it is really frustrating the way the computer cuts you off every time you are saying something. But you have told me one thing: it's a Jewish idea. The Christians inherited it from the Jews. I suppose if I had been thinking, I would have realized that. But do you think a basic idea like the Trinity should be so hard to understand that it takes a book to explain it? Any time something is this hard to understand, it makes me wonder why. Don't you think the idea of the Holy Ghost, in some form or other, was around long before the Jews spoke of it? Just as the Logos concept existed before the Christians said it was Christ. It seems to me it must be some ancient concept that it embedded in the human soul, and these ancient ideas are always the ones that fascinate me.

But anyway, I appreciate your taking the time to help me understand things.

That final sentence which did not make it to the post was a summary of the biblical view of the Holy Spirit as the presence and power of God. I need to add to that summary the word "personal." The work of the Holy Spirit is described in personal terms in the New Testament.

In Trinitarian formulations it was said that there is one God in three persons. Perhaps we find it easier to think of God the Father and God the Son as persons but we may think of the Spirit in more impersonal terms. The term "three persons" can be very misleading. Taken too literally it sounds like we are talking about three Gods. Muhammad explicitly rejected the Trinity for this very reason.

Translated into philosophical terms the word "spirit" is associated with life. I think that is what John the Scot was trying to say. Using Neoplatonic categories he thought of God the Father as the One; God the Son as the Nous; and the Holy Spirit as the dynamic force which causes the material world to emanate from the Nous. This loses some of the personal aspects of the Holy Spirit.

Shasta, I can understand why you would not celebrate the redemption of someone like Hitler, but I think God's unconditional love may possibly bring about that redemption.

I am shocked when I read statements made by some of the early American Calvinists, who rejoiced over the eternal damnation of the wicked. I could never find any comfort in the thought that some people will spend eternity in hell, but I admit that this is a possibility. As the theologian, Edwin Lewis, once said: "This is the kind of world where people can get damned."

I would only add that if anyone is eternally damned, it is not God's fault. God is the Loving Father seeking ther redemption for everyone. As Francis Thompson said in the poem "The Hound of Heaven" God continues to pursue the sinner like a hound on the track of its prey. One has to fight off the love of God to get damned.

The philosophical universalism in the philosophy of John the Scot is the most attractive aspect of his thought, at least for me.

Floyd, I just wanted to tell you that my last post disappeared after printing out on the screen, so now we know the problem is not in your system. I haven't your patience so I am not going to try to reconstruct all my brilliant remarks so you and Cathy will never know what you missed!

Floyd - I agree with you that John of Scot’s belief that All, is eventually forgiven by God, is a very comforting premise. Likewise Erik Gustaf Geijer says: “There is no man who cannot do ONE thing better than everybody else” - one of the most comforting sentences ever pronounced. But in the extraordinary outfit of creative genius the original and peculiar appears more clearly. So, in effect, to me, that means we all are in the process of creating and that part of us which does create: in thought, word, or deed, is divine.

It is so easy to fall in with those parts of any philosophy that strikes a nerve with us. I like the idea that God continues to reveal himself in genius. In the words of Nathan Soderblom: “Genius proves the the real essence of existence is creation, not merely necessity. Could Hitler have been a new type of genius, which set him apart from all others. One hates to give him any status at all, but he had a philosophy that carried him through many years of glory! That is a terrible thing to have to admit, but it is history. He was almost worhiped and certainly earned a permanent place in history. If genius is God revealing himself and ALL are forgiven as John of Scot contends, then I can understand his belief (John of Scot) that Evil does not exist. I can understand it, but I can’t accept it.

Hitler probably was a genius; the problem is that he was an evil genius. He is sometimes described as though he was an abnormal and nearly nonhuman freak. In this way we are able to avoid looking at the evil potential in ordinary human beings.

I cannot agree with Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, and John Scotus that evil is a privation of the good. It seems to me that it is a positive force, too real to be regarded only as deprivation of the good.

I do believe that the love of God is able to overcome evil and continue to hope for the triumph of the good and the redemption of all.

Are we ready now to move on to a discussion of the Schoolmen? Where are you LJ? We need your guidance. I hope you are doing well.

I'm awake and alert and the "Schoolmen" are in the fore as of tomorrow (the 7th). I have certainly enjoyed the postings during this last segment. I thimk that Cathy has touched upon some VERY important "Theo-Philosophiocal" material.

If "God" is good, the "Creative" force, Present equally in all that exists, and incomprehensible; and if everything changes always with both matter and energy changing and mutating, then God must also be the author of the decay (destruction or "Evil") inherrant in creation.

Best

LJ

Shasta - I feel your pain! How frustrating it is to post, with what one considers great care, only to have it gobbled up and dumped WHERE? :-0! I think there is some protection from this callused event in composing off line and then using the copy/paste option. It works well with me. Anytime I make a comment over two or three sentences I go with the off line option.

Too bad, that we participants in the philosophical discussion folder must do without your very well constructed thoughts that were obliterated in this bit of cyberspace betrayal. You are very honest and sincere in your search for truth, as we all are, or we would not be in this discussion.

You managed to express your frustration, yet did so with humor. I enjoy your imput!

I also would like to hear from L.J more. I hope he is doing well. His comments are always succinet in their nature.

It is very difficult for any philosophical understanding of God which leans towards pantheism to avoid the conclusion either that evil is not real or that God is in some way responsible for the evil as well as the good.

C. S. Lewis, whose popular interpretation of Christianity has been read by millions, rejects pantheism because he thinks it glosses over the problem of evil and detracts from the seriousness of moral conflict. He believes that Christianity is far more dualistic than most people think. As anyone who has read "The Screwtape Letters" knows, Lewis takes the devil rather seriously, even though he mocks him and affirms the triumph of God over the devil.

I recall Martin Luther saying something to the effect that God has two hands with which He does his work. His right hand is Christ; his left hand is the devil. A similar thought is found in the Book of Job, where satan is represented as one of God's servants.

I think this preserves some of the insights that people such as John the Scot are trying to make. If one takes seriously the identification of God and Nature, then one has to see what is called evil as part of God.

Paul Tillich, in his usual abstruse manner, said that Nonbeing is embraced within Being. It is as if evil is"God's bellyache!" Evil is not something outside of God, for nothing can be outside of God.

According to this way of thinking, God is no static Being; God is the dynamic power struggling against the evil within Himself (or Itself).

Add to that the concept that both beauty and evil are largely in the eye of the beholder. Thus Sin can be defined only on the basis of the individual's concept. To many, "Jealousy" is evil/sinful, yet Elijah was "Very jealous for the lord" Was that evil/sinful?

Even the Decalogue is available for analysis in this framework.

Lewis and Tillich (To both of whom I owe some of my early growth) both make an effort to deal with reality largely without resorting to "Emotional" appeals.

Best

LJ

Cathy, I have no idea what the copy/paste option is. I only know two things about the computer: how to turn it on and how to turn it off. My daughter taught me this and then she moved away and left me stranded.

I have settled the question of evil for myself, and I refuse to let anybody convince me otherwise. You have to sacrifice a lot to believe what I believe, but it's the only thing I've ever been satisfied with. I have a friend who always says, "Shasta's made up her mind, so don't confuse her with facts."

A few pages back, Russell remarked that "organizations have a life of their own, independent of the intention of their founders. Of this fact, the most strking example is the Catholic Church, which would astonish Jesus and Paul." I think that's putting it mildly. When Jesus and Paul looked down on the corruption of the church they founded, Jesus must have cried out, "I was nailed to a cross for this?" And Paul: "Yes, and my endless toil to establish the little churches, the travel, the preaching, the letter-writing, the floggings, the imprisonment, the beheading. And this is what it all came to!"

Pope Benedict IX was so debauched that he shocked even the Romans. Imagine surpassing the Romans in debauchery.

What are SCHOOLMEN?

I apologize for getting ahead of the schedule, which L.J. carefully prepared for us. It seems we are only now supposed to be discussing John the Scot. I have never thought of him as one of "the Schoolmen."

I assume Russell used the term to refer to what is usually called "the Scholastic Philosophers." This term is used to refer to a medieval system of Christian thought based on the methods of logic used by Aristotle. The most important Scholastic philosopher was Saint Thomas Aquinas, but I will try to behave and postpone any comments on him.

Floyd, I think you are skipping all this dreary history, which I am tempted to do myself, and moving on to the philosophers you like. I am about to read Chapter X about Mohammedan Culture, which sounds interesting. Am I on schedule?

Again, I read last night into the wee hours of the morning. It is taking its toll. I don’t like the dark circles under my eyes. The chapters on the Reformation are rather boring.

It was with tired dismay that I learned how long it took to “clean up” the process of electing a Pope. It is depressing to realize that they would rather continue on in a crippled way rather than make changes. If a system is working for the powers that be, those who benefit fight with great energy to keep the same circumstances going in order to keep their privileges - they are conservatives. Those for whom the system does not work and wish to make reform are liberals. To me that is a basic truth of politics/ religion. Religion and politics are bedfellows now as never before as we have seen with the Religious Right

The buying and selling of religious offices and services is not an unfamiliar story - even today. . Even when reform wins it has its compromises, as when the unlawfulness of simony was established but was not retro-active in the times of reformation. Do the priests of today still charge for praying the deceased out of purgatory? I know as recently as 15 - 20 years ago it was common practice. Or at least it was in our local Catholic Church.

It was interesting to learn during the reformation of the Catholic Church the REAL reason for insisting that priests remain unmarried and chaste was to protect her property and keep the married priests from passing on the wealth and property to their sons.

Do any one of you remember the elected Pope just prior to the election of the current Pope? If I remember correctly, he was Pope just a few days or weeks when he was found dead in his bed. Nobody seems to remember that, but I do. I would like to find out more about the circumstances of his death. I don’t know what name he took upon becoming Pope, he was rather young. I remember thinking it rather strange that he would die so suddenly and so soon after being elected . Perhaps reading of the rather common poisoning of pesky priests by bishops and other ecclesiastics before and during the Reformation, makes me look back on the late Pope’s untimely death as being sinister.

Cathy: Wasn't he John Paul I? And the current Pope took his name from him?

Am not sure.

Hi, Guys, I'm not wanting to divert the discussion, but if any of you would like to know how to save your posts against a possible crash or loss, click on my name and write me. I know it's frustrating, and have gotten to the point when I post a long one I save it: not that it's immortal, but that I'm too lazy to write it over.

Love your interest in this book and hope you'll do another one when it's over.

Hi, LJ, hope you are well!

Ginny

Ginny, All is well.

Ladies and Gentlemen, PLEASE do not feel overly constrained by the "Schedule". It is merely a general guideline and divergences are welcome.

Since St Patrick and early (very early) Irish Christianity are mentioned in this present period, I would like to recommend to you a book we read over a year ago in the mainline book club. "How The Irish Saved Civilization" This, (Along with the history of the early years of the church, i.e. the first four centuries) is an era of speciel interest to me.

The suggestion of importance from an historical point of view is that developmentally, the two most important changes in course toward modern "Theology" were first "Apostole Apostole" (The apostle Paul), then St. Patrick followed by the "Organization Men" in the post-Dark Ages.

Christianity, after all, started as a form of Judaism. I suspect that anyone "Looking Down On" early Irish Christianity (Catholicism) would have been quite satisfied with the direction it had taken at that time, but of course it had to be snuffed out as the organization grew.

Best

LJ

L.J.--- I am sorry I missed "How The Irish Saved Civilization." That has got to be a wonderful book, and I must read it. (I'm half Irish.)

Cathy, when I want to find out something, I call the local library and ask them to look it up for me. They are sure to have a list of past popes, and will tell you where to find the information you want. I suppose the younger generation would tell you to look it up on the computer. It seems to contain every kind of information, if you can only figure out where to find what you want, but I never can. I left the Catholic Church a long time ago, but I'll bet you can still get a person out of purgatory with prayers.

Ginny and Shasta: I simply went to the search engine Infoseek and typed in John Paul I. There was immediately many sources for the information I seeked. All on the Murder of John Paul I.

This was so timely with what we are discussing in the Reformation that It came as a shock to me that in l978 Papal assassination was still in place.

There are times when words fail me. I know one cannot find something seeked, but one can find something sought. Geeeee!

Shasta, don't feel alone, I have been astounded at how many times I've suddenly started spelling its as it's as in it held it's book!! IT IS BOOK?

I do know better.

Certainly didn't realize John Paul I was murdered!! I better go look that up.

Ginny

On page 417 Bertrand Russell introduces us to Saint Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury (1093-1109).. Anselm was a philosopher and theologian in the Augustinian tradition. He says: "I do not seek to understand, in order that I might believe; but I believe that I may understand..

Anselm's greatest influence on western philosophy was his development of "the ontological argument for the existence of God.," which proceeds from the idea of God to God as a reality. He states the argument as follows: "God is that than which none greater can be thought: But tht than which no greater can be thought must exist, not only mentally, in idea, but also extramentally: Therefore God exists , not only in idea, mentally, but also extramentally. The Major Premiss simple gives the idea of God, the idea which a man has of God even if he denies His existence. The Minor Premiss is cler, since if that than which no greater can be thought existed only in the mind, it would not be that than which no greater can be thought. A greater could be thught, i.e. a being that existed in extramental reality as well as in idea."

This argument was attacked almost immediately by th monk Gaunilo. He argued that the fact that we have an idea of something does not prove that it exists outside of our minds. For example, I can think of a perfect island, but that does not mean it actually exists.

Anselm responds by saying, "This argument applies only to the idea of a perfect being. (Even the most perfect island would have limitations.)

Russell points out that even though the argument has been rejected by most theologians, it has been taken very seriously by philosophers, such as Descartes and Leibniz, though Kant thought he had destroyed it. Russell concludes, "Clearly an argument with such a distinguished history is to be treated with respect, whether valid or not. I would only add that it is still being discussed by contemporary philosophers.

Cathy, tell us what happened to Pope John Paul 1. I wonder why I don't remember anything about this.

This Ontological Argument doesn't make sense to me. Why should something exist just because we can imagine it? Why did Descartes and Leibniz take this seriously? They must have seen something in the argument that I don't see.

<Picture><Picture> Io

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Murder of John Paul I

[This is an edited version of a piece appearing in Apokalypso. The information contained in the original article is very well documented.]

To understand the forces at work in the sudden death of Pope John Paul I in 1978, we should first back up a bit in time to the 19th Century, when the Church was stripped of its sovereign power in the Papal States by the Italian national revolution. As a result, after 1870 the Pope became the pathetic "Prisoner of the Vatican." Perhaps to compensate for the loss of his earthly kingdom, Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) convoked Vatican Council I with the purpose of promulgating the doctrine of papal infallibility.

For his role in delivering the Italian nation into the bloody hands of Mussolini, Pope Pius XI (1922-1939) received the equivalent of $80 ÂÐ

<Picture><Picture> Io

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Murder of John Paul I

[This is an edited version of a piece appearing in Apokalypso. The information contained in the original article is very well documented.]

To understand the forces at work in the sudden death of Pope John Paul I in 1978, we should first back up a bit in time to the 19th Century, when the Church was stripped of its sovereign power in the Papal States by the Italian national revolution. As a result, after 1870 the Pope became the pathetic "Prisoner of the Vatican." Perhaps to compensate for the loss of his earthly kingdom, Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) convoked Vatican Council I with the purpose of promulgating the doctrine of papal infallibility.

For his role in delivering the Italian nation into the bloody hands of Mussolini, Pope Pius XI (1922-1939) received the equivalent of $80 million ($500 million in today's dollars) and restoration of the papacy's temporal sovereignty in Vatican City under the terms of the Lateran Treaty of 1929. Pius and his successors would exploit this treaty to create a Vatican Bank, effectively beyond the reach of any regulation by secular authorities, thus uniquely suited to the work of tax evasion and money laundering.

Under the totalitarian doctrine laid down by Vatican Council I, any deviation from the Pope's moral teaching was by definition "error." Sacrificing his own health in the process, John XXIII struggled to pull together the reformist Vatican Council II in the face of fierce opposition by conservatives, who feared that any relaxation of Papal absolutism would undermine the entire Vatican edifice. To some degree, the conservatives proved right, for the free thought which Vatican Council II had encouraged did not stop with the Council's largely symbolic reforms of the Catholic liturgy, but proceeded on to challenge the worldly power and wealth which the modern Church had erected.

After the death of John XXIII in 1963, the deadlock between conservatives and reformers in the College of Cardinals resulted in the election of a vacillating Pope Paul VI, who would agonize over the question of the morality of artificial birth control. During this time, Paul would be subjected to immense pressure from the old guard in the Curia, who were already battling to turn back the liberalizing tide of Vatican Council II.

When the conclave assembled in the wake of Paul's death, it was deeply divided between those who sought to move forward with the democratic agenda of Vatican Council II and those who yearned for a reversion to the rigid dogma before Pope John XXIII. Cardinal Albino Luciani's simple, self-effacing demeanor, gave him appeal to the conservative Curia as a perfect compromise candidate, whom they could effectively control.

Once elected, however, the new Pope began to display the brilliant mind and charisma that had been concealed behind his former reticent reserve. Not awed in the least by his exalted station, John Paul I immediately threw himself into an all-out effort to revolutionize the Papacy, to return it to its spiritual origins. At his coronation, he refused to be carried on the papal sedan and to wear the jewel-encrusted tiara. He refused to follow the scripts prepared for him by the Curia at his audiences and press conferences. Totally exasperated by the new Pontiff's unexpected independence, the Curia actually began to censor the Pope's remarks from the Vatican's daily newspaper, particularly when he began to express his positive views on contraception.

While Albino Luciani proved to be an irritant to the Curia in many ways, he made himself its absolute nemesis when he delved into the Vatican Bank's dealings, which dated back to the reign of his predecessor. In 1968, Pope Paul VI had taken into his confidence a Sicilian financier named Michele Sindona.

Sindona's spectacular rise from veritable rags to control of a vast international banking empire was partially due to the support of his patrons in the Mafia and in P2, a secret Masonic society controlled by Lucio Gelli. Gelli had assembled a network of right-wing military and political figures. Relying on bribery, extortion, and, when necessary, assassination and terrorism to expand his web of power, Gelli financed his empire through the systematic plunder of a growing string of banks acquired by his associate Roberto Calvi. With the help of Gelli and Calvi, Sindona gained control of a group of some of the oldest and most prestigious financial institutions in Italy and Switzerland, including several in which the Vatican held an interest.

Paul VI had turned to Sindona for financial advice in 1968 when the government abolished the Vatican's tax exemption for income from Italian investments. Fearing embarrassment at the public disclosure of the enormity of its financial portfolio, the Vatican opted to divest most of its domestic assets. Sindona offered an attractive price; his patrons in the Gambino family would exchange the "dirty" proceeds of their heroin trade for "clean" assets. Of course, the Holy See was not expected to deal directly with the Mafia, whose blood money they would receive; instead, a shell corporation was set up for the single task of acting as the conduit for the Gambino money.

With his bright intelligence and naive fearlessness, John Paul I penetrated to the heart of this maze of corruption within weeks of his coronation. On the evening of September 28, 1978, he called Cardinal Villot, the leader of the powerful Curia, to his private study to discuss certain changes that the Pope proposed to make public the next day. [It has been reported that John Paul was also considering the release of the famous "Third Secret of Fatima," which was supposed to have been given to the public in 1960.] Among those whose "resignations" would be accepted by the Pontiff the following day were the head of the Vatican Bank, and several members of the Curia who were implicated in the activities of Sindona and P2, and Villot himself. Moreover, Villot was told that John Paul I would also announce plans for a meeting on October 24 with an American delegation to discuss a reconsideration of the Church's position on birth control.

When Pope John Paul I retired to his bedroom on the evening of September 28, clutching the paperwork that would expose the Vatican's financial dealings with the Mafia and purge the Curia of those responsible, a number of very ruthless individuals had a great interest in seeing to it that he would never awaken to issue these directives.

When the Pope's housekeeper knocked at his door at 4:30 a.m., she heard no response. Leaving a cup of coffee, she returned fifteen minutes later to find the Pope still not stirring. She entered the bed chamber and gasped when she saw the Pope propped up in bed, still holding papers from the night before, his face contorted in a grimace. On the night table beside him lay an opened bottle of Effortil, a medication for his low blood pressure. The housekeeper immediately notified Cardinal Villot, whose first response to the news was to summon the papal morticians even before verifying the death himself or calling the Vatican physician to examine the body. Villot arrived in the Pope's room at 5:00 a.m. and gathered the crucial papers, the Effortil bottle, and several personal items which were soiled with vomit. None of these articles were ever seen again.

Although the Vatican claimed that its house physician had determined myocardial infarction as the cause of death, to this day no death certificate for Pope John Paul I has been made public. Although Italian law requires a waiting period of at least 24 hours before a body may be embalmed, Cardinal Villot had the body of Albino Luciani prepared for within 12 hours of his death. Although the Vatican refused to allow an autopsy on the basis of an alleged prohibition against it in cannon law

Russell's discussion of what he calls "Mohammedan Culture and Philosophy" is important information about the development of Medieval philosophy, but his terminology is outdated and inapproprate. We should speak of Muslim or Islamic culture.

We are indebted to Muslim scholars for preserving and interpreting the works of Aristotle. Two Muslim scholars are especially important--Avicenna and Averroes, with the latter having the greater influence on Christians.

Averroes believed that the interpretation of Aristotle had been unduly influenced by Neoplatonism. One of his views which is expecially important for Christian philosophy is his conviction that the exisence of God can be proved by reason. This view was adopted by Thomas Aquinas.

Averroes seemed to agree with Aristotle that the soul is not immortal, though Nous or intellect survives death. Aquinas modified the Aristotelian view to make it more consistent with Christian doctrine.

"Power Corrupts"

As we come thru the mid-point of the current era (i000 A.D.) One must remember that the two all pervading evils of civilization are money and sex.

The evolution of society and the idea of reciprocal altruism are history, but the "Control" of people via sex is the most fascinating aspect of theo-philosophical development.

Here lies a most important difference between Eastern and Western development. To oversimplify: The only interdict in the East is against "Illicit" sex, and the definition of "Illicit" is largely to be found in the mind of the individual. One would assume this to be the opposite approach to the subject from the Western tradition where sex and religion are interdigitated bedfellows.

The discussion of JohnPaul first is extremely interesting, but no proofs are likely to be forthcoming in the forseeable future.

Best

LJ

Floyd, One might think of the "Middle East" as somewhere between Eastern and Western thought, but perhaps it would help (me- at least) if you could distinguish between Muslim, Islamic, and Mohammadan for us.

Best

LJ

Cathy, that information about all that intrigue in the Vatican could make a person lose his religion, if he hadn't already lost it. I really thought that kind of thing had stopped a long time ago, but I guess where power is concerned, there is always this unholy wrangling.

Floyd, I was interested in Averroes' belief that God's existence can be proved by reason, but Russell doesn't explain what this proof is. Maybe Thomas Aquinas will elucidate on this.

I was also trying to follow Avicenna's version of Plato's Ideas. Plato said that Ideas precede things. Aristotle said things produce ideas. Avicenna said that ideas exist before, in, and after things. Abelard said the resemblance of things gives rise to universals (Aristotle) but ideas exist in the divine mind as patterns for creation (Plato.) I keep trying to figure out which theory seems most logical to me, but I can't. They all sound good to me.

L.J.---I don't know how sex entered into our discussion, but I have speculated that in previous cultures, there was not the distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuatity that we stress in our culture. Both the Greeks and Romans seemed to accept both and to practice both. Was it our Jewish heritage that set up clear and moral distinctions between the two?

It seems my post concerning the terminology which properly describes Muslims is not here so I will try again. My point is that whereas it is appropriate to call followers of Jesus Christians, because Christ is the focal symbol for Christians, Muslims should not be called Mohammedans. The focal symbol for Muslims is the Koran, The name of their religion is Islam, meanaing peace or submission, and the faithful are Muslims, those who have submitted.

Averroes used a form of the cosmological argument for God, first found in Aristotle, but developed more fully in Aquinas' Five Ways of proving the existence of God. I will comment on the Five Ways in a later post.

It seems my post concerning the terminology which properly describes Muslims is not here so I will try again. My point is that whereas it is appropriate to call followers of Jesus Christians, because Christ is the focal symbol for Christians, Muslims should not be called Mohammedans. The focal symbol for Muslims is the Koran, The name of their religion is Islam, meaning peace or submission, and the faithful are Muslims, those who have submitted. Muhammad is a man not a divine being. He is the last of the prophets.

Averroes used a form of the cosmological argument for God, first found in Aristotle, but developed more fully in Aquinas' Five Ways of proving the existence of God. I will comment on the Five Ways in a later post.

In as much I was late in getting started in this discussion, perhaps I missed the reasoning on the practice of prefacing a philosopher’s name with the prefix of: pseudo - not genuine; neo - modified. What is the difference? Anything modified is not genuine from the original. This really bothers me. Perhaps it has already been discussed. Can someone clarify this for me?

The chapter of Islam culture has made me aware how little Americans know of other cultures. We so often allow the media to form our concept of a foreign people. I think that is what has happened in my perception of the Arab people. From the popular news coverage they seem to be an emotional people, bordering sometimes on the hysterical. I have the perception their religion is harsh; their attitude intolerant.

Perhaps their religion is intolerant today, but it would seem it has not always been so. The Arabs upon conquering foreign peoples in the past never seemed to encounter much resistance. They very often ruled without much upheaval and letting those in office to remain in office. They very often lowered the conquered peoples taxes. They never persecuted the Christians, and seemed to benefit those they reigned over. That certainly doesn’t seem to fit the Arabs today. What factors changed their collective Muslim persona?

Neo is used as a prefix to a philosophy to indicate that it is a new formulation of that philosophy (such as Neoplatonism) Dionysius is called Pseudo because of the false belief that he was Dionysius, the convert of Paul.

______________________________________________________________________

A previous post asked what was meant by the "Schoolmen:" or "Scholasticicism" Russell gives a clear explanation of Scholasticism on pp. 435ff.

First, it is confined to within the limits of what appears to the writer to be orthodoxy. Second, Aristotle is increasingly accepted as the supreme authority. Third, there is a great belief in "dialectic" and in syllogistic reasoning.

Please read carefully what Russell says about Abelard, one of the Scholastic philosophers of the twelfth century. Abelard may be best known for his love affair with Heloise, niece of Canon Fulbert.. In order to break up the affair Fulbert had Abelard castrated. He went to a monastery and she to a nunnery, but the continued exchanging love letters.

Abelard's most famous book is "Sic et Non" (Yes and No), in which he gives arguments both for and against a variety of theses. Russell says his greatest importance is as a logician and a philosopher of language, two dominant interests of philosophy in the twentieth century.

Floyd---I have re-read the pages about Abelard. What should we learn from him? The love story of Abelard and Heloise is certainly tragic. I've read somewhere that they had a son before they were separated. I wonder what became of him.

In terms of the history of western phllosophy Abelard's use of logic in support of opposing theses is more important than the love affair. We need to remember that the Scholastics tried to operate within the bounds of orthodoxy, but Abelard was not altogether successful in that attempt.

Aquinas also followed the method of presenting arguments for opposing points of view, but he always tried to eliminate any contradictions by stating what he believed to be the correct belief.

I had a profound dislike of Abelard. It is clear to see why his personal assets were easy to ignore. He seemed to be an argumentative egoist. I, taking Russell’s measure of the man, feel that his so called deep love for Heloise was a balm to his ego and her devotion to him was exaggerated in his writings.

No matter how intelligent a person may be if they cannot step outside of their ego and see reality as it is, their gift of intellect is wasted. Abelard’s intellect seems to have been wasted as this particular writing of Russell’s is the first time I have ever heard of Abelard. Perhaps that says more of my lack of knowledge than his lack of influence. Anyway my notion of him is that he delighted in being in opposition to popular theory and beliefs of the tenth century. I suppose we need the likes of him to mock common belief, but they suffer for their role in being disturbers of collective wisdom.

O.K.! I am ready to ask the question: What did you want to know about universalism/ particulars, but were afraid to ask? I think I understand universalism - that which gives us all the same value. But, perhaps, the particulars override universals. For example? Women are the opposite of men; therefore men are opposite of women; therefore the opposite are EVER opposed. Wheeeee! So be it? I give up. Explain someone! Where did Abelard come down on these?

We can introduce the problem of universals by looking at a simple statement like "John is a man." We know that the word "John" refers to a particular individual, but what is the referent of the word "man"? The word "man" refers to a univeral, or a class of individuals.

Is a universal simply a collection of individuals or am I referring to an essence? If universals have a reality outside of our minds, precisely how is it related to individuals? What is the ontological status of universals? Are they real outside of our mindsd?

There are four possible answers.

(1) Extreme realism. Mental conceptions have a real existence apart from the particular objects of the sense world. This is Plato's answer.

(2) Moderate Realism. This is Aristotle's view and it was accepted by Thomas Aquinas. Universals are real, but they have no existence apart from the individual things in which they are realized.

(3) Conceputalism. Conceptualists admits the validity of universal conceptions as mental facts formed by the activity of the mind. We are obliged to think by means of universals, but we can never know if there is any reality outside the mind corresponding to such conceptions.

(4) Nominalism. This is the opposite of Extreme Realism. Only individuals have extramental reality. We classify certain individuals under a common name. The name alone is universal.

There is some doubt about whether any Medieval philosophers were nominalists, although it is possible that Roscelin was, and that led him to speak of the Triniy as three Gods. We will study several modern philosopohers who were definitely nominalists.

Abelard argued against Extreme Realism, but he was not a nominalist. He thinks universals signify real things.

Floyd---I'm glad you gave us that explanation of realism, conceptualism, and nominalism. You usually make things clearer than Russell does.

Now, I'm waiting to hear St. Thomas Aquinas' five proofs of God's existence. This is something I would really like to understand. I understand "the unmoved mover" and the "first cause" (I think) but I don't see the difference between the two. The argument of various perfections in the world doesn't seem clear to me either. Why should the perfections imply a perfect source any more than the imperfections imply an imperfect source?

Russell really doesn't make much effort to explain these arguments.

Aquinas rejected the ontological argument, which had been developed by Anselm. There is no argument from the concept of God to the existence of God.

Aquinas presents what has become known as the Cosmological Argument. Even though he speaks of five ways of proving the existence of God, all five have the same basic pattern, differing only in that they start from a different fact about the world.

Each of the five Ways begins with something we know to be true from sense experience. We observe things in motion and see that a thing cannot move itself; it must be moved by some other being. We see an order of efficient causes and see that a thing cannot be the cause of itself.

I will comment on those two ways before moving to the third way. Both of them are causal arguments; there must be some causal explanation of the facts we observe. Aquinas rules out the possibility of an infinite regress of causes. I don't think he means it is impossibile to have an infinite temporal series, for he does not believe we can prove that the world had a beginning.

No, what he is claiming is that there cannot be an infinite series of explanations of why there is a world at all. If there is no ultimate explanation, then we have no rational explanation at all.

To state the argument in its barest outline: "Everything that exists has a cause for its existence; the world exists; therefore there must be a cause for the existence of the world. And this we all understand to be God."

Russell says that he accepted this argument as a boy, but later he asked: "If everything must have a cause, what is the cause of God." He was told that there is no cause for God's existence. Russell decided that if there is no need for a causal explanation of God's existence why must there be a cause for the existence of the world.

We can find Aquinas's answer to that kind of criticism in the Third Way. This argument is based on our observation of what he calls "possible beings." Those are beings which have the possibility of either existing or not existing. In this sense we are all "possible beings," i.e. there is no necessity for our existence.

Aquinas says not all beings can only be possible beings, for if it is possible for a thing not to exist then, given enough time, it will fail to exist. That means at some point nothing would be in existence. But if there was a time when nothing at all existed then nothing could exist now, for from nothing comes nothing. Therefore, there must be necesary being, i.e. beings which cannot not exist. They neither come into existence nor pass out of existence. The ultimate necessary being is what we mean by God.

God, as a necessary being, requires no causal explanation. When we say that there must be a cause for everything that exists, we are speaking of possible beings not necessary beings.

I realize this argument may be difficult to follow, but I have tried to summarize it as clearly as possible. There will be an opportunity to criticize it later.

I will also reserve comments about the Fourth and the Fifth Ways. They do not seem to fit exactly the same pattern as the first three. In fact, the Fifth Way is what is now called the Teleological Argument, or the Design Argument.

The jump from "God" as a first cause and "God" as a "Being" (Especially an anthropomorphic being) seems to me to be a hole in the consideration.

Best

LJ

L.J., I agree that Aquinas jumps much too quickly from the conclusion that there must be a First Cause to the statement "And this we know to be God." However, Aquinas is not saying that everything Christians believe about God can be proved by the causal argument. For example, reason cannot prove the Trinity.

I move on to my promised comments about the Fourth Way and the Fifth Way. The empirical basis of the Fourth Way is our observation of degrees of perfection in things. We say that some things are more or less perfect than others. From that fact Aquinas concludes that there must be Absolute Prefection, otherwise we would not have a standard by which we could say that some things are more or less perfect. And that Perfect Being is the cause of all of the other degrees of perfection.

The Fifth Way is the Teleological or Design Argument. We observe things which lack intelligence, yet they seem to be moving towards some end. We can see those movements in our own bodies, or in the growth of tree trunks towards water, or the migration of birds. Now there must be some Intelligent Being which guides all of those nonintelligent beings to their end. And, of course, this is God.

Modern philosophers, who often reject the other arguments for the existence of God, have found merit in this Design Argument. We will look at the criticisms and defense of the argument when we study David Hume.

It seems to me that the Cosmological Argument is based on the following supposed dilemma: "Either there is a God or the world is not rational. But we know that the world is rational; therefore there must be a God."

The problem with the argument, stated in this way, is that the skeptic is always free to reverse the argument: "Either there is a God or the world is not rational; there is no God; therefore the world is not rational."

The Cosmological Argument seems to assume that there must either be an ultimate rational explanation for the world, or the world has no rationality whatsoever. I don't see why we have to accept that assumption. There may be enough rationality about the world to enable us to live our lives reasonably well, without claiming that there is a totally rational explanation for everything.

How sad to hear about L.J.'s death. When I first began using this computer ( 6 or 8 months ago), I said it was crazy to be talking to a machine. It took a while before I realized that I'm not talking to a machine; I'm talking to real people. Their personalities come through just as if we were in the same room. I don't know why this should surprise me; I guess because I have an inborn distrust of all machines. But here is a man I only knew through a machine, and yet his death saddens me as if I had really known him.

I've been thinking a lot about Aquinas' five arguments. The one that I can't seem to grasp at all is the one about "possible beings."

I received word of the death of L.J. a few minutes ago and the news makes me very sad. L.J. has contributed so much to our discussions. He was an honest seeker of truth and I greatly respected the way he expressed his views. I was always confident that even when we disagreed on some issue, he would never be unkind.

It will be very difficult to continue this discussion of western philosophy without his participation, but I believe he would want us to continue our study.

Cathy:

Your post about TIME reminds me how all of literature hangs together. Right now on MAGIC MOUNTAIN we are discussing this very important issue. See Charlie's long post. He is both serious and funny. I will try to check St. Augustine and Russell as you suggest.

Charlotte

Floyd, I know you are right. These discussions were very important to LJ: they were his baby, his idea from the beginning. I know he would want one of you or several of you to take up the leadership here and go forward.

Everyone will handle this in his own way: some will suspend discussions briefly for a memorial and some will continue for the same reason, I know LJ would be totally disappointed if you all don't not only continue eventually, but spread out in your readings, and I hope you will.

I had a note from him Sunday on what he was reading, his dedication is totally inspiring and I don't want to see it be in vain.

Thanks,

Ginny

I just plugged in to update my posts and was greatly shocked to see that L.J. had died. It is with great saddness that I tried to adjust to this bit of news. He was such an honest man. He let no fool go un-redessed, but did not hesittate to show his approval of good straight thinking.

I respected him highly and am so saddend that we will not have benefit of his sharp mind. His life had meaning to many of us.. That is a good thing to have been. Rest well, L.J.

I posted a message about how Aquinas viewed the relationship between philosophy and theology, but I do not see it here, so I guess I will try again.

He clearly distinguished between philosophy and theology, but he did not think they contradicted each other. They are two complementary approaches to the truth.

Philosophy is based upon reasoning from sense experience to more general concepts. Aquinas is Aristotelian in his approach. Theology is based upon faith in God's revelation.

There is, however, a branch of theology--natural theology--which is a part of philosophy. This is what we can know about God by pure reasoning. It overlaps with revealed theology, i.e. there are some truths which can be known by philosophy but which are also a part of God's revelation.

Natural theology includes the proof of the existence of God and a knowledge of God's nature based upon this proof. Those truths are also revealed and there are additional truths about God which philosophy cannot prove but which can be known by revelation, such as the trinity.

Aquinas uses the way of negation to remove any attributes of finite creatures which do not apply to God; he uses the way of analogy to make positive statements about God.

Statements about God are not merely equivocal, for if that were true, we could know nothing of God at all. Nor are those statements univocal, i. e. they are not used with exactly the same meaning when applied to God. They are analogical, i.e. God is iike finite beings and we can use analogies drawn from finite knowledge to speak of God.

Sorry, Floyd. SN has had a problem with corrupted files and it was necessary to go back to the last backup which was 24 hours ago.

Revelation is something I have always wondered about. How does a person know he is receiving a genuine revelation from God, and not just an idea of his own?

Aguinas said the soul is united to the body. It is the form of the body, as in Aristotle. There are not three souls in man, but only one. (By three souls, does he mean body, mind and soul?) The whole soul is present in every part of the body.

That's a fascinating concept, but if the soul is present in every part of the body, that means it is present in the genes that parents pass down to their offspring. Aquinas thinks this is not the case, but the soul is created afresh with each man. Well, of course, that's what we would like to believe because nobody wants a second-hand soul. But how would you extract the parents' souls from their genes so that the children wouldn't receive them?

Aquinas has problems with the question of how the soul is passed on from parent to child. There were two opposing views. Traducianism taught that the soul is passed from parent to child in the same way that phyical characteristics are passed on; creationism held that the soul is created fresh from God at each conception. But if the soul is created fresh by God how does one accout for original sin? I am not clear about how Aquinas answers that question.

Aquinas agrees with Aristotle that the soul is the form of the body, but he does not mean that it is the physical shape. This is an immaterial form and Aquinas thinks it will continue to exist after death.

He agrees with Aristotle that the soul has three dimensions or functions--the nutritive, the sensitive, and the intellectual. It is the intellectual part of man that is immortal. (It is doubtful that Aristotle would agree with Aquinas on that point.)

I will be gone for a few days, but before leaving I want to say something about the ethical views of Aquinas. Following Aristotle, he argued that happiness is connected closely with a man's purpose or end. But whereas Aristotle envisioned a naturalistic morality whereby men and women could achieve happiness by following their natural capacities, Aquinas added to this the concept of a supernatural end. Thus there is a double level to morality corresponding to the natural and supernatural ends.

The basis for morality is found in human nature and upon the rational ability to discern the right kinds of conduct. The rules for behavior which are based on reason are called "natural law."

The eternal law is the way the universe is governed by Divine Reason. Natural law consists of that part of eternal law that applies to men and women. Human law refers to the specific statutes of governments. These statutes are derived from the natural law. If a human law is not derived from natural law, it is no law at all.

Finally, there is the divine law. This is the law which directs men and women to their supernatural end. This divine law is available to us through revelation in the Scriptures; it is a gift of God's grace.

This theory of law explains why Roman Catholics continue to oppose birth control and abortion. Those actions are contrary to the natural law. The prohibitions are derived from reason, not merely from arbitrary pronouncemens of the Church. As long as natural law theory continues to be the basis of Roman Catholic ethics it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the Church to change its teachings on these matters.

Floyd-your statement that Theology and philosophy do not contradict each other is interesting in that it was known that Aquinas would, when his writings did not agree with Scripture, would adjust his philosophy in order to not contradict scripture. This would seem to me to believe he was much more a theologian than philosopher.

Aristotle's and Aquinas's..."God was absolutely perfect; therefor he cannot desire anything, therefore he does nothing. His only occupation is to contemplate the essence of things; and since he himself is the essence of all things, the form of all forms, his sole employment is the contemplation of himself." Therefore does God providentially governs His creation? Doesn't He reign, but does not rule?

It is difficult for me to understand how Aquinas could agree with Aristotle on the attributes of God and still believe in the angry, vindictive God as written in the Old Testament.

Cathy, the primary loyalty of Aquinas was to theology and if he did find what seemed to be a contradiction he assumed the mistake was in the philosophy. For Aquinas, Aristotle was "The Philosopher."

Now clearly there are statements by Aristotle which seem to contradict the teachings of Scripture. Aristole said that "God is the Unmoved Mover," the one who causes motion by being the object of desire.

On the other hand, the Scripture describe God as Love, the one who cares for all His creatures. Aquinas thinks that the Scripture helps us correct the philosophical misunderstanding. It is the nature of Perfect Being to share the joy of being with other creatures. Creation is an expression of Divine Love.

Another example where there seems to be a fundamental disagreement between Aristotle and Christian Theology is the question of immortality. Averroes, as we have seen, thought Aristotle denied immortality of the soul. Aquinas argues that the active reason survives death, not merely as part of universal reason, but as an indidual soul.

Aquinas made a noble effort to develop a rational synthesis between philosophy and theology. Perhaps he was not always successful, but it was a noble achievement. The synthesis soon dissoved, but there are still Thomists who think Aquinas was the true philosopher.

Russell's criticism of Aquinas (p.463) points out the basic problem with any thinker who has committed himself to a pre-established conclusion. His boundaries are set, and he has decided to operate within these boundaries, even though it limits and restricts him. But I agree that Aguinas made a noble effort to synthesize philosophy and theology.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plato and Aristotle set up two opposite philosophies, and everybody's been taking sides with one or the other ever since. I can't understand why it's necessary to choose sides. Why can't we accept the fact that they are two sides of the same coin? Not just as a cop-out compromise, but because there really is validity in both viewpoints. The human mind doesn't work one way or the other; it works both ways.

Matthew of Aquasparta came to this conclusion. "Our knowledge is caused by both lower and higher things, by external objects and ideal reasons."

Shasta, I think philosophical dialogue often moves forward through a dialectical process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Progress is often made, as you say, by combining the views of two philosophers who seem to be opposed but whose views can be combined in order to reach a higher understanding.

In response to Russell's criicism that the philosophy of Aquinas is limited by being locked into his starting point, I would only say that I believe that is true of all philosophers. It is the point that Augustine and Anselm made. As one of my favorite professors said, "We think as we do because we believe as we do."

R. G. Collingwood developed this into his theory of Absolute Prsuppositions. All thinking begins with some presupposition, which cannot itself be demonstrated, because it is the basis of all demonstrations.

Soren Kierkegaard made the point in a memorable way. Before one can use a needle and thread there has to be a knot in the threat.

We are scheduled to complete our discussion of Medieval Philosophy today so I will add some comments in my next post on Duns Scotus and William of Occam.

I've had to untangle Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon, whom I had mixed together in my mind. I never could understand how Francis Bacon could be interested in alchemy. Well, he wasn't. It was Roger Bacon who dabbled in alchemy and magic. But Roger Bacon was also interested in natural science. He thought it was the nature of philosophy to work out the properties of things. And I suppose in those days, science and alchemy hadn't been clearly separated.

It's hard to think back into earlier times and understand how people saw the world and how their minds worked. Alchemy wasn't just primitive scientific experiments; it had a sacred aspect to it that is totally alien to modern science.

They say no man is an island, but it isn't true. Every man is an island, isolated and insulated in his individual identity; and the farther apart we are in time, the harder it is to understand each other.

Duns Scotus and William of Occam were Franciscans; whereas Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican. The Franciscans were more influenced by Augustine than by Aristotle. Duns Scouts and William contributed to the breakdown of the Medieval Synthesis created by Aquinas.

Russell begins his discussion of Duns Scotus on p. 467.

Duns Scotus rejected the view of Aquinas that matter was what indivudated one individual from another, arguing that there is a "principle of indivudation," a form. This is a very complex problem and it may not be worthwhile trying to discuss it in detail. Russell, himself, devoted some of his philosophical work to the problem.

Duns Scotus said that human knowledge depends on experince; the mind abstracts the universala from particular things, but there is also an intuition of the individual thing.

Scotus argued that being is univocal. When we say "God is" the word "is" has the same meaning as when we say "John is." (Reminds us of Bill Clinton's discussion of the meaning of the word "is."

Duns Scotus accepted the cosmological argument but also the ontological argument, which had been rejected by Aquinas.

I will come to William in the next post.

Floyd, what does the word "univocal" mean? This is not even in my dictionary. Does it mean literally "one voice"?

The principle of individuation is used all the time in psychology, but I'm not sure the meaning coincides with the meaning in philosophy. In psychology, it means development of an individual psyche.

Also, I would like to know what "Occam's Razor" is. I've heard this term and vaguely thought it meant that Occam cut away everything that was not absolutely essential.

"Univocal" literally means one voice. As used in Medieval Philosophy it concerns whether words when applied to God have the same meaning as when they are applied to finite beings. Aquinas says we use language analogically when we speak of God; Duns Scotus says our words have the same meanaing when applied to God; otherwise we would have no knowledge of God.

Now on to William of Occam and "Occam's Razor."

Russell agrees with Ernest Moody that William of Occam was "mainly concerned to restore a pure Aristotle, free from both Augustinian and Arabic influences." We should recognize that this is not the way most historians interpret the importance of William. They see him as a precursor to the development of modern philosophy.

As Russell points out, Occam is best known for what is called "Occam's razor," though he never explicitly stated that maxim., which says: "Entitites are not to be multiplied without necessity."

This is a basic principle used by most modern scientists and many philosophers. I take it to mean that in choosing between two plausible explanations one should choose the simpler one. What I mean by simpler, is the one which requires the fewest assumptions or postulates.

This is a tool used by some atheists for rejecting the existence of God. When asked where was God in his explanation of nature, LaPlace replied: "I have no need of that hypothesis." In other words, if one can explain the world without using the God hypothesis, one should use "Occam's razor" and reject that hypothesis. I am sure that Occam never intended that the razor should shave that closely, but an idea once presented often takes on a life of its own.

Occam is often interpreted as a nominalist; i.e., universality belongs only to names or terms. The word "man," for example, simply refers to all individual men.

Occam was skeptical about natural theology. There are no proofs for the existence of God.The arguments, at best, can only show that God probably exists. God can be known only by faith. This skepticism influences not only the development of modern philosophy but also the Protestant Reformation.

I am ready to move on to Modern Philosophy, but I do not want to discourage any further comments about Medieval Philosophy.

What, and skip that fascinating chapter on how the Catholic Church set a precedent for the IRS as a taxing agency? And how Clement V and King Philip stole all the Templars' money and put them out of business? And how the Great Schism resulted in two popes, and then the General Council solved the dilemma by adding a third pope? Really, Floyd, where's your appreciation for history?

Shasta, say as much as you like on those subjects! Russell records much western history that is not directly connected with the history of philosophy. Perhaps that is what is distinctive about his "History of Western Philosophy," and to make this a genuine discussion of the book we need to look at the cultural history he outlines. However, I think my major contribution is in commenting directly on the philosphers and I assign others the task of helping us understand the religious and general cultural developments.

I do think Russell is correct in saying that the Medieval Synthesis was more than a philosophical and theological synthesis. It was the creation of a Christian culture, which was dominated by the papacy.

It is difficult for those who are the products of modern thought to undersand what that culture was like. Some would like to take us back to that era, but I think that is impossible. The next move, which may be taking place right now, is to move from a modern to a post-modern era, and I am not at all clear what that culture will be like.

I feel a bit of puzzlement toward Occam. He seemed to deplore unneccary flourishes in stating his philosophy. To me his statements are really murky. I thought he could benefit by his own razor.

I think I manage to grasp his philosophy of the universality of the soul. He seems to only give the soul that definition, and rejects its use to refer to other "things". He makes a distinction between the soul of the intellect and the sensitive soul. Some light from the infinity triggers the soul of the intellect. A very interesting theory.

I was fascinated with the dark intrigue and sinister plotting of the Papcy, Emperors, and the secular philosophers; all competing for power and prestige. It would seem the Papcy has never had it so good as it does at the present time.

Were the Templars a secret society? Were they of another religion? The Popes of that era sound like our present day politicans. Their reason for office was to "cash" in.

I think it too bad we passed over discussion of Saint Francis. He had it right!

Cathy, the Knights of the Templars were formed during the Crusades to protect the Christian pilgrims. They became very powerful as a military organization, but gradually evolved into banking. They had banking establishments all over Europe and accumulated a lot of money. Their success may have engendered envy because they were accused of all sorts of heresies against Christianity. They engaged in secret rituals which nobody has ever really known anything about. At any rate, when Philip of France needed money, he decided to confiscate the possessions of the Templars . He accused them of heresy and tortured them into confessions that were probably untrue in order to justify his actions. He effectively wiped out their order, but all sorts of legends remain about them.

Chapter I, Part I, of Book Three is a good introduction to the general characteristics of the modern period.

Russell points out that the most important differences between the Modern and Medieval periods are: 1) the diminishing importance of the Church; and 2) the increasing authority of science.

Russell says that the authority of science differs from the authority of the Church, since it is intellectual, not governmental. Science prevails solely by its intrinsic appeal to reason, but it is a piecemeal and partial authority.

Another important difference is that the pronouncements of science are made tentatively., on a basis of probability, and are regarded as liable to modification. I think this is a very important point, one often overlooked by critics of science, who love to point to instances where science has been mistaken. Science does not claim to prove anything with absolute certainty and is always willing to revise its views in light of further evidence. This is the strength of science, not its weakness.

Russell makes an important distinction between theoretical and practical science. Theoretical science seeks to understand the world; practical science seeks to change it. The practical importance of science was first recognized in relation to war and much scientific progress is still linked to warfare.

Individualism has grown in the modern world as a result of emancipation from the Church. Modern philosophy has retained an individualistic and subjective character.

On the other hand, science has built up a very different outlook, giving those who use its techniques a sense of power that is social, not individualistic. But science is ethically neutral; it gives us power but does not tell us how we ought to use it. "Ends are no longer considered; only the skillfulness of the process is valued."

Russell, who is a great champion of science, recognized the dangers of this increase of power without any social direction or ethical values. I think it is one of the dilemmas facing us and our children. We have the power to prolong life or end it. We may not worry as much each day about the threat of nuclear war but the threat remains. Science developed nuclear power, but it cannot tell us how we ought to use it. When the Church no longer has the authrity to tell us how we ought to live, how do we find the moral guidance we need?

Floyd, to perhaps offer a answer to you question: "When the Church no longer has the authority to tell us how we ought to live, how do we find the moral guidance we need?" How about the unconditional love of motherhood?

Philosophers, and so called men of God have ignored this source of integrity for centuries. Great, and not so great philosophies have been questioning this quandry since time began. Maybe the unconditional love of motherhood should bear the spotlight in this great mystery. Voila'!

Shasta, thanks for your very efficient description of the Templars. Sounds like the makings of a great movie to me.

Motherhood won't do it, Cathy. Motherhood has always been around and what effect did it have on stopping wars?. Women have babies, and men have wars. And men are simply not going to give up having wars! I thought when the nuclear bomb was invented that it would stop all wars because nobody could risk blowing up the whole world. I couldn't believe it when men simply agreed to go on having wars but to stop short of blowing up the world. The only thing that will stop them from doing that is that it would leave them with no place to have wars.

After the disillusionment and frustration of the Viet Nam war, I said surely the U.S. had learned its lesson and would never get involved in another war! No such luck.

And now the young women want to join the army and fight wars too. I just don't understand what makes the human species so savage! This is what Christianity was trying to do--to tame some of our savage instincts, and after 2000 years, are we really any more civilized than ever? Science replaces religion, and what is the first thing science does? Invent bigger and better ways of killing people.

Russell makes an interesting comment about war in his discussion of the Italian Renaissance. (See p. 500) He says: "There were constant wars, but until the coming of the French in 1494 they were almost bloodless....French troops shocked the Italians by actually killing people in battle. The wars between French and Spaniards which ensued were serious wars."

I would say that Russell is being rather ironical! He was personally a pacifist and actually spent some time in jail because of his opposition to the British entering World War I.

Russell says there was not much philosophy taking place during the Italian Renaissance, but there were creative artists. And, of course, there continued to be papal struggles for power and wealth.

Perhaps the main contributin of the Renaissance, as far as the history of philosophy is concerned, is that "it liberated educated men from the narrowness of medieval culture.....and it made scholars aware that a variety of opinions had been held by reputable authorities on almost every subject."

Shasta, you right, of course. My point was that half of the people on earth since ancient times have been women. There, evidently, were no women philosophers (recognized by men, that is). Even, today, I can think of no female philosophers; although, I would certainly describe you, Shasta, as being one.

I hope I make no one groan; as I am one who hastens to give the feminist view. The conditions in Afghanistan are swiftly becoming intolerable. Yet, the world stands by. I hope you don't mind, Shasta, but I will forward a copy of a letter of protest that was sent to me about this awful violation of human rights. I gladly signed it and hope you will feel the same way.

I will not be guilty again of sidetracking our discussions of Philosophy.

Back to "The Book". Although I had never heard of the English philosopher Wycliffe, I was impressed with his contribution in the effort to improve the lives of the common people. How many philosophers do that? Not many. Most of his influence began after he was 50! That was really old in those days. I did not understand why John Ball, the unfrocked priest was embarrassed because he admired Wycliffe. Did I miss something?

I am intrigued with Machiavelli! I am certain he is required reading in Political Science and many other college level courses - even today. I read about him quiet some time ago. In my pre-feminist days I did read the "Prince". I bring more wisdom in my consideration of him now. I think I will hunt the net for more about him. I am not against learning how to obtain power. I would like to have some!

I am going to enjoy our discussion on Machiavelli!

Cathy, I'm delighted that you think I'm a philosopher. I can hear Floyd having a good laugh about that. You say that you would like to find out more about the acquisition of power. Well, read "The Prince." Machiavelli will give you all the instructions you could possibly want. I've never been much interested in power myself. I've always liked to watch the parade go by, and let other people do the marching, but I do admire all those dedicated feminists out there who are trying to change the world. Even in my lifetime, I have seen women's lot improved due to their efforts, especially where employment is concerned. Apparently, in some parts of the world, there hasn't been much progress though. Why are those people in Afghanistan making war on women? What on earth are they thinking about?

As for Machiavelli, Cathy, you'll have to shut your eyes to some of his methods as he achieves his purposes. He was a bit unscrupulous. Pope Alexander VI and his son, Caesar Borgia, "carried the arts of perfidy further than they had been carried before," but Machiavelli admired Borgia and considered him "an example to be imitated." Russell thought Machiavelli would have admired Hitler too. And so would the Borgias. They'd have been green with envy at his innovative use of the gas chambers. They mostly just poisoned people one at a time.

Shasta, I am not laughing! I think you are a serious student of philosophy, and that is all I ever claim for myself.

Concerning Machiavelli

We are probably familiar with the name Machiavelli, because it is often used as an adjective (Machiavellian) to refer to a ruthless politician who seeks power without regard to what is morally right. Russell thinks there is much misunderstanding of Machiavelli and I confess that I do not have the specialized knowledge to challenge that claim.

A fair interpretation requires us to understand the political situation in Italy during his liftime. It was a divided and disunited Italy. Machiavelli desired to achieve the end of unity and stability. He probably had a personal preference for a Republic, but he was willing to support an absolute monarch, since that is what he thought was necessary to achieve his desired end. He bases his political theory on a study of governments that work. Machiavelli is basically a pragmatist. It is results which count.

Machiavelli seemed to think that the end justifies the means. Since he thought people were basically egoistic, he believed the Prince must rule with an iron hand. It is not necessary for the ruler to be moral or have Christian virtues, but it is useful for him to appear to his subjects to be moral. The same applies to religion. The ruler does not need to be religious; in fact, it is not his job to prepare people for a future life; but the effective ruler will use religion to solidify his control of his subjects.

Machiavelli was a modern thinker. When we discuss the philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and Nietzsche, we will recognize the similarity between their thought and Machiavelli. There is a similar emphasis on the egoism of man, the necessity for a strong ruler, and the rejection of Christian virtues which are expressions of weakness.

From Machiavelli to Thomas More is quite a jump-- from a man with too few scruples to a man with too many scruples. Thomas More was a man of great integrity. He was Henry VIII's lord chancelor, and a loyal Catholic. He disapproved Henry's divorce from Katharine of Aragon and refused to subscribe to the Act of Supremacy, which made Henry the head of the church in England instead of the pope. His opposition to Henry's wishes resulted in charges of treason, imprisonment, and finally beheading. More carried his convictions to the grave with him.

He wrote "Utopia" in 1518 as a protest against social injustices and his recommendations for an ideal society. Russell says "life in More's Utopia, as in most others, would be intolerably dull. Diversity is essential to happiness, and in Utopia there is hardly any. This is a defect of all planned social systems, actual as well as imaginary."

I wonder why that is. Like so many ideal societies, More's is a communist system. I suppose communism tries to correct one of the most glaring inequities of society--the disproportionate possession of wealth. The idle rich have more than their share and do nothing to deserve it, and the struggling poor have less than their share and do all the work that makes society operate. We have the advantage that More didn't have in that we have seen communism actually put into practice, and have been able to observe its shortcomings.

The gravest problem, it seems to me, is that communism destroys initiative. One of the basic drives of human nature is the desire to succeed, to set one's own goals and be allowed to strive for them. In a communist society, this competitive spirit is flattened, and the result is unproductive.

Shasta, thank you for those clear commenets about More. Your remarks about communism remind me of my experience this week with some men from a Christian commune near my home, who were here this past Monday to hang some wallpaper.

This commune, the Shepherd Community, moved from California to Fulton, Missouri in 1979. Some Hutterites spent some time with them helping them to set up their community.

I know very little about their beliefs, but they certainly know how to hang paper! They seem like very decent people to me and do no harm to anyone, as far as I can tell. It seems that religius communes seem to survive better than secular ones. It would take a strong commitment to make it work.

Anyone have anything to say about Erasmus? He seems like a good representative of the humanist tradition. I first encountered him through my study of Luther and learned that he and Luther had a big disagreement over the freedom of the will and predestination.

It is somewhat surprising to see how little space Russell devotes to the Protestant Reformation. Volumes have been written on the Reformation and its influence on religion and on the making of the modern mind.

In spite of the brevity of his treatment, however, Russell has some important insights. He sees both the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation as "the rebellion of less civilized nations agains the intellectual domination of Italy."

He also claims that the three great men of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation--Luther, Calvin, and Loyola--were medieval in their outlook, as compared with the Italians and with More and Erasmus. At first I questioned that claim, but on second thought I think it has some merit, for in spite of how modern the Reformers may have seen in their protest against medieval Catholicism, their general outlook was still quite medieval.; and the Counter-Reformers maintained the medieval attitude of the supremacy yof the Church.

Augustine contined his twofold influence. Protestants accepted his views of grace and predestination; Catholics of the Counter-Reformation emphasized his view of the Church.

A final observation by Russell. "The results of the Reformaton and Counter-Reformation in the intellectual sphere, were at first wholly bad, but ultimately beneficial." Why? Russell says the results of the Thirty Years' war (between Protestants and Catholics) convinced people to" abandon the medieval hope for doctrinal unity, and this increased men's ability to think for themselves, even about fundamentals."

I've been reading "The Story of Philosophy" by Will Durant, and also listening to some tapes on Western philosophy, so I can compare the three. They all stress different aspects of philosophy. Durant jumped all the way from the Greeks to Francis Bacon as if nothing much had happened in between.

Science achieved great advances in the 17th century, but not without opposition. The medieval view of the world pictured the heavens as the domain of God, and they expected the heavenly bodies to rotate in perfect circles and at a uniform speed. I think this ancient idea that the sky belongs to God has left traces in the human psyche that are hard to obliterate. I sometimes look up at the vapor trail that a jet is making across the blue sky, and something primitive in me shudders. It's as if a human being is drawing a white line across the face of God. And I'm a great admirer of science!

So I can understand how scientific discoveries must have struck the medieval mind. Kepler's discovery that planets have elliptic orbits offended them because an ellipse is a lop-sided and imperfect circle. And if planets have varying velocities at different points in their orbits, this violated the stately rhythm of the heavens. The number seven was a sacred number so they expected there to be seven planets. When Galileo discovered the four moons of Jupiter, this threw things into disarray because eleven was not a sacred number.

The Inquisition forced Galileo to retract his theory of the earth's rotation and revolution, and thus set scientific progress in Italy back for centuries. The Protestants would have blocked scientific progress too if they could have, but they didn't have as much power as the Catholics.

When science dislodged the earth from the center of the universe, this was a blow to the human ego. From being the center of all creation, humans were reduced to specks on a small planet circling an ordinary star. We rallied though, and came to take pride in the ability of the human intellect to uncover the secrets of God's world.

Russell quotes from Alexander Pope's epitaph to Newton: "Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night. God said 'Let there be Newton' and all was light."

Shasta, I prepared the following before signing on to read your post. Excuse me for repeating some of the things you have said, but I add it to the discussion for what it is worth.

_____________________________________________________________________

The difference in length between chapters V and VI is a good clue to what Russell considers important. Obviously he think the rise of modern science represents the most important development in the modern period.

He says that the most spectacular developments in science took place in the seventeenth century. He discusses four great men--Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton.

I will make only a few comments about them.. Copernicus presented his heliocentric view--that the sun is at the center of the universe only as a hypothesis. This may have helped him escape immediate condemnation by the Church, but it is also an important feature of modern science. Scientific views are not presented as absolute truth; they are hypotheses, which are something more than educated guesses. They are proposals based on a combination of observation and reasoning. Copernicus clings to the ancient view that all celestial movements are circular and complete. That view is not based on evidence; it is based on the assumption that circles represent perfection. This is a reminder of unwarranted assumptions put forward by early scientists.

' Kepler's great achievement was the discovery of the three laws of planetetary motion." (You can read about them on p. 530 and then explain them if you like.)

Russell says that Galileo is the greatest of the founders of modern science, with the possible exception of Newton. "He is important as an astronomer, but perhaps even more as the founder of dynamics." He held that every body, if left alone. will continue to move in a straight line with uniform velocity...." The acceleration of a falling body is constant, except for the resistance of air. It does not matter whether the bodies are heavy or light. Galileo also made imortant discoveries about the stars by using a telescope. but the traditionalists renounced the telescope and refused to look through it.

Galileo was condemned by the Inquisition and recanted. Some have condemned his cowardice, but I wonder if any hypothesis is worth dying for. So much for my heroism.

Russell explains Newton's contributions on p. 535. They are fairly easy to understand. Even though we may think that Einstein's theory made the work of Newton obsolete, I think it continues to have importance, at least at one level of explanation.

Francis Bacon said deductive thinkers are like spiders who spin things out of their own insides. He hated Aristotle and his syllogisms, scorned Scholasticism's attempt to mix philosophy with theology, and considered all knowledge useless unless it had a practical application. He was a statesman, a philosopher, and a writer. He was so brilliant that he has been credited with writing Shakespeare's plays. Experts scoff at this because Shakespeare made errors that the erudite Bacon would never have made.

His greatest contribution to philosophy was his introduction of the inductive method. He thought deduction was just arrogant speculation and must be replaced by humble and objective observation. Knowledge was power; but before you could gain power over nature, you first had to patiently study the principles of nature. Examine particulars and induce from them generalities.

Russell's criticism of the inductive method is that it lacks a hypothesis to guide the collection of data. Bacon hoped the orderly arrangement of facts would make the right hypothesis obvious, but Russell thinks this is seldom the case, and that the framing of hypotheses is an indispensable part of scientific work.

"Peace at any price" was Thomas Hobbes' byword. He was born in 1588 when the formidable Spanish Armada arrived at the coast of England and struck fear into the hearts of the citizens. Hobbes' mother was so terrified at the prospect of invasion that she delivered her child at seven months. Hobbes later said that his mother gave birth to twins: Himself and Fear. Fear remained his lifelong companion and formed the basis for his philosophy. He lived in a period of perpetual strife and turmoil caused by civil and international warfare. He felt any solution was better than all this insecurity.

He had none of Plato's illusions about human nature. Plato saw humans as rational creatures who could be educated to lead lives of virtue. Hobbes saw humans as animals driven by instincts who could only be controlled by power. Plato dealt with the apex of human nature and Hobbes dealt with the base. He defined good as peace and security, not virtue; and evil as pain and death.

Hobbes wrote the "Leviathan" to describe his remedy for chaos and anarchy. I don't know why he chose a sea monster to symbolize his ideal commonweath. It's a symbol of overwhelming power, but doesn't it also have connotations of destructiveness? What Hobbes wanted was a protective force, not a destructive force. I wonder if he unconsciously realized that total power had potentials for destruction.

In his ideal commonwealth, all citizens enter into a contract with each other to submit to a sovereign who will maintain peace and security in the land. The sovereign has total and unrestricted power. The people are even willing to give up their rights to private property. Not even Machiavelli was willing to go that far.

Russell admires Hobbes' clear and logical presentation of his theories, but he finds fault with his assumption that all citizens want the same thing, and that there are no disagreements among classes. Hobbes also assumes the monarch will do what is best for his people, but this is not always the case. Some monarchs put self-interest ahead of the good of the nation. He also reduces international relations to war and conquest. Real peace must exist between nations, not just within the nation.

Russell says that Eramus and More were not philosophers in the true sense of the word. I am guessing he means because they did not build their philosophy on that of the ancients. Eramas hated the Scholastics, supposedly because they were hoplessly outdated.

I found much of what Eramus wrote in his, The Praise of Folly, was appealing. Sasha, you will remember that Eramas thought that patriotism has caused much human misery; the. pride of country continues to do so. In this much Bacon and Eramas were in agreement. The Balkans are current proof of the harm of Nationalism.I I can understand his deploring the schism of the the Church. for the same reason.

I think I am behind in my reading. You two are at least 2 chapters ahead. Will do late night reading tonight. I must leave fiction alone for awhile.

Does anyone know what the errors were that Eramas discovered in Vulgate (the accepted Bible of the time?) I am curious .

Shasta is keeping us on the schedule set up for us. She gives us good explanations of both Bacon and Hobbes.

As Russell says, Hobbes is somewhat difficult to classify as a philospher. Modern philosophers are often divided into Rationalists and Empircists. Rationalists believe we can generate knowledge through the pure process of reasoning; Empiricists believe that all knowledge must come from sense experience. Hobbes agrees with the Empiricists, as far as the source of knowledge is concerned, but he also places much emphasis on mathematical reasoning.

Hobbes's absolute presupposition is that reality is simply "Matter in motion." Material reality is the only reality. He deduces from this assumption all of the important conclusions of his philosophy.

Sensations are caused by the motion of bodies acting upon us. Those bodies have none of the qualities such as color, taste, and odor; they are simply objects in motion.

Human desires are also to be explained as matter in motion. If we are drawn towards an object we have a desire or love for it; if we are repelled by an object we experience an aversion or hate for it.

Hobbes concludes that the fundamental human drive is the desire for self-preservation. Men [and women] are egoistic; i.e. they always do what they believe to be in their self-interest. This does not mean that they always act in what we might call a selfish way; they may do things to help other people, but it should be understand that this is because they think helping others in in their own self-interest.

Of course, if each one of us acts out of self-interest, there is bound to be conflict. Life in the state of nature is a state of war of all against all. Life in the state of nature is "nasty, brutish, and short."

The drive for self-preservation is what causes men and women to enter into a social contract to establish the commonwealth. In society we give up our claims of absolute freedom to do whatever we desire. We submit ourselves to the sovereign His decrees enable us to live in relatively peace with one another.

As I understand Hobbes, the sovereign is not himself a party to the social contract, which exists between those who agree to become his subjects. Thus the sovereign has no moral obligations towards his subjects, and they have no right to rebel against him.

This is a very conservative political philosophy, and, as Shasta points out, it indicates how much fear dominated his thinking.

John Locke et. al. will also use the idea of a social contract, but they interpret it very differently.

So much for my questions about Eramus!!!!!

Cathy, when you ask a question and nobody answers you, it means nobody knows the answer. The Bible has been translated many times, and translation from one language to another is never an exact science. I gather there have always been some errors in every translation, and scholars often argue about the exact meaning of certain passages. We just have to hope that the errors are minor, and the main content has been preserved.

The Cartesian Method is supposed to consist of a four-step process of establishing facts. (1) Systematic Doubt (2) Analysis (3) Synthesis and (4) Recapitulation. Now, I am going to see if I understand how this works, and you can tell me if I've understood the process.

Descartes said that you should never accept the wisdom of the past, but question everything rigorously. I have no problem with that because I always question everything. Here is something I want to question. On page 563, Russell said that Descartes slept in the nude because pajamas and nightshirts had not yet been invented. I don't believe that! Descartes may have chosen to sleep in the nude, but I refuse to believe that pajamas and nightshirts had not been invented by the 17th century. That's ridiculous.

To analyze my doubt: Human beings have never been stupid enough to sleep naked in the wintertime. Even old dumb Adam had enough sense to use a figleaf, and Eve would have figured out how to stitch several of them together and make herself a nightgown.

To synthesize what I have analyzed: Humans have never been stupid, and sleeping naked is not practical.

To recapitulate: Pajamas were in existence before Descartes' time, and Russell just threw in this little lie to see if we were paying attention.

This is a deductive conclusion. If I wanted to use the inductive method, I would look up pajamas in the encyclopedia and find out when they were invented.

Descartes doubted everything except his ability to think. He didn't even know for sure if the body existed. If he had lived long enough to have arthritis, he wouldn't have doubted this. Instead of saying "I think; therefore I am," he would have said "I hurt; therefore, I am." There are many days when I define my existence by the intensity of the pain in my joints. But he died when he was only 54, from sleeping naked in the bitter cold of Sweden. Philosophy doesn't do you much good if you don't have enough sense to put on your pajamas.

I suggest we revise our schedule, or at least not feel bound to it. We need to take time to reflect on Russell's presentation of particular philosophers and react to his presentation or the philosophy presented.

Before we can react we have to be sure we understand the philosophy. Russell is usually fairly clear, but when one has additional information, from whatever source, it might add to our understanding. We want to encourage others to join us in this discussion.

I want to comment on two aspects of the philosophy of Hobbes. First, concerns his assumption that matter in motion is the ultimate reality. This materialistic view has its champions, but we know that there are idealists who disgree. Plato refers to this as the battle between "the gods and the giants," with the gods symbolizing idealism, and the giants representing the materialists.

Both Materialists and Idealists have a monistic view of reality. What I mean is that they assume only one kind of reality, differing only on whether that reality is matter or mind.

Dualists say there are two kinds of reality--mental and material. That is not as simiple a view but it may be closer to common sense. I think much depends on how one understands matter. It may be that matter can do far more than we think it can. For example, can matter think and feel? Well, if thinking and feeling are brain-dependent activities, I think the answer is "yes." Do we need to assume a second kind of reality, Mind, which is different from matter?

As for Hobbes's egoism, I acknowledge that a large percentage of what we do is done out of pure self-interest, but I am reluctant to say that 100% of our actions are egoistic. There seems to be genuine examples of benevolence or altruism which cannot be explained as examples of self-interest. What do you think?

Shasta, given the suggestion I made in my previous post, I want to delay my own comments on Descartes, in order to see if anyone wants to say anthing more about Hobbes. Your reactions to Descartes, however, should generate some interesting comments. I hope we can agree to slow down our discussions somewhat.

I would NEVER want to be the vehicle of slowing down two really sharp philosophers! I started late and late I shall be! Simple!

I think I hurt, therefore I Am.:>)

Hubert, you may have a point. If I couldn't think, would I know I hurt?

As for Floyd's question as to whether matter can think and feel, I really don't have the scientific knowledge to answer that. But that never has stopped me before. If you ask me for an opinion, you will certainly get one. Whether it's right or wrong is another matter.

Can a rock think and feel? No. Can plants think and feel? Well, I'm a gardener, and I would say no. There are gardeners who will tell you they talk to their plants, but my opinion is that plants need water, fertilizer, and sunshine, not conversation. However, roses refuse to grow for me, so maybe they're expressing an opinion of me.

Can animals think and feel? They can certainly feel, but I doubt if they can really think. Certainly there is intelligence throughout the universe. Every cell in the human body has a certain kind of intelligence; it performs complex activities, but this is just instinct, not conscious thought. Dreaming is a form of thinking, but at a very primitive level. The conscious mind hardly recognizes this as any kind of thinking at all. My definition of thinking is that it is voluntary and will-driven. But how does it come about that we can do it and the other animals can't? I haven't a clue.

Perhaps we know of at least one case where matter can think and feel--the human brain. Of course, that is the question. Is it just matter that thinks or feels or is there a different kind of substance called mind which does the thinking and feeling? That is where Descartes becomes important.

I don't know about Descartes stripping off his clothes and getting sick, but I do know that he tried to strip away all of his beliefs by methodical doubt. He decided to call into question everything he previously had believed to be true.

Russell explains his method clearly. First, he doubts his sense experiences. We all know times when we thought we saw something--like water on the road in front of us--and later we knew that was an illusion. So it is possible that we are always deceived by our sense experience.

Even mathematical reasoning can be called into question. Surely I know that two plus two is equal to four. Ah, says Descartes, it is possible that an evil genius is deceiving me and that two plus two is not really four!

There is, however, one think I cannot doubt: cogito ergo sum. "I think therefore I am." Even if I am mistaken when I think, I cannot be mistaken about the fact that I am thinking. And, if I am thinking, then I exist."

Now what is it that we know exists? It is a thinking thing or a mind. This is what is really revolutionary about Descartes and what gives him the title of "the father of modern philosophy." (We should note, however, that Augustine had similar views.) Descartes is more certain about the existence of his mind than the existence of his body.

It might seem that Descartes has been trapped into solipsism (the belief that he is the only thing that exists.) But Descartes tries to dig himself out of that hole.

He inspects the ideas he has of his own existence as a thinking thing and notices that it has the characteristic of being "a clear and distinct idea." He decides that any idea that is so clear and distinct must be true, unless, alas, he is being deceived by a demon.

To avoid that possibility he tries to prove the existence of God. Russell passes over the arguments for God, saying that Lebniz presents them more clearly. I will only say he uses both the ontological argument and the cosmological argument, adding little to previous work.

Having proved the existence of God he is no longer worried about deception by an evil genius. God will not permit him to be deceived, as long as he limits his beliefs to clear and distinct ideas. Thus his clear and distinct idea that he has a body reassures him.

What we end up with is "Cartesian Dualism." We are made up of two different kinds of substances. We are thinking things (minds) and extended things (bodies). But how can two substances, so different, interact with each other? Descartes is confident that they do interact. I think about raising my arm and my arm goes goes; i get stuck with a pen and I feel pain. How can this be?

Ah, says Descartes, this interaction takes place in my pineal gland, a gland in the brain whose function had not been understood.

If Descartes is correct, it is not my brain that thinks and feels; it is my mind, an entirely different sort of substance. Some have characterized this belief as "the dogma of the ghost in the machine." My body is a machine, but there is this little ghost living in it that we call th e mind.

I personally think Descartes has led us down the wrong path. His methodical doubt is not real doubt and his dualism of mind and body has left us with a dilemma.

I believe it was Archbishop William Temple who said, "The most disastrous day in the history of western philosophy ws when Descartes, having no more pressing obligations to meet, shut himself up in a stove and began to doubt.

I think Descartes has led us down the wrong path, too. All my life, I have assumed body and mind were two separate entities, thanks to Descartes. Now, I'm beginning to suspect this is not true, but I don't know what is true. It's a nuisance at my age to have to start revising the belief system of a lifetime. I expected by this time to have everything all worked out. Instead, I'm having to start over again, in a state of total confusion.

I wonder how he decided that body and mind connected in the pineal gland. What a strange idea. But no stranger than Geulincx' theory of the "two clocks."

Who among us have not wondered about our "being"? I have, often, wondered if my fellow man sees the same hues that I see. Is red to me the same as red is to you? How do we know?

What can one born blind at birth see in his dreams? Descartes says that one cannot dream of a winged hourse unless one has seen wings and a horse. What of those blind at birth see? Can they dream in color? Can they dream in 3-dimensional image? By the way, Since the "s" is not sounded in French are we saying Da Cart? I am rightly or wrongly.

I have seen some pictures of the STOVES that Descartes crawled inside of. They are rounded ceramic floor to ceiling stoves that could easily hold a slight figure huddled within. They were, in fact, very attractive stoves. I saw a collection of them in a home decorating magazine.

I truly hope I have not kept others from plowing ahead. I hate to pass over Spinoza (gentleman, that he is) and acknowledge the vanity of Leibntz, but will in the name of progress. I liked Spinoza's loving way of focusing on God in thought. He believed in making God centered in our daily lives. He did so - as if he could not help himself. That is true love of God. I liked this patient and God centered man!

Cathy, what an interesting question! What blind people dream about, and I've never even thought about that. But it's something we could find out about. All we would have to do is ask a blind person. I don't know any blind people, but there must be some way I could find one somewhere. I'll put that on my list of things I want to do.

No, we can't skip Spinoza. When the Jews excommunicated Spinoza, it was not the first time they rejected one of their best men. I'm trying hard to understand Spinoza's philosophy because he may help me get rid of the dualism that Descartes inflicted on me.

But, my dear Shasta, whom do we ask? I know no one of birth blindness!

When Descartes was working through his process of doubt, he raised the question of how we can know whether or not we are awake or dreaming. I may believe that I am here typing this message, but it is possible that I am asleep and only dreaming that I am typing.

At first we might think there is no reason to doubt whether we are awake or whether we are dreaming, but it is not all that easy to spell out how we know the difference. Some have said our sense experience is more vivid than our dreams, but that is not necessarily so. Others say our waking experience is more coherent, but I assume dreams can also be very coherent.

In regard to Descartes' dualism of mind and body I have to admit that in some ways his philosopohy reflects a widely held common-sense point of view. We do experience the interaction of mental and physical processes. Or do we? If materialists (such as Hobbes) are correct there is no interaction of two substances. What we call mental activity is really an activity of the brain. Idealists, on the other hand, insist that only mind exists and that bodies exist only as ideas in our minds.

Spinoza believes there is only one substance with an infinite number of attributes, including both the mental and the material. He has been called a "neutral monist." There is one neutral stuff described in two different ways. Mind and body are like two sides of the same coin.

I want us to discuss Spinoza, but I will await the coming of a new day. Tonight I have to watch Monica!

FLOYD!!! Spanoza waiting for Monica? What a historical moment! How could you abandon your devotion to the sages and fall victim to Monica? What a shock!

Floyd! Don't tell me you watch trash like that! (I watched it too, but I wasn't going to admit it.)

Cathy, you are right. It would have to be a person who was born blind, and I don't know any either. But once a question has been asked, an answer will be found somewhere. I'm a great believer in asking questions. They say every journey begins with the first step. Every search for knowledge begins with a question.

So Spinoza believed in monism rather than dualism like Descartes. There is only one substance; God and Nature are the same. If God is Nature, then that means I am an atom in God's being. It sounds like blasphemy to even suggest such a thing. If it's true, then it means God must take on all the sins of the world. He cannot escape them, as I was willing to have him do by removing him from Nature.

But then that's what the Bible says, doesn't it? That God sent his only begotten son to assume the sins of the world. Behind all that Christian metaphor is some kind of scientific fact. I can sense it but I can't grasp it. But that's what metaphor is for--to express what the intellect cannot grasp. One of the reasons why the Jews rejected Spinoza was because he said the Bible should be understood as metaphor.

I hope we will agree to spend enough time with Spinoza so we can really get to know this remarkable man. It is obvious that Russell has high regard for his ethical views, and even more for the way he lived his life. He says: "Intellectually, some others have surpassed him, but ethically he is supreme. As a natural consequence, he was considered, during his liftime and for a century after his death, a man of appalling wickedness."

Now isn't that a sad thought. Precisely because he was such an ethical man he was despised as a wicked man. Spinoza had too much integrity to play the games that were necessary to gain popularity in his time.

One of the strange facts of history is that Spinoza was excommunicated by the Jewish community.Jews very rarely excommunicate anyone, and to their credit they posthumously revoked the excommunication. I think the excommunication was largely due to fear among the Jews that Christians would use Spinoza's "heresy" as an excuse for persecution of the Jews.

One indicatation of how poorly Spinoza has been understand is the fact that he has been called both an "atheist" and also "A God intoxicated Jews." Of course, Socrates was also accused of being an atheist, even though he said that God had called him to his mission.

Although "Ethics" is Spinoza's most important philosophical work, his "Theologico-Political Treatise" contains many important insights and is certainly worth reading.

Spinoza says that superstition is engendered, preserved, and fostered by fear. Faith has become a mere compound of credulity and prejudice, which degrade men from rational beings to beast.

We need to look to reason to save us from superstition. Intellect is t he best part of human beings. Spinoza employed reason in his study of the Bible, subjecting it to criticism. without making any prior assumptions about it.

Spinoza was a great champion of religius freedom. "Everyone should be free to choose for himself the foundations of his creed, and that faith should be judged only by its fruits, each would then obey God freely with his whole heart, while nothing would be publicly honored save justice and charity....."

OK, you guys! I am going to put forth, my own extention. Do you suppose Leibniz meant to say with his "monads" the discovery of DNA. Do you suppose?

Who else can fathom what he meant about "monads"? No two monads, he held, can ever have any causal relation to each other. Monads, as he expressed it, are "windowless." "Each monad a soul." "Each monad reflected the universe." GEeeeeee!!

Quiet frankly, I hope he was wrong. He was too arrogant to grant the hope he was right.

Put Fourth, that is! Will I never stop being imperfect! I am as far from being a perfectionist as a perfectionist could be! Oh, weary is the road! Phantom is such a ghostly error!

Cathy: Your first forth was right, not your second fourth.

Cathy, I want to say something more about Spinoza before moving on to Leibniz, but do want to respond to your questions about monads.

A glance at Spinoza's Ethics reveals how he used the geometrical method of reasoning to support his conclusions. He is a thorough-going rationalist, thinking we can deduce all of our knowledge from a few simple definitions and axioms.

He defines substance as "that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself." He defines God as "a being absolutely infinite."God's essence is identical with God's existence.

By combining these definitions with certain axioms which he assumes to be true he deduces such propositions as "a substance cannot be produced by anaything external to itself....It must therefore be its own cause. He then concludes that there can be no substance besides God. God had infinite attributes, of which we know only two--extension and thought.

There can only be one substance and this is God or Nature. The two words refer to the same identical substance. Religiously speaking, this is pantheism

Everything that happens flows by necessity from God; only God is free, i.e self-determined. Human freedom does not consist in doing as we please; genuine freedom is the recognition and acceptance of the fact that everything happens out of necessity.

There is a section of the Ethics called "Of Human Bondage." I assume that Somerset Maugham took the title of his book from this section.

We are in bondage when be become slaves to our passions. Spinoza does not want to eliminate all emotions, as the Stoics did, but he wants us to be free from passions which enslave us.

The highest emotion, if indeed it is an emotion at all, is the intellectual love of God. God loves Himmself (or itself) and by loving all of Nature or God we are reflecting the nature of God.

This is related to his notion of seeing everything from the viewpoint of eternity. It is sort of like the popular slogan, "Don't sweat the small stuff" and "it is all small stuff." We become unhappy when we get too upset about the little things which happen in our daily lives. We have peace of mind when we see all of these things as part of the eternal necessity of everything.

I am personally attracted to pantheism on a philosophical level. In many ways it seems like the most rational way to see things. But I do not think pantheism takes evil seriously enough. Nor do I think it pays enough attention to our actual experience of a plurality of things in the world. Most of us, I think, are more inclined towards pluralism than monism, to sense experience than to reason.

Leibniz accepts Spinoza's definition of subtances but concludes that there is an infinite numnber of them. Each is completely separate from the others, having no influence on one another. This is why Leibniz says that the monads have no windows. Each mirrors the rest of the universe but does not interact with the othe parts of the universe.

Cathy, whether or not monads are a precursor to DNA, I do not know, but I think that is a very interesting suggestion.

I think monads are akin to atoms, except whereas atoms are indivisible material substances, the mondads are souls. In other words Leibniz is an idealist rather than a materialist. The basic building blocks of the universe are like little souls. What we call objects are collectons of monad

Floyd, you said, "Genuine freedom is the recognition and acceptance that everything happens out of necessity." (According to Spinoza.) That sounds like a sorry kind of freedom to me. If we aren't free to choose and refuse, select and reject, what sort of freedom do we have? It's true that freedom from responsibility can be peaceful, but it seems to me that this kind of freedom deprives human existence of any purpose.

More on Leibniz

There are some key ideas in Lebniz of considerable importance.

1) The idea of the pre-established harmony. Since monads cannot interact with one another, how are we to explain the way they seem to work together, as for example in the correspondence between changes in the world and in our perceptions? Lebniz thinks that each monad mirrors the rest of the world and that God has preordained affairs in such a way that a change in one monad corresponds with a change in another. As Russell says, it is as if we have an infinite number of clocks all preset so they keep time in perfect harmony. Far out!

Leibniz uses this as one of his arguments for the existence of God. There must be someone to set the clocks! But that argument only works if one accepts what seems to be this absurd idea of windowless monads working together in perfect harmony.

2) The principle of sufficient reason. Russell says Leibniz is an example of a philosopher who tries to generate a metaphysics from his logic. The principle of noncontradiction was basic to Arisotle's logic, i.e. a think cannot be and not be at the same time. Leibniz adds the principle of sufficient reason, which I suppose means there must be an adequate explanation for everything.

Leibniz uses this principle to strenghten the cosmological argument for the existence of God. Aquinas has claimed that God is the First Cause; Leibniz interprets this to mean that God is the sufficient reason for the existence of the world, and that without God there would be no qdequate explanation of why anything exists.

Russell says that Kant correctly argued that the Cosmological Argument really depends on the Ontological Argument. Leibniz also used the Ontological Argument, adding to it by arguing that there is no contradiction in the idea of a Perfect Being, thus this Being is possible.

3) "This is the best of all possible worlds." This is the basis of Leibniz's theodicy, i.e. his justification of a belief in God in spite of evil. He assumes that there were many possible worlds which God could have created. Any other possible worlds would not have been as good as this world.

This argument has been ridiculed by Voltaire and criticized by many philosophers. It seems to imply that every evil in the world is a necessary evil, for without it the world would not have been as good. I have heard it said that this is "a slander on the word possibility." It is a sad state of affairs if there could not have been a better world than the one we have.

Someone has said that an optimist is one who believes that this is the best of all possible worlds; a pessimist is one who fears that the optimist might be right.

Shasta, we were posting about the same time, so I will go back to your post. Spinoza says it follows from his definitions of God and substance that God is the only free cause, for God alone exists by the sole necessity of his nature. Nothing external can constrain God to act.

But we are modes of God and we are constrained by God as the only free cause. Modes of God express God's nature in a fixed and definite manner.

Spinoza does think there is a difference between a free and an unfree man. He says, " A free man, that is to say, a man who lives according to the dictates of reason alone, is not led by the fear of death, but directly desires the good." He goes on at length describing the qualities of a free man.

The unfree man, the one who is in bondage, lives in ignorance. Now I agree that this is not the way we ordinarily distinguish between free will and determinism. It is often assumed that we have to reject determinism in order to defend free will, but there have been a number of philosophers who are called 'soft determinists." They believe that free will is compatible with determinism.

I have suggested earlier that one of my problems with pantheism or monism is that it does not explain adequately the variety of our experiences and the reality of evil. I would now add to that the criticism that it does not give an adequate account of what it means to be free. William James rejected monism and embraced pluralism precisely for this reason, and he said his first act of free will was his choice to believe in free will.

Floyd, you say:"I think monads are akin to atoms, except whereas atoms are indivisible material substances, the monads are souls. In other words Leibniz is an idealist rather than a materialist. The basic building blocks of the universe are like little souls."

Atoms can be divided and subdivided, and where does it end, probably at the beginning. Mind??

Bert

Good points, Bert. The word "atom" literally means that which cannot be cut or divided. Of course, we now know atoms can be split. So what are those indivisble entities which make up our world?

The more we know about the nature of things the more they appear to be made of energy or somekind of reality that does not seem material at all. So idealism is not as unfounded as it may have once seemed to be.

I like to compare Leibniz with the metaphysics of Alfred North Whitehead. According to him. the basic units of experience are "actual entities," which are more like events than lasting substances.

Actual entities or actual occasions (the latter term used when we are not including God in the reference) are bipolar in nature, having both a mental and a physical pole. All of the actual occasions feel or prehend one another, entering into one another's experience.

The big difference, then, between monads and actual occasions is that whereas the former have no windows the latter are "all windows," completely in touch with all other entities in their nexus. This shows how scientific developments help to reshape meetaphysics.

I had a hard time understanding Leibniz' theories, so I looked him up in an encyclopedia to see if I could get a clearer explanation. Guess what? The encyclopedia said to consult Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy." (They didn't understand him either.) Then I turned to the tapes I am listening to. I would tell you what they are, but I don't think I am supposed to mention commercial products on SeniorNet. Some of these lectures are good and some are not so good. The one on Leibniz is very good. In fact I was surprised that this young teacher was this smart. He also referred to Bertrand Russell in his lecture on monads. Apparently, Russell is our authority whether I understand him or not. He also wrote a "Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz."

Why do the monads have to be windowless? Why can't they interact? What is there in their nature that prevents them from interacting?

(Page 584) "The changes in a human body happen for the sake of the dominant monad (the soul): when my arm moves, the purpose served by the movement is in the dominant monad (now he calls it the mind rather than the soul), not in the monads that compose my arm."

Well, why wouldn't that be interaction? If the arm monads obey the requirements of the soul/mind monad, aren't they obeying an order? Isn't that interaction?

I can't quit worrying with this monad theory because it is so fascinating. Without any of modern science's elaborate instruments, Leibniz intuited that matter is, at base, energy. How could he possibly have arrived at this conclusion? Even today, this sounds fantastic, and he figured it out 300 years ago.

Perhaps the reason Lebniz has "windowless" monads is that he is using Spinoza's definition of substance. A substance exsts by itself and can be conceived by itself. It is not caused by any other action upon itself.

As Russell says, it would have been more reasonable for Leibniz, starting from this definition, to end up in agreement with Spinoza that there can only be one substance.

Russell distinguishes between Leibniz's popular philosophy, which we have been discussing, and his "esoteric philosophy," largely unknown until Russell introduced it to the world.

Leibniz was a logician who tried to derive his metaphysics from his logic. Russell thinks one of his shortcomings is that he was working with the faulty Aristotelian "subject-predicate logic," ignoring relations. It is Russell, along with Whitehead, who developed modern mathemotical logic, which is no longer bound to the subject-predicate logic. I studied symbolic logic, but I am certainly no expert on it. Perhaps we can discuss this further when we come to contemporary philosophy.

Floyd, I may be out of place here, never took part in these discussions. Are you all reading the same book and are discussing the authors thoughts on this particular subject? If I mention some thoughts about Russell not referring to this book, am I out of place ? PLease let me know.

For Russell, as I understand it, man is caught in the onrolling of the great universal machine. Its laws are inevitable, and its mills grind on. Man rises for a moment , thinks that he amounts to something, but his time of exaltation is short. After a brief life, he drops out of the scheme of things, and the universe moves on uncaring and unknowing. In the eternity of a machine universe, one individual with his values amounts to nothing.. Nature cares not for man. The universe is a vast system of laws and consistencies in which human values have little or no place. Man lives his little day and is forgotten.

The above gives us an idea about Russell's stand on man's place in the universe and the nature of God. What are Russell's thoughts on how this great machine came about? Of course there are the other questions, is our thinking significant in the machine universe or is it a mere sham? Are our ideas inherent in the very nature of our minds, or do they come to us from outside the mind?

The monads of Leibnitz are "force-atoms",cannot be destroyed or changed(divided). Giordano Bruno refers to them "uncaused" and wholly imperishable. They seem to be a physical entity,even that central, controlling monad in man which Leibnitz calls soul??? Leibnitz's universe is also wholly mechanical. Man, and all nature, is subject to law, order, uniformity. Does Leibnitz give much thought to how it came about, ouside of the fact that God is?

Bert

Since Russell injects his own views into his discussion of the philosophers, I think it is legitimate to include references to his own philosophical views. I would, howver, encourage us to stay fairly close to the issues that relate to the philosophical views in question.

I think Bert has given an accurate statement of Russell's own views. I mentioned earlier that as a young man he had been impressed with the First Cause Argument for God, until he asked someone what caused God. When he was told that God has no cause, Russell concluded there was a contradiction in the argument. It stars out saying everything must have a cause, then ends with a being without a cause. If there is to be such an uncaused being, asks Russell, why can't it be the world itself. He uses Occam's razor to cut out that unnecessary cause known as God. He does acknowledge, however, in this discussion of Leibniz that if there is a Principle of Sufficient Reason, that strengthens the Cosmological Argument for God. Having said that, however, he challenges that Principle.

Don't you love the word "compossible"? I suppose it means "possibly compatible" or having the possibility of compatibility. I like it even better than "univocal" and "prevenient."

Leibniz theorizes that the world may have come into existence due to a combination of compossibles, rather than an act of God. But what makes him think God didn't create the compossibles? I always like to give God credit for being able to think up anything humans can think up.

Implied in Shasta's question is whether God is bound by what is logically possible. A question was asked back in the Middle Ages whether it was possible for God to create a rock so heavy that He could not lift it. It seems however one answers that question creates a problem. If the answer is "no," that means God is limited, but if the answer is "No" God is also limited.

Aquinas answered the question by saying that God cannot do what is logically impossible, but this places no limitation on God, for what is logically impossible is nothing at all.

My own view in regard to "compossbilities" is that God is limited to choices of possible worlds. Leibniz says God chooses the most perfect set of possibilities, within those logical limitations. If saying God is limited to what is logically possible limits God, I say "so be it."

___________________________________________________________________

Perhaps we are ready to move forward to philosophical liberalism and to the philosophy of John Locke. Does anyone have any comments on Chapter XII (Philosophical Liberalism)?

Tomorrow we probably should start discussing John Locke.

Shasta, may be it wasn't God who came up with compossibles, but the interpreter who interpreted Leibnitz works from German to English.

Bert, of course the interpreter came up with the word "compossible", but he must surely have used it as the equivalent of whatever German word Leibniz used. The idea originated with Leibniz, and the interpreter was trying to translate it into English.

Floyd, let's start with Locke. It will be a relief after Leibniz.

Like some others, I was caught on the word "compossibles" Russell uses in discussing Leibniz. In giving the word some thought I cam up with the possibility that it cold be a blend of a term used in physics called "compostion of forces". This phrase means a joining of two or more forces, exerted in the same of different directions into one equivalent force, the resultant.

Wishing to go along with your suggestion to get into Locke's Theory of Knowledge, it didn't take long before I got hung up. His doctrine as to primary and secondary qualities meant nothing to me until I began to see a resemblance to that old question: If a tree fell in the forest, and no one around to hear it, would there be any sound? I think this is approximately what Locke was trying to answer with his theory. What did it mean to others in this discussion? I think Russell, in his writing, assumes the reader knows more than perhaps he does in philosophy and physics; it certainly is true with this reader.

Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, was a rationalist, as were Spinoza and Leibniz. They believed that knowledge is based upon reasononing from principles which are self-evident.

We see a contrast between Continental Rationalism and British Empiricism, which assumed that all knowledge is derived from experience. John Locke, George Berkeley , and David Hume were the great British Empiricists.

Locke is known not only for his contribution to the theory of knowledge but also for his philosophical liberalism. The founding fathers of the United States were influenced by the political philosophy of Locke, as is evident from the Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Actually, the third right, according to Locke, is the right to property.)

"Locke's Theory of Knowledge" is discussed by Russell in Chapter XIII (pp. 604-617). Please read this chapter and comment or ask questions.

Cathy has already raised an important question about the distinction between primary and secondary qualities.

First, we need to notice that Locke was influenced by Descartes and accepted his belief that what we know are ideas in our minds. Unlike Descartes and Leibniz, however, Locke rejects the belief in innate ideas, the belief that we are born with ideas already present in our minds.

Locke says that at birth our minds are like blank sheets of paper. Any ideas we ever get will have to come from our sensations and our reflections. (Please note that Locke is not a pure empiricist; he does not claim that all knowledge comes from sense experience; we also have ideas from the activity of our minds.)

Locke believes that our sensations are the result of material objects acting upon our minds. (There is a problem here: if all we know are ideas in our minds, how can we ever know that there are any objects outside of our minds?)

Primarty qualities are in the objects themselves. Objects really have the characteristics of solidity, extension, weight, and number. But the secondary qualities, like colors, odors, and tastes are not in the objects; they exist only in our minds. Think of a lemon. Does the sour taste really exist in the lemon? No, the poor lemon does not go around with a sour taste! The sour taste is only in our experience. But the lemon really does have weight, shape, and solidity.

Applied to the tree falling in the forest, Locke would say there really is an object with primary qualites which falls, even if no one sees or hears it, but the tree has none of the secondary qualities.

One of Locke's main arguments for this distinction is the variation of our experience of secondary qualites. Consider examples of color-blindness, how food may taste sweet to one person and sour to another, how water may feel warm to another and cool to another.

Later we will see that Berkely argues, rather convincingly, that the primary qualities are in the same boat as the secondary qualities, and there are just as good reason for saying both primary and secondary qualities exist only in our minds.

I agree with Berkeley. There's no difference between primary and secondary qualities. They both occur in the mind. I told a painter friend of mine one time that color doesn't exist in nature; it only exists in the mind. She was so outraged by this suggestiont that she stopped speaking to me.

On page 613 Russell says: "No one has yet succeeded in inventing a philosophy at once credible and self-consistent....The most fruitful philosophies have contained glaring inconsistencies, but for that very reason have been partially true." Well, that's a pretty cynical statement, isn't it? I wonder if he applied it to his own philosophy.

And on page 617: "Almost all philosophers, in their ethical system, first lay down a false doctrine, and then argue that wickedness consists in acting in a manner that proves it false, which would be impossible if the doctrine were true." Do I understand him right? Is he saying: "I am lying but if you prove I am lying, you are wicked."?

Russell seems to be saying that if Locke had been completely consistent he would have had to accept the conclusion that we never can know whether our ideas correspond to objects outside of our minds, but that he had too much common-sense to accept that conclusion. This willingness to be inconsistent for the sake of common-sense may actually be a strength in Locke's philosophy.

It is not at all clear to me what Russell is saying in the statement on p. 617. The false teaching in question is that men only desire pleasure. Russell does make an important point in saying that pleasure is not the only thing we desire; in fact, pleasure comes from the satisfication of desires, which can be for any number of things.

Hi,

I just discovered this interesting thread. Do you mind if I make some comments? I wonder if common sense drove Locke or the idol of the theatre of physics (Bacon's term). Perhaps he simply tried to pull the success of physics into philosophy and project "objective reality" as well as an empty mind, as void as the universe was according to Newtonian physics.

Sorry to butt in like that,

Regards,
Ron.

Ron, join our discussion. Floyd gets tired of listening to my nonsense, and would appreciate some intelligent conversation once in a while.

Hi, Ron, we're delighted to see you here in our Books discussions, and I know Floyd and the other participants here will extend (I see Shasta just did! We were posting together) a grand welcome to you!

Hope you'll come back many times and join right in, not only to this discussion but to all our discussions here in the Books & Lit and on the whole site of SeniorNet!

We are glad to have you.

Ginny

Shasta and Ginny,

I will. Thanks for the warm welcome!

Ron.

RON!! HOLLAND??

Ginny

Locke began his thinking with the question: How does man know? And his conclusion, that all knowledge comes from sense impressions. This point of view made it necessary for him to account for the universe as the source of those impressions.

According to Locke, there is a real world. Our senses, he said, tell us of this world, we experience it, therefore, it is. The real world is the cause of our sensations, and by reasoning, the real world contains something which causes in us an idea.. But, if there is a real world, how can we , having only ideas, prove it?

Locke believes that what we know are (from) ideas in our minds received through sense experience.

Floyd, you mentioned Locke rejects the belief in innate ideas.. But Locke also claims that not all knowledge comes from sense experience, that we also have ideas from the activty of our minds. But if our minds at birth are like a blank sheet of paper, no innate ideas, what causes the activities of our (blank at birth) mind, if not sense experience?? Please, Floyd, explain this. You do mention in your post # 362, Locke's inconsistencies, his strength? [must have been also a politician :>) ]

Shasta mentiones Berkeley, who denies the material Universe. For him, all that exists are ideas in the mind. And about Cathy's falling tree in the forest, would there be sound? There could be such a compossibillty-----a joke. You have a very good point there, Cathy, and I will elaborate on this.

We are aware of things in the world in the way in which our senses are aware of the properties they exhibit.....the entire panorama of universal existence is nothing but a mental experience and not merely a mental representation of a separate material existence..

The world's existence in itself without a knowing mind alongside it can never be established. Sense impressions are themselves meaningless if they are not supported by or given to an individual mind which has them.

Then things and this world are nothing other than thought structures and their beginnings must be the product of some mind---God?? It is the imaginative activity of the mind which is the basis of all our experience, not a separate material substance as is commonly thought. The world which seems presented from outside to the senses is actually projected from within the mind.

Sorry, I am of the track again, that comes closer to discussing Berkeley ,not Locke.

For Locke, besides these two substances of mind and body, there is another spiritual substance, God. God has made the universe out of nothing and has arranged it so that it acts as we find it acting through our experiences. For Locke, an outer world exists and God exists and has created the world, I think he said out of nothing.

Bert

I join in offering a warm welcome to Ron. I think his suggestion about Locke and physics is important, Perhaps he can explain further why this may be an important influence on Locke.

I am not sure there is any inconsistency between Locke's rejection of innate ideas and his conclusion that we have ideas of reflection, derived from the working of our minds. I think he is saying there could be no activity of the mind without sense experience as a source of ideas for thought. It is true, however, that Locke's distinction between ideas of reflection and ideas of sensation indicates that he is not a pure empiricist, if that is understood to mean that all ideas come from sense experience.

We should also note Locke's distinction between simple and complex ideas. I have a simple idea of red, a particular fragrance, a shape, etc. and my mind combines those simple ideas into the complex idea of the rose. Ideas of substance, causality, and relationships are the products of an active mind, combining simple ideas.

Locke distinguishes three kinds of knowledge: I have an intuitive knowledge of my own existence; a demonstrative knowledge of the existence of God; and a sensitive knowledge of objects in the world.

In forthcomng discussions it will be interesting to see how the move towards empiricism, which Locke started, is taken to its logical conclusions in the skeptical philosophy of David Hume.

First, however, we need to discuss Locke's political philosopophy, and then move on to the idealism of Berkeley.

I am somewhat irritated by the terminology used by Locke and many other philosophrs. For instance: using the word sensation for mind activity. Experience for memory and etc.

For some time I have wondered about the mind and when it becomes active after birth. When does it (mind) begin to experience experience? Why can I not remember my babyhood. When I was in my crib gazing around me at whatever was in my sight, what was that doing to my brain? Anything? If yes, why can I not remember it? Does the synapsing process kick in only after a language is learned? I Thought maybe Locke would answer this for me. If he did, I did not recognize it.

I can recall, as my earliest memory, being pushed in a stroller as my mother was entering a department store and saw that I had a dirty face, wetted a hankerchief to clean my face. Why should that be my earliest memory? Why not remembering when I was born? I know I never experience birth before! Really? That simple?

Cathy, we would probably have to go into another field of knowledge to answer your questions about the development of consciousness. Locke would not have had access to the knowledge that exists today on the brain's functioning. He was just making general speculations about the nature of knowledge.

I understand what he meant by intuitive and sensitive knowledge, but what did he mean by demonstrative knowledge?

I'm also a little puzzled about Locke's idealization of the "natural state." I thought the main purpose of government was to overcome the natural state, rather than maintain it. If we were still living in our natural state, we'd be cracking each other's skulls with clubs and eating each other for supper. Locke seems to think our natural instincts are all benign and beneficial. Some of them are--the survival instinct, the parental instinct--but some of the others could certainly use some governing. I suppose what he meant was that government should interfere with individual liberty as little as possible.

When you read Locke, you have to stop and think: the world I live in is largely the result of this man's thinking. If you like the government you're living under, you can thank Locke for it. If you don't like it, you can blame Locke. Personally, I criticize it every day of my life, but I still think it's pretty good in spite of all its flaws.

I'm speaking of the U.S. government, Ron. I'm sorry to say I know nothing about government in Holland. Perhaps you can tell us what effect Locke had on your government,if any.

What are the differences between consciousness and knowledge? Once consciousness kicks in, knowledge follows. Right? One follows the other.

Definitions of consciousness were drawn up long before current knowledge. I see no evidence what so ever of their (the ancients) asking when and at what age knowledge began in the human mind. Not even the so called moderns seem to ask that question. It would seem that philosophers probed and worked diligently at what consciousness was, but not when it began. Maybe if they had asked when it began they could answer what it is. So it seems to me!

I know I am letting myself in for a deluge of criticism. I can take it!

Ron,

I would seem very fitting for this forum to welcome you as your nation was a refuge for many of the 16th & 17th centuries' philosophers who were in danger for their views and needed sheltering.

Holland, at that time, seemed to be a very tolerent land. It will be most interesting to hear of your particular slant on philosophy. Is Holland as tolerant today as it was in the days past?

Many important questions have been raised in previous posts.

Intuitive knowledge, according to Locke, is direct knowledge. We have intuitive knowledge of the agreement and disagreement of our ideas and also of our own existence.

Demonstrative knowledge is the knowledge we gain from syllogistic reasoning. Mathematics is a form of demonstrative reasoning. If A is larger than B, and B is larger than C, we know that A is larger than C. We can demonstrate that conclusion. Locke thinks we can also use syllogistic reasoning to demonstrate the existence of God, though his argments are not stated very clearly.

Intuitive and demonstrative knowledge are the highest form of knowleldge, and if Locke had been entirely consitent he might have concluded that they are the only kinds of knosledge. But his common sense tells him that we also have some knowledge of external objects, and this he calls sensitive knowledge.

As for innate ideas, Locke argues from the fact that little babies do not go around stating logical and mathematical propositions to the conclusion that they are not born with those ideas. They first have to stock their mental cabinet with ideas from sense experience.

Plato believed that children are born with knowledge, which they gained as pre-existent souls, Much of this was forgotten due to the birth trauma and has to be relearned. Education for Plato is really recollection.

Leibniz seem to believe that there is a predisposition for learning at the moment of birth. It is like a rock formed in such a way that the sculptor can use it for a particuar sculpture. Later we well see how Kant believes we are born with two forms of intuition and twelve categories of understanding, thus enabling us to know a priori truths.

_____________________________________________________________________

Locke agreed with Hobbes that there is an original state of nature but he does not have as pessimistic (or realistic?) view of that state. it is not a state of a war of all against all. For even in the state of nature men are governed by the laws of nature, which are known by reasoning, and they have basic natural rights.

Why, then, the need for a social contract, which establishes a civil society? I think Locke believes that the burden of protecting our own rights in a state of nature is too heavy, and through a social contract we set up a government to protect those rights.

This is Locke's alternative to hereditary rule or the divine right of kings. Government is set up by the people for the sake of the people.

Hi Floyd, I admire your deep knowledge of philosophy. You really make me feel back in class - and I like it!

Perhaps he can explain further why this [physics] may be an important influence on Locke.

Locke thought the great physicists found real knowledge. He modeled his idea of reality and the mind according to the assumptions about this in physics. This was the empiricist idea of the sensory-motor system mediating all information from and to our (physical) environment. Locke's 'tabula rasa' metaphor for the mind is analogous to objects (planets) moving in empty space. He assumed a 'psychological gravity' bringing the simple ideas together into complex ones, analogous to physical gravity aggregating matter.

We should also note Locke's distinction between simple and complex ideas. I have a simple idea of red, a particular fragrance, a shape, etc. and my mind combines those simple ideas into the complex idea of the rose. Ideas of substance, causality, and relationships are the products of an active mind, combining simple ideas.

This idea of his may still be very important. I believe we are discovering that attribution is the cause of meaning. Grouping simple ideas into one concept and reusing (some of) them in other concepts can explain why and how complex ideas are born, grow and reorganize.

I'm speaking of the U.S. government, Ron. I'm sorry to say I know nothing about government in Holland. Perhaps you can tell us what effect Locke had on your government,if any.

Shasta, the idea of the natural state was very popular in those days. Rousseau in France whose adagio was "back to nature" may have influenced Locke. Rousseau wrote a book about the social contract. Here in Holland the government is chosen once every four years directly by the people (13 mln total population - LA has more!). Basically we have Protestants and Catholics each having their own lobbies and parties. After a period of about 10 or more years of right-wing government, like almost all of Europe, government has recently swung back to left-wing policy. However, people couldn't care less nowadays who is governing, or so it seems. Perhaps that is a good sign for it means that people do trust that whatever is going on is ok.

Cathy, indeed I am from a village where Descartes has lived around 1600 (in a windmill)! However, I do not think he actually was a refugee. Dutch independence is intricately linked to the Reformation. Our queens last name "of Orange" goes back to Willam of Orange who declared war against the Catholic Spanish magistrates.

I do not think we are any bit less intolerant as our neighboring countries. Ultra right wing politics is having its hay days even when government is leftish.

And although I studied philosophy (of psychology), I am not at all sure the one I know is representative for our particular slant. Actually, I would not really know what the general trend is over here. As far as I am concerned, what is really interesting is (a particular brand of) French philosophy. I am an immense admirer of Henri Bergson (1859-1941). Hope I am not letting you down!?..

We are indebted to Ron for his clear explanation of how physics influenced the development of Locke's philosophy. I believe nearly all modern philosophers have studied mathematics and science and that is why philosophy continues to grow and develop, responding to changing scientific theories.

In discussing Locke's view of natural rights Russell correctly points out the importance of the right to property. It is labor which gives individuals a claim on personal property.

The apples on the tree in the forest are there for everyone to enjoy, but when I labor to pick and gather the apples they now belong to me. I should, however, gather only as many apples as I can use. Locke thought silver and gold were highly valued as property, because they were longer lasting than many other kinds of property.

I have wondered why Thomas Jefferson, in writing the Declaration of Independence for the United States, spoke of the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happines," rather than Locke's listing of "life, liberty, and property." Was Jefferson thinking of property when he speaks of the pursuit of happiness?

In my opinion the pursuit of property makes more sense than the pursuit of happiness. I cannot imagine anything more self-defeating than the constant pursuit of happiness. It seems that happiness is a by product of the satisfactory pursuit of other ends.

On the other hand, I do not agree that the pursuit of property is any guarantee of happiness, I also doubt whether property-rights, as understood by Locke, are as important as he thinks they are, Of course, if you try to take away my property, I will likely fight as hard as I can to protect it.

Sasha, you often stumble on the same questions as I. Locke's fixation of our knowledge of God existence being demonstrative meant, I think, WE are the handiwork of God. Our existence means HE exists.

As far as your friend that no longer speaks to you because you told her there was no colour in nature- just had to be traumatic to her! I see the planet earth as a lovely blue/white marble in the blackness called space. The camera, unbiased and strictly neutral, records the same lovely contrast. I, too, get hung up on the concept that colour is not a reality.

I will continue speaking to you however!

The fact that the camera records the same color we see with our eyes does not really refute Locke. He would simply say that when we look at a picture of an object the colors are not really in the picture but in our perceptions of the pictures.

Are you folks ready to move on to Berkeley? I do not want to discourage further comments on Locke, but perhaps most of us are ready to comment on Chaptever XVI (Berkeley).

We will note how Berkeley uses empiricism to support his belief in God. Ronald Knox's limerick on p. 648 sums up in a humorous way the gist of Berkely's philosphy. "To exist is to be perceived." If no one perceives an object, it has no existence.

Consider again the old question, "If a tree falls in the forest when no one is present, does it make a sound?" Berkely does not hesitate to say "no." Does he really mean that when I turn out the lights and leave my computer in the dark it no longer exists, and then when I come to it in the morning it will come back into existence? That seems so contrary to common sense that it is hardly worth considering, but that is not what Berkeley believes. As the limerick explains, the computer will continue to exist because God will continue to perceive it, even while I am absent from the room and no other human being is looking at it.

We need to pay close attention to the arguments Berkeley offers in support of his thesis.

Having just read Berkley Monday, I was developing a fear of sitting down in a chair. I could not figure out how to sit down in a chair and make sure all four legs of the chair were in my sight. Then you posted your explanation that God perceived those legs and I could sit down without becoming a contortionist. Such relief.

That old example of the tree in the forest doesn't seem convincing to me. Whether it makes a sound or not, depends on the presence of ears (human or animal) to receive the vibrations and convert them into sound. The real question is: if nobody perceives the tree falling, does it really fall? Well, common sense tells us it does because when you go down to the woods, there it is on the ground. But when you have to bring God into the equation in order to make it work, that seems to me like it's straining the argument. I realize Berkeley was a bishop and devoted to God, but there is something about his argument that seems forced.

Although in the end we may agree that Berkely's arguments are weak and his conclusions false, I hope we will also recognize his philosophical brilliance in envisioning the world as he does. I think Berkeley is basically offering us a different way of looking at the world.

The science of his time saw the world very much as the Ancient Greek Atomists saw it. It is made up of atoms moving mechanically in a void. The atoms do not have color, taste, odor, or any of what Locke called secondary qualities. Locke's distinction between primary and secondary qualites was, as Ron reminded us, an expression of the science of his time.

Berkeley's daring proposal is that the nation of material objects external to the mind makes no sense. The only thing we can talk about is what we perceive.

Perhaps the most successful arguments are those which show that primary and secondary qualities have the same status. Locke's arguments which supported his conclusion that secondary qualities exist only in our minds also prove the same to be true of primary qualities.

I will not attempt to review all of those arguments. Some of them are based on the variation of our experiences. Suppose I hold one hand near a fire and the other in ice water. I think plunge both hands into a pail of water. The water is experienced as hot by one hand and cold by the other, but surely the water cannot both be hot and cold at the same time. The hotness and coldness do not exist in the water; they exist only in our minds.

The same variation of experience applies to so-called primary qualities. I am driving across the Great Plains and see a tiny little building, but as I get closer I see that it is a large grain silo. Thus the size of the elevator does not exist in the elevator; it exists only in my mind. The same line of reasoning applies to other primary qualities.

Berkeley also argues that extreme degrees of heat or cold are experienced as pain, thus warmth and coldness are really forms of pain or pleasure. But surely the object does not experience pleasure or pain, so they must exist only in our minds.

Finally, Berkeley challenges us to think of anything which is not being perceived or conceived. We might reply, "I am thinking of a rare species of fish, deep in the ocean, which has never been perceived by anyone." But wait a moment, Berkeley would say, I have an idea of the fish and this idea exists in my mind. So it is not an example of something existing apart from being perceived or conceived.

Russell has some good criticisms of Berkeley's arguments but they are not easy to understand.

In discussing Berkeley's picture of the world, summed up in the formula "to exist is to be perceived," I presented only part of the picture.

What he actually says is: "To exist is to perceive or to be a perceiver." Two sorts of things are real: ideas and what he calls spirits (or minds). There are many finite spirits and one infinite Spirit (God.)

God causes finite spirits to have the ideas that they have. If I see a patch of blue, it is because God caused me to have that idea.

A big problems arises at this point. Berkeley says we have no ideas of spirits. It would seem, then, that it makes no more sense to speak of spirits or God than to speak of material substances.

Berkeley responds by saying that even though we have no idea of spirits we do have a notion of them. I suppose he means that we know what we are talking about when we use the word "spirit."

We have an immediate awareness of our own existence as a spirit and from that are able to understand God as Spirit.

Russell points out that once one says there are spirits or minds which perceive it is reasonable to give a very different explanation of the world than the one Berkeley gives. One may conclude that we form ideas through an interaction of our minds and objects

At the time Russell wrote his History he held the position that Berkeley is correct in saying we do not directly perceive objects, such as tables. We perceive sense data: a color, a shape, a size, etc. But he believes that there are sensible qualities we are perceiving outside of our minds.

Any other questions or comments about Berkeley? If not we will move on to Hume.

I mention the following only for what it is worth. Since reading Berkley I recalled a social evening held in my kitchen with several VERY interesting people. We began to discuss What and Why are we.

One of my guest, a very charismatic nun, started telling us that we probably co-esisted with another dimensional world. She said, perhaps in that other dimensional world, a freight train might be roaring through my kitches as we spoke.

Naturally we all grinned and had our remarks to make. She later told me that she was a student of Berkley and she felt what she surmised might be possible from her view by the influence of Berkley.

I had completely forgotten that incident until exposed to Berkley through this discussion group.

My question, Floyd, is it reasonable for her to imagine such a interpretation of Berkley? I have never forgotten her very serious conjecture.

I, for one am ready for Hume!

I do not believe Berkeley intends to describe a world other than the one in which we live. He claims to be offering a common-sense view of the world. For example, suppose I am in another room and I say "There is a computer in my study." What am I saying? Am I saying that there is a material substance existing separate from my mind? No, only a philosopher would say such a thing.

The ordinary man or woman means, "If I should enter my study with enough light, I would see a computer." Or if right now I say, "There is a computer on my desk," I am saying I see a computer. I am not making any statement about a material substance, only about what I perceive.

Russell distinguishes between Berkeley's logical analysis of ordinary language and his metaphysical views. His logical analysis is accepted by contemporary philosophers called "phenomenalists." They translate all talk about obects into statements about present or possible perceptions.

What seems to depart from common-sense is the view that objects continue to exist when not perceived by finite minds because they are perceived by God. Phenomenalists, if you please, are Berkeley without God.

Berkeley certainly realizes that we often talk about objects as if they had a real existence apart from being perceived. But people also talk about the sun rising, when we know it is really the earth rotating. So Berkeley says we must "speak as the vulgar" but understand that what we really believe is "to exist is to be perceived or to be a perceiver."

Berkeley's criticism of philosophers is that they too often "raise a dust and then complain that they cannot see." He writes as the champion of ordinary speech and common-sense. Of course, he also writes as a Christian--one who wants to defend Christianity against materialism and atheism. He thinks a belief in matter is the foundation of atheism and he wants to destroy that foundation.

Yes, let's move on to Hume but be prepared for even more shocking conclusions.

Wait a minute!

I realize Berkeley was a bishop and devoted to God, but there is something about his argument that seems forced.

Actually I found it amazing how plain and direct a Doctor of the Catholic Church could be in setting all the records straight only by referring to God, when I read selections of Thomas Aquinas. I have not figured out how he does that yet. But I like to believe it is the 'other truth', that is not the one by natural reason in science, but received by revelation in faith, as stated in Faith and Reason, by John Paul II recently.

Finally, Berkeley challenges us to think of anything which is not being perceived or conceived.

How about immediate intuition, or as Berkeley put forward himself, immediate awareness of our own existence as a spirit, as something which is not being perceived or conceived? I believe Bergson is right when he argues that real time, duration and change is something we forgot how to immediately, phenomenologically, perceive. He actually put a course together on how to relearn this. From our instinct, we developed intellect, permitting us to view the world in intellectual 'clippings' (like newspaper clippings). These lead us away from immediate perception. Even time itself is not perceived the way it is any more. For example: Kant's basic categories were time and space, where we treat time as we treat space. We cut it up in little pieces. However time, like a symphony, cannot be taken apart, for it is the source of creation. Intuition is the fringe of instinct, that we moved away from through an overstrained intellect.

we probably co-existed with another dimensional world

One thing I learned from Faith and Reason, which I mentioned above already, was that there is more than one truth, although there is 'unity of truth'. One is truth of science, the other is truth of faith. Moreover, on the faith part, there are 'truth of being, transcendental truth and absolute truth'. That FASCINATES me!

So Berkeley says we must "speak as the vulgar" but understand that what we really believe is "to exist is to be perceived or to be a perceiver."

I think Strawson (before phenomenalism? In 1959, Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics, London: Methuen.) attempted in this tradition:

… to lay bare the most general features of our conceptual structure, the massive central core of human thinking which has no history - or none recorded in histories of thought; there are categories and concepts which, in their most fundamental character, change not at all. Obviously these are not the specialties of the most refined thinking. They are the commonplaces of the least refined thinking; and are yet the indispensable core of the conceptual equipment of the most sophisticated human being. [pp. 9-10] … things which are, or possess, material bodies must be the basic particulars. … Persons and material bodies are what primarily exists. [p. 39, italics mine]

Have a good weekend!
Ron.

Hume's concern for the of the cause and effect statement is understandable, but my question is wrapped up as to why it is so important?

A statement in saying the tubercle bacillus causes tuberculosis is rather firm. However in accetping the statement is the innate(?) knowledge that all tubercule bacillus does not cause tuberculosis in all cases It all depends on one's state of health and other unknown factors. This usually is in our minds as we make a cause and effect statement. Should we forsake a useful cause and affect association in order to be philosophically correct.

Am I missing a more profound thread here?

Ron's remark about exceptions to Berkeley's claim that it is impossible to think of something that is not perceived or conceived reminds us of how difficult it is to be a consistent empiricist. Locke, as we have seen, was willing to sacrifice consistency for common-sense. One might make a case for saying that Berkeley was more consistent than Locke, while conceding that in order to defend knowledge of selves and God he, too, had to admit some inconsistencies. Now if you want to see where consistent empiricism leads, just look at the philosophy of David Hume. Fortunately, Bertrand Russell offers a clear and accurate discussion of Hume.

Russell's first sentence in the chapter on Hume shows us the problem. "David Hume (1711-76) is one of the most important among philosophers, because he developed to its logical conclusion the empirical philosophy of Locke and Berkeley, and by making it self-consistent made it incredible."

I want to mention a few important points made by Hume, as discussed by Russell. In doing this I will try to respond to Cathy by explaining what I believe to be Hume's views on causality.

1) The distinction between impressions and ideas. These are two kinds of perceptions. Impressions "have more force and violence." Ideas are like impressions but fainter. All our simple ideas are derived from simple impressions. The ideas correspond to and represent the impressions. Complex ideas, on the other hand, need not resemble impressions. For example, we can imagine a winged horse without ever having seen one, but the constitutents of this complex idea are derived from impressions. Memory is distinguished from imagination because the ideas of the former have more "vivacity." General ideas are nothing but particular ones, annexed to a certain term. (Borrowed from Berkeley)

2) Hume banished the concept of substance from psychology from, even as Berkeley had banished it from physics. (Berkeley said we have no idea of material substance, but we do have a notion of spirit or mind; Hume says we have no idea of either material or mental substances. )

Hume's statement about the self, which Russell quotes on p. 662 is classic and should be pondered carefully. It basically says I have no perception of the self. I only have particular perceptions of heat or cold, light or shade, etc.

Hume's analysis of the "self" as merely a bundle of perceptions reminds me of what the Buddha said on this topic.

Russell concludes that what Hume shows is that whether or not there is a substantial self we can never know that there is. Thus he banishes the idea of substance completely from philosophy.

3) We have no impression of a causal relation. We perceive A followed by B but we do not perceive A causing B. There is no necessary connection between A and B. Why then do I believe that when I heat water it will boil at a specific temperature? I believe it because in the past I have experienced the boiling of the water, but there is no certainty that this will happen the next time I put the water on the stove. For all I know, the water may turn to ice!

Why then do I have such a strong belief that B will continue to follow A? That belief is the result of habit. I have seen the events connected so many times that I forget there is no necessary connection between them and confuse this "constant conjunction" with a necessary causal relation. As a matter of fact, I have no guarantee that the future will resemble the past.

We cannot emphasize too much how skeptical Hume is and how contrary his conclusions are to our ordinary beliefs about the world. As a matter of practice, Hume could not himself live by the philosophy he taught. He continued to expect the water on the stove to boil!

At this point in our being students of Russell and Crenshaw, I realize that one of you should have provided us with a glossary of terms.

As a matter of fact, some philosopher in Russelld's book demanded a definition of terms. I get so confused on substance (is it matter?), essence (is it spirit?), sensation (is it mind activity?),conjunction (is it justaposition?), sensible (is it sensitivity?), etc! The next book on philosophy that I buy will contain a glossary, believe me!

Cathy:" Should we forsake a useful cause and effect association in order to be philosophical correct." What is philosophical correct?

..."Hume developed to its logical conclusion.....and by making it self-consistent made it incredible....."

Kant was the first Western thinker to raise the question whether man possessed a mental instrument fit for knowing the Truth. He came to a negative conclusion.

Eastern sages believed the riddle of life can be solved with man's present resources.

Jesus spoke in parables, why?

And good old Laotse:" He who talks, does not know. He who knows does not talk."..But, then, how can we ever learn anything? By sitting under a Bo-tree and meditate??

There I am off the subject again, I am just not good in correct philosophizing--not a good bookworm. Sorry for the interruption, or am I? But I must say I do enjoy following your discussions

Bert

It is indeed useful to have a dictionary of philosophy or a glossary in hand when reading philosophers. Sometimes they use the same words with different meanings. For example, Berkeley uses the word "idea" of all perceptions (or all sensible qualities). A sensible quality (also sometimes called sense-datum) is what is experienced through our five senses. Thus blue is a sensible quality experienced through sight.

Now Hume uses the word "perception" to refer to both impressions and ideas. The word "idea" is no longer a synonymn of perception; it is a copy or representation of an impression, i.e. what is directly experienced through our five senses.

Hume tried to distinguish between impressions and ideas by comparing their "vivacity" or liveliness. Ideas are less vivid than impressions. But then he uses that same disticntion to try to explain the difference between memory and imagination. Memories are claimed to be more vivid than imagination. I think Hume is trying to make the vivacity criterion do too much work for him.

The word "substance" has a long history going back at least to Aristotle. for whom it was a sort of foundation or substratum of the attributes that a thing has. His distinction between substance and attributes is based on the distinction between subject and predicates. If I say "John is tall," John refers to the substance and tall refers to one of that substance's attriubte.

Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz used the word "substance" for that which exists by itself and can be conceived by itself. Now how were the British Empiricists using the word? They seem to use it to refer to things which have an independent existence over a period of time. Berkeley, we recall said there are two kinds of substances--material substances and spiritual substances. Hume is saying that the word "substance" has no meaning, and that applies both to material and spiritual substances.

Consider the example of a table. Those who believe in material substances say that in addition to the attributes of color, shape, size, etc. which can be predicated of a table, the table has a substance, which supports those attributes. Hume think that is nonesense. All we can know and describe are the attributes of the table.

Hello Hubert Paul,

Kant was the first Western thinker to raise the question whether man possessed a mental instrument fit for knowing the Truth. He came to a negative conclusion.

What is your answer to that question?

Floyd,

Sometimes they use the same words with different meanings. (…) Now Hume uses the word "perception" to refer to both impressions and ideas.

Therefore, they not only use the same words with different meanings, but also different words with the same meaning! We can only get a grip on both types of errors by studying the whole history of ideas.

I think Hume is trying to make the vivacity criterion do too much work for him.

I agree. I think what Hume calls imagination, for Berkeley is the word of God. Therefore 'imagination' for Berkeley probably is more vivid than memory.

What reaches us from the outside, information from our environment through our senses, is stored in memory when it makes enough impression. Then we start looking back on our lives from the inside out. The sum of evaluated information may have been transformed into vividly imagined evidence on how we should live. Hume assumed such empirical accumulation of evidence, but like Bacon, he was skeptical about (religious) precepts and dogmatism. I guess that was because he also knew about its possible influence upon perception and action.

Perhaps one result of Hume's skeptical philosophy is that it opens a big gap between philosophy and practical living. Hume seems to think of philosophy as an interesting game, which has little to do with how we live our lives.

He enters into his study and engages in the reasoning which leads to the conclusion that we hae no reason to believe that the connection between events which we have observed in the past will continue to be there in the future. In the past when I bit into what is perceived as an apple it had a distinctive taste, but it is possible that the next time I bite what looks like an apple it will taste like roast beef.

Then Hume leaves his skepticism behind and goes out ond orders a meal, with full confidence that applies will not taste like roast beef.

Is philosophy just a game or does it have something to do with real life? Even if it is only a game, some of us find it entertaining to play, but I hope philosophy can also have practical value.

What I have learned from Hume is quite valuable. He is a great inspiration to a free thinker, if there is such a state. I desire to be a free thinker, but know that is most unlikely.

We live in the times of instant and vast information. To be a total skeptic is difficult to say the least. Everyday we are bombarted with information from the so called experts. Much of the information touted as true gets refuted by other experts years and, sometimes, only months later. However to be a total skeptic, as Hume must have been, would endanger one's sanity. It would be interesting to know what the quarrel was between Rousseau and Hume. Rousseau, apparently died insane. Russell doesn't tell us how Hume died, sane or insane.

I am glad I read of Hume amd feel somewhat liberated from the so called experts. Even if my pot of water takes longer to boil than in times past, he was worth it.

Hume distinguishes between antecedent skepticism and consequent skepticism. He criticized Descartes for trying to doubt everything prior to his own investigation. He thinks his own skepticism is the result of the inability of reasoning to provide a basis for the existence of objects outside of our minds or of any necessary connections between events.

This does not mean that Hume is prepared to give up his belief in the existence of objects or in causal connections. He is only saying there is no rational basis for those beliefs though there are psychological explanations of why we cannot give up those beliefs. Hume proposes that we live by "animal faith." We believe even where we cannot prove.

This is not to suggest that Hume is open to faith in God. He seems to have had no personal interest in religion, though he studied it some in a critical way. He does not believe it is possible to demonstrate the existence of God; in fact, one cannot demonstrate the existence of anything. Demonstrative knowledge applies only to the relationship between ideas.

Hume's" Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," which were not published until after his death. rejects a prior proofs for God and examines the argument from design There is some disagreement about which of the participants in the dialogues represent Hume's own view, but I think Philo, who rejects the argument from design, is closest to Hume's own position.

Hume also wrote an essay on Miracles in which he concludes that there can never be enough historical evidence for miracles to override our confidence in the regular laws of nature. He defines a miracle as the violation of the laws of nature. Since our belief in the laws is based on repeated experiences of events happening in the same way, reports of miracles, even by reliable witnesses, must be discounted. As a matter of fact, he thinks that reports of miracles come from people who are poorly educated or have some special interest in making us believe they happened.

I hope all of you dear readers are ready to move on to the Romantic Movement and Rousseau. This is a move from "sense to sensibility." (Reminds me of Jane Austen)

David Hume was a man who lived and philosophized on the basis of his sense experience. Roussea belongs to what Russell calls "the cult of sensibility," a term he used to refer to the Romantic Movement, which depends upon feeling.

It might be an interesting exercise to make two lists of philosophers--those we like and those we dislike. No doubt Bertrand Russell places Hume in the former column and Rousseau in the latter, and, if we are simply looking at the way they lived their lives, we may agree with Russell. On the other hand, we do not want to judge the historical importance of a philosopher by whether we like or dislike that that philosopher. I hope we keep that in mind as we discuss Rousseau's philosophy, and we will also need to keep it in mind when we talk about Nietzsche.

Before launching into a discussion of Rousseau's philospophy, I will pause for comments. I want to be sure we are all reading from the same pages.

I've had guests for the past week so I've been doing more cooking than philosophizing. And now when I return to our discussion, I discover that Hume has abolished "Cause and Effect!" You can't take your eyes off these philosophers for a minute or they'll abolish part of your world. Hobbes wanted to abolish personal liberty and property ownership. Berkeley completely wiped out matter and replaced it with God. Then Hume came along and cancelled God and everything else he could lay his hands on. As Cathy says, they'll pull the chair right out from under you and leave you sitting on nothing.

I especially regret having to give up "Cause and Effect", which has always been a favorite principle of mine. But Hume himself admitted that no amount of skepticism would really dissuade us from believing in both an internal and an external world. We'll go right on sitting on chairs whether they exist or not!

Shasta, welcome back, we have missed you, but I am sure that what you cooked up was really good, even though, as Hume says, you had no assurance that the food would taste the same as it tasted in the past!

No. Hume did not abolish obects, causes, or anything else. He only said we have no reason for believing in objects or causes. Thanks to a natural or animal faith we can, indeed, continue to sit in chairs, eat at tables, heat water on the stove, and live our lives as usual. We can be skeptics in our philosophy but not in our living.

In contrast to Rousseau, our friend Hume looks like a model of sanity! Shasta, I think you would enjoy having Hume as your dinner guest, but if Rousseau comes over you'd better keep him away from your daughters, if you have any.

Yes, I've heard that Hume was a good-natured Scotsman who enjoyed his scotch and mutton. He would fit right in with my crowd of voracious eaters. As for Rousseau, I have him on my blacklist. What a fraud! Telling people how to raise children when he sent his own five children to the foundling hospital! And declaring himself a puritan as he proceeded from one mistress to the next! Do you think he understood what puritanism is? How could he have been so influential? Was it because the times were ripe for a rebellion against reason?

Shasda! So nice to have you back. I missed you!

I have regained my confidence in sitting in a chair. No one can accuse me of cowardice! Aren't you glad you did not have to worry about that when you had your dinner guests.

Stick around, Shasda, there is more insanity to come!

Now it is time to get serious about Rousseau's philosophy.

Note his first literary success-- an essay in which he argued that science, letters, and the arts are the worst enemies of morals, and the sources of slavery.

He admired the "noble savages," though we know they were not as noble as he imagined.

He held that "man is naturally good and only by institutions is he made bad."

He speaks of "a state of nature," much as Hobbes and Locke had done. I do not think he meant by this there there ever was such a state. It is an analytical concept....strip away all institutions, government, etc. and what is left is the state of nature. But this state of nature, contrary to Hobbes, is not a state of war, for after all men are good!

The origin of civil society and the consequent social inequalities is to be found in private property. (I suppose we could say this is the fall of man.)

In spite of all the nasty things he says about civil society he believes that men in a state of nature enter into a social contract to protect their goods and services. Individuals give up their own rights to the whole community.

"Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will." This notion of "the general will" is very important in Rousseau's thought, but it is not altogether clear what he means by it. It is not the same thing as the will of all. He is not talking about simply going along with what most people will. Particular wills may run counter to the general will.

Individuals must be forced to obey the general will. They must be "forced to be free." (That is not exactly what I mean by freedom!)

Rousseau thinks the existence of subordinate associations within a State interferes with the expession of the general will. I suppose he would say religious denominations, trade unions, fraternal orders, etc. interfere with the general will. He does say, however, if there must be such associations the more the better, for they cancel each other out.

I welcome any help anyone can give in understanding and perhaps defending or criticizing Rousseau's views.

Locke's writings influenced Rousseau at an early age. Perhaps 'back to nature' was more empiricist than all the English gentlemen had suggested empiricism to be. English and Northern-European Protestantism plus German-French-Italian Catholicism were both critical towards the medieval idea of all men being equal under God. Enlightenment reinterpreted social differences as relative distance from God. During the French Revolution against decadence that resulted from this, Rousseau thought nature instead of social conditions were better for a person to be raised in. Rousseau emigrated from Switzerland to France and first 'joined' the Jansenist Protestants. These were 'Encyclopedists' who believed in inherited property ownership, not in accordance with Rousseau's ideas about the "individual will to submit to the 'general will' of all" (Du contrat social, book II, Ch VI: De la loi), which is the medieval (and Orthodox Catholic) idea. Emile, the child Rousseau writes about, is educated by nature, much like the fate of Rousseau's real children. Don't overestimate his womanizing. He was so poor that a woman had to support him. Jane Austen maybe? :^)

Shasta, first allow me to apoligize for misspelling your name. Sorry!

After reading Rousseau as interpreted by Russell, I wonder at the position of importance given to Rousseau. He was a bundle, it seems to me, of contradictions. He seems to have lived a parasitic life in his filtching off clerics, women, servants, etc. He reminded me of Kato Kaelin, O. J.'s friend.

His need to be with dull people in order to sparkle bothers me, too. I wonder how Russell knew that Rousseau's mistress was ugly! It must be remembered that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some historian must have been of that opinion for Russell to have picked up on it.

Rousseau's admiration of democracy is interesting. He felt it workable only with a limited number of citizens and they being like gods. I feel his own restrictions made on democracy, certainly would have excluded him. Also, accepting his definition of democracy, I wonder if he were living today, would he consider the internet an aid to a possible democracy of a much greater number of people?

One more point, Russell calls Rousseau the inventor of natural religion, that is: the emotions of awe, mystery, the sense of right and wrong is, to me, an over statement. I am sure many thoughtful, but lesser known people felt the proof of God in those emotions, but Rousseau, because of the contacts he had with Voltaire; Hume; Burke; and others was given the title of "inventor"!

I wonder how Rousseau would react today if he were to learn of the way USA practices democracy? Would he approve?

Both Ron and Cathy have significant and interesting comments on Rousseau. We need to keep in mind Russell's own bias in his writing about philosophers. Although there were no doubt many things about Rousseau which are less than admirable, I wonder if Russell does not go too far in his derogatory comments about his personal life.

I want to say again that we should try to distinguish between an evaluation of the life of a philosopher and the importance of his philosophical work.

Ron has challenged me by his remark about Rousseau perhaps being more empirical than the empiricists in regard to his views of nature. I cn see that point, but I doubt that Rousseau's description of "the noble savage" is based upon sound empirical evidence. Information was coming back to Europe from places like North America and there was a tendency to romanticize the indigenous people of the newly discovered territories.

My own view is that Rousseau's idea of the state of nature is more of an anlytical concept than an empirical one. I think that is generally true of all of the philosphers who made use of that concept.

I will pause today to see if there are other comments on Rousseau, then I would like for us to move on to Kant.

Floyd says:"We need to keep in mind Russell's own bias in his writing about philosophers."

I do not have the book you are discussing; but following your discussions, I must second Floyd's opinion above.

For Rousseeau, man was not a machine, part of the mechanical universe. Rather, he was a thing of feeling, sentiment. Science, culture had bound man in chains which were destroying all that was real human. Rousseau took the position that the truest characteristic of man was not the scientific mind but the feeling heart. Man, for him, is not a toy in the hands of natural laws, but is a free soul striving to live according to the dictates of this freedom. He saw in this trend toward the sciences the inevitable destruction of all that man had come to believe was of most value.

Rosseau took the Lockian idea seriously, and argued that all men were created free and equal they should not be robbed or ruled by a priviledged class. The return to nature. Natural society, he believed, is based on a "social contract" by which the freedom of the individual is surrendered to self-imposed laws which are the results of the general will. Sovereignity lies with the people at all times and cannot be taken from them. Government merely carries out the will of the people, and the people have the right at any time to recall their government and establish another.

Bert

As Russell says, Rousseau was not the first or only philosopher to appeal to the feelings of the heart as a basis for understanding. Pascal said: "The heart has its reason that reason knows not of."

Russell is deeply troubled by this appeal to feelings. When someone like Hume gives reasons for his conclusions, we can at least argue with him. When someone justifies his or her beliefs by an appeal to his or her feelings or sensibility, haw are we to respond? Perhaps we can only say, "Sorry, but that is not how I feel about it." That seems to bring the discussion to an end.

Are you folks reading about Kant? We will need to spend considerable time with him, so perhaps we should move on.

It's no use asking me to be objective, Floyd. You should know by now that I'm not capable of that. Maybe my inability to appreciate Rousseau is due to the fact that I already think like he does, with the heart rather than the head. That's why I'm not impressed by his romantic notion of returning to nature. I have never left nature.

I'm now struggling with Kant. My first stumbling block is his definition of "intuition." Quoting Russell: "Space and time, Kant says, are not concepts; they are forms of intuition." Darn! I thought sure they were concepts. He says the German word is 'Anschuung' which means literally 'looking at' or 'view'. He says we translate this word as 'intuition' but it is not an entirely satisfactory translation.

Well, intuition doesn't mean' looking at'. That doesn't even come close to what it means. I use the word all the time and consider myself to have more intuition than intellect, so I ought to know what it means. But when I ask myself to define it, I find that I can't. So I resorted to the dictionary (that wicked book that L.J. told me to destroy.) The dictionary says it means 'direct perception of truth.' Maybe that's not so far from Kant's definition after all.

This is what makes philosophy so hard to study. Many words that we all use have different nuances of meaning to different people, and it's hard to understand what somebody else means by a word.

By Anschauung, Kant meant 'apperception' which is seeing things by understanding them, not as things-in-themselves but in a-priori forms. He did know when to use the word intuition (which is the same in German) when he had to (for example, in the last chapter of the Critique of Practical Reason). It seems Norman Kemp Smith who translated the Critique of Pure Reason into English, is responsible for that wrong choice. Kant used the word in "intellectual intuition".

Bergson needs a correct understanding of what Kant really was saying about this, to prove him wrong:

One of the principal tricks of Kantian criticism consisted in taking the metaphysician and the scholar at their word, in pushing metaphysics and science to the utmost possible limit of symbolism, where, in any case, they lead of their own accord the moment the understanding lays claim to an independence full of dangers. Once the relation of science and metaphysics with "intellectual intuition" is misunderstood, Kant has no difficulty in showing that our science is entirely relative and our metaphysics wholly artificial. Because he strained the independence of the understanding in both cases, because he relieved metaphysics and science of the "intellectual intuition" which gave them their inner weight, science with its relations present to him only an outer wrapping of form, and metaphysics whit its things, an outer wrapping of matter. Is it surprising, then that the fist shows him only frameworks within frameworks, and the second phantoms pursuing phantoms?

Time and space are very different at least to perception, as they should be to apperception. We treat time as we treat space, chopping it up, while it is a continuum, duration, intuition, like a most wonderful piece of music. We better re-learn to truly (ap)perceive time to understand the way our senses work anyway, with or without correct understanding of their functioning. When we do, it corresponds to real time in physical reality and is felt to be 'true' - an unsuspected source of creative and spiritual energy!

Russell has his bias and I have mine, so I must tell you right up front that I think Immanuel Kant is one of the most important philosophers who ever lived.

The contrast between his uneventful life and his revolutionary philosophy is amazing. He spent all of his life in East Prussia. an instructor and later a professor in an undistinguished university.

He grew up in a simple pietistic family and pietism influenced him throughout his life. His life was so orderly and predictable that the citizens of Konigsberg could set their watches by his daily walks.

One would never know it from reading his books, but it seems Kant was an excellent lecturer. Most of his important writing came late in life and it seems his mind was sharp until the very end.

Kant was schooled in the rationalist philosophy of Wolff, an interpreter of Leibniz. He says he was awakened from his dogmatic slumbers by reading David Hume. (Russell says he soon went back to sleep!) Kant took Hume's empiricism seriously, but he recognized its shortcomings.

Kant says that Hume was correct in saying that all of our knowledge begins with our sense-experience, but our knowledge is not all derived from sense experience. Genuine knowledge is a priori, independent of sense-experience.

Kant carefully analyzed different kinds of judgments or propositions. Analytic propositions are those in which the predicates are included in the subject (An example: Bachelors are unmarried men.) Synthetic judgments are those in which the predicate adds something to the subjct. ("John is tall.) We might think that all synthetic judgments are empirical, but Kant says there are also "synthetic a priori judgments." The predicate is not contained in the subject, but they are universal and necessary, like analytic propositions. (For example, "five plus seven equals twelve.")

The task of Kant's critical philosophy is to show how synthetic judgments are possible. He just assumes there are such judgments and sees no need to try to prove that.

In trying to explain how we can have knowledge in mathematics and science Kant produced what he called his "Copernican revolution in philosophy." His daring suggestion is that instead of saying our minds have to conform to objects we should say that objects have to conform to our minds."

What is it that our mind brings to our experience? There are the two forms of intuition--space and time--and the Twelve Categories of Understanding, including Causality and Substance. Hume is right. We do not perceive causal relations, nevertheless we know there are necessary connections between events. The condition of us having objective knowledge is that our experience must be structured by space and time and must be organized by the Categories of Understanding. Causality and substance are what our mind brings to experience, not something we learn from experience.

Most admirable about Kant to me is his integration of (empirical) synthetic English and analytical European philosophy, for reasons Kant has not expanded upon but Bergson has and so has developmental psychology (Piaget).

The mind adapts to the environment and even the environment revolutionarily adapts to the mind in scientific or metaphysical understanding ("5+7=12"). In normal times, that is always in Prussia and especially in even-tempered men living there, all elements of civilization remain as-is. These include the erroneous ones, for example the new idea about God and man leading to the French Revolution or about two basic categories of Anschauung, time and space, while there is only one in experience that is fundamentally different from the constructed other.

Expanding on Kant's a priori synthetic judgments, Bergson de-centralized them into real duration or real intuition (NOT: Anschauung!). Actual reality is in between posterior and prior views, intentions or transcendence, and a match should be made, adapting the person to his environment or vice versa. This change is what intellectual clippings of reality cut in the armchair or zapped on TV, omit.

This idea of decentralizing intellectual categories to immediate peripheral and intuitive experience, had already been triggered or even demanded by the (French) Revolution, stripping all elements of civilization. Man had to adapt to a changing environment but was still unable to adapt this environment to himself. Kant's Prussia and Rousseau's Switzerland have hardly seen revolutionary times. Rousseau moved and Kant assimilated it into his philosophy and ingeniously came up with a priori synthetical judgements.

Ron, it is obvious that you are well informed about the philosophy of Bergson. We will be discussing him here soon, and I look forward to your interpretation.

As for Kant, there is no simple explanation of his critical philosophy. When he speaks of Forms of Intuition and Categores of the Understanding, I do not believe he is giving a psychological analysis of how our minds work. To use his own terminology, this is a Transcendental analysis.

Kant has no doubt that we have genuine knowledge in mathematics and science and he is trying to find an explanation of how that is possible. The Forms of Intuition and Categories of the Understanding are not known by any science, including scientific psychology.

To make this somewhat clearer, if possible, we need to note Kant's distinction between phenomena and noumena. The world that we know is the phenomenal world--it is the world as it appears to us. The noumenal world is the world we can think about but not know. We cannot know 'the thing in itself." As I understand Kant, he is not so much talking about two different worlds--there is one world which can be described from two different perspecives.

Causality and substance apply to the phenomenal world; we cannot know that there are substances or a causal connection between events in the noumenal world. I think there are serious problems for Kant at this point. He seems to believe, as did Locke, that when we have a sensation there is a real object causing that sensation. According to his own analysis, that substance and causality would have be thought of as things in themselves, yet he says we cannot know the things in themselves.

Kant has no doubt that there are synthetic a priori judgments in mathematics and science but he doubts that we can know there are synthetic a priori metaphysical judgments. There are three main metaphysical ideas--God, freedom, and immortality. Kant says we cannot know that those ideas correspond to anything real. Attempts to prove their existence only produce "antimonies." We can prove two contrary propositions. (For example. we can prove the world had a beginning and we can prove that the world did not have a beginning.)

The reason metaphysical thought leads to contradiction and illusions is that we are trying to apply categories of understanding beyond possible experience. "Concepts without percepts are empty." The other side of that truth is that "percepts without concepts are blind."

This is not to say that Kant did not believe in God, freedom, and immortality. He will even give us reasons for those beliefs, but they are practical, not theoretical, reasons. In his critical philosophy he presents devastating criticisms of the classical proofs for the existence of God. Russell explains those criicisms in his History.

I like Kant too. Durant says he was a frail man, barely 5 feet tall. A giant in a small body. Reminds me of Michelangelo. When I was a young art student, I learned that this giant of a man was only 5' 2". I was shocked. How could such a small man carve those huge chunks of marble? I was 5'7" myself and struggling to carve sandstone, which is nothing compared to marble. I feel the same awe for Kant's philosophy that I felt for Michelangelo's art.

Ron, how does it happen that you speak such fluent English? You must have spoken English alll your life?

Thank you Shasta,

Back in 1975 I was an exchange student in Thornville, Ohio, for a year. It was a phenomenal experience. In addition, I (must admit that) I watch a lot of American and English TV. To top it off, MS Word checks my spelling and grammar!

Floyd, you say:"Genuine knowledge is a priori, independent of sense-experience."

Can you elaborate a bit on that statement.

Bert

Bert, I realize we are using some technical philosopical jargon, but that is the way Kant writes. He distinguishes between "a posteriori" and "a priori" judgments or propositions. "John is a tall man" is a posteriori. We can only know if that is true from experience. We have to look and see or measure him. But if we says "A tall man is a man" we do not have to derive that knowledge from experience. All we have to do is analyze the meaning of the words used. This is an a priori proposition--it does not depend on experience.

Now my example of an a priori proposition is at the same time an example an an analytic proposition. This is one where the predicate is contained within the subject. It is a self-contradiction to deny an analytic proposition.

Kant, hwoever, as we have seen, wants to say that there are also "synthetic a priori propositions." Their predicates are not contained in their subjects and it is no contradiction to deny them; but we know them to be true without depending on our experience to tell us they are true. A priori propositions are not only independent of experience; they are necessarily and universally true.

Suppose I say, "Bachelors are unmarried men." There is no need for me to conduct research to find out if that is true. It is universally and necessarly true. If someone came back from a distant planet and said, There is something surprising about that planet. All of the bachelors there are married," we would say that the space traveler has forgotten the meaning of "bachelor."

Kant, I remind you, thinks that the propositions of mathematics and geometry are both synthetic and a priori. In Russell's own work on mathematics he tries to show that they are actually analytic; i.e. we can derived all mathematical truths from simple logical notions. If he is correct, then Kant is mistaken.

Kant assumed that Euclidean geometry was the only one possible and that its propositions are synthetic a priori. We now know that there are non-Euclidean geometries, so Kant is mistaken on this point.

Whether it is possible to save the outline of Kant's critical philosophy in the light of our changing understanding of mathematics and science is questionable. Perhaps Kant failed to recognize the historical limitations of his views.

I will be away for a couple of days and during that time I hope there will be other questions and comments. Then I would like for us to turn our attention to Kant's moral philosophy.

Kant's assertion of Moral Law seems to me to be stating that religion is man made and; therefore, cannot present proof of God.

Kant's God was/is Moral Law which in turn demands justice, i.e., happiness proportional to virtue. He maintains that is not possible in this life,which in turn, means there is a God and a future life.

He makes the categorical imperative (Am I using the phrase right?) that a virtuous man, acting through his freedom, is in harmony with the Moral Law. Moral worth exists only when one acts out of a sense of duty, not self interest. He contends that by Will alone can one obey the Moral Law.

It seems to me Kant, in his refusal to define God in professional philosophers' terms, and not willing to be influenced by theology or physics or hyberphysics; has himself fallen into the man-made religion trap. He calls it "theology of reason" which contains God, freedom and immortality. I wonder if any of our modern, new age religions were fonded on Kant's "theology of reason". Does anyone know?

When finally getting though Kant's concept of time and space, I could speculate on just one thing, and that was: How many philosophers have died in rest homes for the insane blubbering to themselves?

By the time Floyd gets back, Cathy and I will have generated at least a dozen questions apiece.

The first one that occurs to me is this: What is so important about the categorical imperative? It certainly wasn't new. Every mother has always taught her children the categorical imperative. ("Don't hit your sister. How would you like it if people hit you all the time?")

And Jesus had stated it over l000 years before Kant. ("Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them.")

I wonder why religion could not be man made and be proof of God at the same time. When man is sure that the word was there before he was and that the word was with God and that the Word was God, isn't that both?

Happiness indeed cannot be proportional to virtue. Virtues like honesty and loyalty for example, cannot be combined in one life. Within a relationship, partners can be both honest with and loyal to each other. But then others need to be excluded, for being honest about liking others is being disloyal, even when it is out of a sense of duty. So that can make us unhappy.

Therefore the Will cannot follow Moral Law and we are looking for ways out of the paradoxes. An example of 'rational morality' (which I am not sure contains a New Age religion founded on Kant's "theology of reason") can be found here: Rational Morality). I am afraid we will remain stuck between what Floyd called "empty concepts" and "blind percepts".

The categorical imperative is what we do and say and think that can be described with words, which in an analytical or logically necessary way trace back all the way up to the word being God. This is supposed to be one undivided body of good intentions (Aquinas called it "unity of truth"). Have you ever seen "Imperativ" by the Polish director Krysztoff Zanussi? (Sp?) It is the one that had more impact on me than any other movie!

Ron - The dramatic proclamation in your Genesis: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God is ..., is in my opinion, no proof that God exist. My copy of Genesis says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” No mention of the “Word” word. (KJV)

Nor does Kant’s Moral Law, in my opinion, act as a surrogate for the existence of God. It should be well known that man has always misinterpreted and corrupted any profound message, written or spoken, given to him. I am a skeptic of the first order, much to my unrest. The preceding remarks give reason as to my continued interest in philosophy, politics, and religion. I continue to have the hope that some Truth, will emerge from one of the three.

Cathy,

I do follow your skepticism. What about looking at it this way though: man has had all his life, and all of the history of mankind, to accumulate a-posteriori knowledge of good and bad by (empirical) experience. Therefore, one day he can see crystal clear how it all is meant to be and say he has seen God. He puts his vision down into words, for example the Ten Commandments, the Bible or other Books of Wisdom. As far as I am concerned, particular philosophical books are included. These works a-priori and rationally or ideally instruct his actions towards happiness, if (and only if?) he believes in their essential message.

Blessings,
Ron.

I checked "Rational Morality." Interesting discussion going on over there. You might be interested in it, too, Cathy.

I am glad to see that you have been busy posting in my absence. I have enjoyed reading each of your comments.

Kant said there were two things which filled him with awe--the starry heavens above and the moral law within. His Critique of Pure Reason attempts to explain how synthetic a priori concepts about the natural world are possible; his Critique of Practical Reason attempt to show how synthetic a priori propositions are possible in morality.

Kant assumes without questions that morality is a priori. It is not based upon our experience and moral laws apply universally and necessarily. How can that be possible?

Morality has this a priori charatertistic, says Kant, because it is entirely autonomous--it is grounded in reason alone. Moral laws are not derived from the customs of society nor from the commandments of God. Morality is independent of science and theology. This latter part is essential for understanding Kant. He does not begin with a belief in God and then try to show that what God commands is morally right. No, he begins with our moral obligations and then posits the existence of God, thinking that is required in order to explain how morality can be fully rational.

For Kant, moral laws are categorical imperatives, not hypothetical imperatives. An example of a hypothetical imperative is, "If you do not want to get wet, take your umbrella." One can always avoid that imperative by saying, "I don't care whether I get wet or not."

A categorical imperative is not connected to any hypothetical situations. They command unconditionally. For example, "Tell the truth." That does not means if you want to get along with people tell the truth or if you want to stay out of legal troubles tell the truth. No, there are no conditions attached to it whatsoever.

According to Kant there is one basic Categorical Imperative: Act only on that maxim which you can will to become universal law. In other words before acting you must ask, "Would I be willing for everyone to act on the maxim which is the basis for my action. By maxim Kant means a subjective principle or rule of action.

One of the examaples he uses to explain the application of the Categorical Imperative is a case where I am in need of money and I borrow some by promising I will repay it, even though I have no intention ever of repaying it. (Russell does a terrible job of stating this example.) It is not borrowing money that is contrary to the moral law; it is borrowing money by making a lying promise.

Kant believes that acting on this maxim is self-contradictory. If it were universallly applied, the practice of lending and borrowing money would come to an end. Now it might sound like Kant is saying that it would have bad consescuences, but Kant insists that consequences have noting to do with the rightness or wrongness of an action.

Russell mentions a second way that Kant states the Categorical Imperative. "So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, never as a means only but also as an end." Kant thinks that is equivalent to his original statement of the Categorical Imperative.

It does seem to be an important moral principle. We are never to use people merely as a means to our own ends. We must value them enough to treat them as valuable ends within themselves.

Kant's ethics is an ethics of duty. There is only one thing that gives moral worth to an agent--acting for the sake of duty. There are some acts which are in agreement with duty but may not be done for the sake of duty. For example, a man may care for his wife because he loves her. Well, that is fine, but his action has no moral worth. It has moral worth only if he is caring for her for the sake of his duty.

There is much to say about Kant's ethics but I will pause here.

Kant says we can know only through experiences. We have sensations. But we cannot know of the sensations. Therefore we cannot know the universe which exists outside of our thinking. Our minds receive sensations and shape them into ideas because they are what they are. What the world is without our minds is impossible for us to know.

But....by Reason, we can form an Idea of this world, this universe. As we experience this world in our minds, we find that the world has no beginning in time, that everything in the world takes place according to the laws of nature, and that there is no absolutely necessary Being who cause the world to be. We must accept this theory of the world of experience because we cannot experience it otherwise.

Floyd, is this Kant's universe of experience, the "phenomenal" world as you mentioned? Does Kant speculate much how these laws of nature are operating interacting? Can one say then that this phenomenal world is the world of the scientist?

But .....Reason,can construct a world of Idea which also has no beginning in time, in which there is freedom, and in which there is an absolutely necessary Being, God, who is the cause of everything. Although we cannot know such a universe through experience, we can reason its existence and we can act as though it were real, necessary for mankind to preserve its moral integrity. All goodness, all morality, is dependent upon acting as if this kind of a world exists. Believing in the existence of such a universe mankind strives to be good.

Floyd, is this Kant's "noumenal" world? A "make believe world", very practical though. Act so that you can will that everybody shall follow the principle of your action, the "categorical imperative." We construct this noumenal world out of necessity, correct? ( in particular for the masses).

So we have the phenomenal world, the world of the scientist,(let science explore how the laws work). Then we have the noumenal world, the world of the religionist,(faith, be good or else.)

Well?? Will go and see how it is going in the religious forums :>)

Bert

Yes, Bert, the phenomenal world is the world as the scientist studies and explains it. It is also the world as we experience it in ordinary life.

We can speculate about what things really are in themselves, but we cannot know anything about things in themselves. (A critic might say the fact that we know we cannot know anything about the noumenal world is itself an important kind of knowledge about it.)

Kant rejects speculative metaphysics because it tries to apply concepts beyond the realm of possible experience. It is as if a bird flying through the air decided it could make much faster progress if it escaped the atmosphere altogether. Once we try to rise about empirical data we end up with illusions and contradictions.

Some Post-Kantians interpreted his thought in a pragmatic way. Even though we cannot have knowledge of the reality of God, freedom, and immortality, we should live as if they are real. I understand why Kant might be interpreted in tht way. After all, he does call those ideas "postulates of practical reason." They have to be assumed in order to give a completely rational account of our moral experience.

We have this "sense of oughtness" which tells us we ought to attain the perfect good, but our experience tells us this is impossible, at least in this lifetime. Either we have to concede that our basic moral obligation is irrational, or we have to assume that there is a life beyond this one, which will give us time to move forward to perfection, and that there is a God who will guarantee that moral virtue and happiness will someday be in perfect agreement.

Underlying both the assumptiom of immortality and God is the postulate of freedom. Theoretical reason tells me that everything is determined, but my sense of moral obligation tells me that freedom is possible. "Ought implies I can." If I really have an obligation, for example, to tell the truth, then it must be possible for me to tell the truth. Thus I must assume freedom even though a scientific study of the phemonenal world tells me there is no freedom.

I thought about Kant as I lay awake last night--not about his epistemology or his categorical imperative, but about the philosophy he applied to his everyday life. His health was always fragile, and yet he lived to be 80 and produced an impressive amount of work. How did he do this? (1) He never wasted energy on travel. (2) He avoided the stresses and strains of marriage. (3) He avoided all doctors. (4) He only breathed through his nose so we wouldn't swallow any germs. (Actually, he did consider marriage, but he considered it so long that the lady married someone else.) I have broken all these wise rules, and that's why I lie awake at night and will never live to be 80. It isn't true that philosophy has no practical application. You can learn things from what the philosophers thought and also from what they did.

Kant says, we cannot know the noumena of reality, but only the phenomena of experience, from an a-priori rational source. Did he mean the fact that we can rationally communicate and tell each other what we think, while the listener confirms or refutes and takes over at a certain point? This is true to my experience, especially where relationships are concerned!

Ron - I am such a novice in this kind of forum.

It seems to me you have reached a level of understanding that is such a boost to those wishing to partake of your wisdom.

When, very human questions come up, you seem to approach from a long, human experienced answer. Are you realated to Methuselah?

Don't be flattered at this question, I am a feminist!

<Blushing>
Heh! ...for some time I thought you had me categorized as insanely blubbering to myself. Which of Kant's 12 categories would that be?

Laughing! It is not fair to laugh, but I can't help it. Excellent!

Shasta, I always thought that married men live longer than bachelors. Or perhaps it just seems longer!

Ron, if I correctly understand your statement about our ability to communicate, I agree that it is relevant to the way Kant analyzed the possibility of knowledge.

As I understand Kant, there is what we may call "an objectivity of intersubjectivity." What I mean is that objective knowledge of the world is possible, but only in relationship to the conditions of knowing shared by all rational beings.

Why is it that two people can observe events and both recognize a causal connection between the events? Hume says we do not perceive that connection, we only see one event following another. That is correct, says Kant, but the reason two people agree that there is a causal connectin between events is that we would not be able to understand them as objective events at all if we did not organize our sensations according to the category of cause and effect.

I suppose Kant would say that this is also the reason we can have a rational discussion and reach agreement on our moral obligations but this is more doubtful. We all know how much disagreement there is about moral obligations. In my attempts to communicate about morality I find that some people have no idea whatsoever about what I am trying to say.

Kant thinks all men (and women, I assume) have "a sense of oughtness," a recognition of duties. If one says, "I have no such sense of oughtness," it may not be possible to reason further with that person.

When it comes to applying moral laws to particular cases, there is likely to be widespread disagreement. For example, Kant thought it was always morally wrong to commit suicide, because we could not make a maxim which approves ending life whenever it is difficult a universal law. Furthermore, to take one's own life is treat ourself as a means to happiness, not as something of value within itself.

I am not at all convinced that Kant is right about that.I can easily imagine sitations where suicide is a fully rational act and one that is morally acceptable.

Kant will not consider circumstances or consequences when he decides whether an act is morally right or wrong. The only question is whether we are acting on a maxim which we can will to become a universal law.

Floyd,... Kant says, we can be certain of the existence of the world apart from ourselves, but we can not know it. All we can know is that world which our mind, because of its nature, constructs from the sensations received by contact with the outer universe. I think Locke and Berkeley, and Hume also believed that knowledge is confined to ideas.

But..again....,we can reason and, on the basis of this, we can form ideas of the outer world, of God, freedom, and immortality. Thus, by virtue of reason, we can act as though there is an outer world, , as though this world and ourselves were created by a Creator, as though we are free and possess a soul which cannot perish.

But it puzzles me. It seems to me as far as Kant is concerned this "make believe world", the noumenal world, is the foundation we need, and then we can build on that......but also needed as part of the foundation is a personified God?? For Kant, God is the notion or highest Idea which man can have, the idea of the highest unity, of the one Absolute Whole including and encompassing everything.

This idea transcends experience and cannot be obtained from experience.. After having formed this idea, we make an entity of this whole and personify it, thus for us it becomes God.

But Kant seems to think that we need this Idea of the Whole, this transcendent theology, as a foundation for our ethical principles.

With other words, we need the idea of God to serve as a foundation of our moral life. This idea of God transcends, goes beyond experience, and it is necessary for the living of the good life, for morality. God is a necessary unknown. I wonder if Kant also thought fear of hell as a deterrent a necessity.

Floyd, what do you think, haven't we "outgrown" a bit of Kant's philosophy?? Now you probably will tell me, you think so because you don't understand it......Probably true.

Bert

PS. I told a rock musician once that I don't care much for his music. He answered, the reason you don't like it because you don't understand it ??

I want to clarify what I understand Kant is saying about the relationship between morality and God. He is not saying that God is the foundation of morality, if we mean that our moral obligation is derived from God. He explicitly rejects any basis for morality other than reason; morality is autonomous. The moral law to which we are subject is a moral law which our own rational nature imposes upon us. We are not subject to an external moral law, whether that is imposed by the church, the state, or even God.

From Kant's perspective, what would we have to give up if we do not believe in God? We do not have to give up our "sense of oughtness;" we are still under obligation to the moral law.

What we would give up is the assurance that morality is completely reasonable. We would be left with the conclusion that we are under obligation to achieve the perfect good without any assurance that it is possible to achieve this goal.

Kant wrote a work alled "Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone." He defines religions as "the recognition of all of our duties as divine commands." Instead of saying that morality is derived from religion, he says that religion is derived from morality. This is an important distinction. Morality is what is most important for Kant; religion is secondary, and his own religion did not seem to be characterised by personal devotion to God.

______________________________________________________________________

Although I could discuss Kant for many more days, I suggest that those of us who are reading Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosphy move forward to Chapter XXI "Currents of Thought in the Nineteenth Century." After a few comments on that chapter, we can then move on to Hegel. (This suggestion is not intended to cut off any further questions about Kant.)

Floyd: I have given you Edits to this heading so that you can put your new schedules up? If you need assistance, please write me.

Ginny

Floyd, Cathy and I don't appreciate the way you always put us in parentheses, sometimes with a question mark after us. We would like to claim full membership in the human race.

Bert, why do you say the noumenal is a "make-believe world?." Isn't the noumenal supposed to be the real thing?

Shasta, the problem is that prior to our present consciousness-raising philosophers did not use gender inclusive language. When they speak of human beings , they always use the word "man." The challenge to contemporary interpreters is to decide whether they really were thinking only of the masculine gender or were thinking of all human beings, both male and female. Whenever possible I prefer to give them the benefit of doubt by suggesting they intended to include both men and women, though this may not always be the case.

Consider the well known statement in our Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal....." Did Jefferson intend to include women in that statement? As a matter of fact, it has not been interpreted in an inclusive way throughout most of our history, and women were not even permitted to vote until this century.

When I am writing about the statements of earlier philosophers, I have to decide whether to supplement their use of the word "man" by saying "man or woman," and whether I should do that even when the philosopher may have been using the term in a more spceific gender sense. The question mark I sometimes add is only meant to communicate my uncertainty about what the given philosopher meant; it is certainly not intended to express any doubt in my own mind about whether or not women should be included as full members of the human race.

You will notice that I have edited the previous schedule of readings in order to bring it more in line with our actual progress in the discussion. I am suggesting that we discuss Nineteenth Century thought in general today and tomorrow, then move on to Hegel for the remainder of the week.

I want to limit my comments on Chapter 21 to British Utilitarianism, as represeted by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory diametrically opposed to Kant. Bentham and Mill assume that the rightness or wrongness of an act is determined by whether the consequences are good or bad.

The only thing that is good is pleasure and the absence of pain. An act is right if and only if it produces more happiness for the greatest number than any other act we could have done. Bentham devised a hedonic calculus to measure the amount of pleasure, including such things as the intensity, duration, certainty, and extent of the pleasure. Utilitarianism is an altruistic ethics in that it regards the happiness or pleasure of others affected by our actions to be of equal value to our own.

Mill made one important modification in Bentham's utilitarianism. In deciding what is morally right or wrong we need to consider not only the quantity of the pleasure but also its quality. In Mill's famous words: "It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied; it is better to be a man dissatisfied than a pig satisfied." (Sorry Shasta, here we have another example of a philospher using the word "man," though knowing the equalitarian element in Bentham's and Mill's thought, I am sure they intended to include women.

I am having difficulty with hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative.

If I believe anything goes in order to sustain life, including cannibalism, which imperative rules? Is it not a "good" to sustain life at any cost?

HELP! (No, no I am not about to eat my fellowman yet! But sometime......?) However, Shasta, I consider it a categorical imperative NOT to eat my fellow-woman!

Cathy, I suppose we could state your example in the following way: "If one wants to preserve his or her life at any cost and is in a situation where one can sustain his or her life only by eating another human being, then one ought to practice cannibalism."

This is an example of a hypothetical imperative, but, according to Kant, it is not a moral imperative. Moral imperatives are categorical or unconditional. There is no "if"expressed in them.

Kant would likely say that to make this a categorical imperative it would have to be restated as follows: One ought to do whatever is necessary to preserve his or her own life."

That imperative would then have to be tested by asking: Can I state this as a unversal moral law? In order words is it rational for me to will that anyone in need of food to sustain life ought to practice cannibalism. No, I cannot will that to become a unversal moral law, for I would then be willing that any hungry person could consume me!

This example provides another opportunity to point out the contrast between Kant's ethics and utilitarianism. Kant refuses to consider the consequences of actions in trying to decide whether they are right or wrong. Utilitarians say we can only decide if an act is right or wrong by considering the consequences. Would the approval of cannibalism in the circumstances stated by Cathy produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number or would people be happier if they were not subject to the threat of being eaten by a cannibal

So what if women weren't allowed to vote until this century? Does that mean they weren't human beings before that? I suppose slaves weren't human beings either. And don't quote me Thomas Jefferson, that hypocrite! All those fine speeches about equality, and then slipping down to the slave quarters to get a l4-year old girl pregnant. A lot of the plantation owners had families by their slave mistresses, but they acknowledged and educated their illegitimate children, and left them property in their wills. Dear old Jefferson did none of the above. All he did was make a lot of lofty speeches about equality. No, I'm sure he didn't intend to include women where equality was concerned.

Shasta, I think I have failed to explain my struggle to use language in a way that accurately expresses what philosopohers have said. The tone of your posts suggests that you still believe I do not regard men and women as equal. I can assure you that you are mistaken if that is what you believe.

We may wish that earlier philosophers had expressed themselves in ways that affirmed the complete equality of men and women, but it would be a distortion of the historical record to pretend that they did. An explanation of what other philosophers have said and meant in no way indicates an approval of their beliefs. First we have to understand what they are saying; then we can criticize their ideas.

____________________________________________________________________

In reading Chapter 21 please note what Russell says on p. 725, where he speaks of the influence of the machine age and biology on modern philosophy. Two key figures need to be considered--Karl Marx and Charles Darwen. Marx will be discussed later but Russell devotes some attention to Darwin in this chapter.

Darwin is influential because of the evidence he gave in support of evolution and his success in popularizing the theory. The theory that humans and other animals have a common ancestry has had an especially important impact on our modern self-understanding.

Tomorrow I would like for us to begin a discussion of Hegel.

Reading Kant reminds me often of the Encyclical of late last year. Truth of faith complements truth of reason and vice versa. The separation of Faith and Reason ("a watershed") is like the distinction between a-priori rationalism and a-posteriori empiricism. I wonder how Kant distinguished faith from reason. He says in the Critique of Practical Reason that meaning (reason) is not truth itself yet but just an attempt to find the truth. Cause and effect relations (for example) do bring meaning to the sense data, but that is not the same as truth. This is what Kant says about truth:

Empiricist and rationalist truth are the same thing, but empiricism is more physically and rationalism is more socially, or rather religiously, determined. Critique stems from the intellectually known truth. Right and wrong, both create their own images of the right or the wrong thing to do, subjectively. What is right is the rationalistic truth and this truth is the same as the empirically known truth but expanded by what man only knows. What is wrong stems from a learning and inquiring mind or one that is brought into temptation ("a form of beauty that is admired but that not therefore is sought"). Choosing for the right thing to do, what in deed relates and what is really needed, is costly and therefore makes the right thing a virtue or holy, "but virtue does not add anything new". What lacks creates admiration and the wish to have it, but does not alleviate the lack itself. This independence and consciousness of freedom and existence enables satisfaction to be drawn from other sources. For its accomplishment, it will always need philosophy.

Can I say that Kant attempted to express unity of truth, starting from empiricist truth, directing his transcendental truth of synthetic a-priori's towards absolute truth? Then he is quite in line with Thomas Aquinas' theology.

In the previous post, I should not have used quote notation. I forgot it was my summary attempt and not Kant's text, of part two (teaching of the method) of the Critique of Practical Reason after reading it some time ago.

I doubt if Kantians would be very comfortable having their thought associated with Thomism, though Ron has pointed to some similarities. They both do start with empirical evidence and then turn to reason to find the truth. Thomas thought that reason is capable of leading to knowledge of reality, whereas Kant thought it only gave us knowledge of phenomena. It is true that Thomas thought there were some truths known only through faith but he thought reason could prove the exisence of God and the immortality of the soul. For Kant, neither can be proved by reason; they can only be accepted as postulates of morality.

REMEMBER: IT IS ON TO HEGEL TOMORROW

Russell says (on page 730) "Hegel's philosophy is very difficult--he is I should say, the hardest to understand of all the great philosphers."

I know that he is hard for me to understand. My own philosophical education did not include any systematic study of Hegel. That may suggest how little influence he has on contemporary philosophy and how my graduate professors thought I could be educated without studying him in depth. I probably learned most about him from Soren Kierekegaard's devastating criticisms.

This is not to say he is unimportant. Russell sees in his thought the culmination of the movement in German philosophy which started with Kant. In a way that is ironic, since Kant thought he had closed the door to metaphysical speculation. limiting knowledge to phenomena.

Hegel also has had considerable influence on nineteenth century American philosophy and on the thought of some Protestant theologians. Russell reminds us that Karl Marx was also influenced by Hegel, though he thought Hegel's brand of idealism was "standing on its head," and he intended to place it back on its feet.

Hegel says "the real is the rational, and the rational is real." He thinks he can derive a metaphyical description of reality from logic.

Hegel's thought is dialectical. We recall that Socrates used a dialectical method, but Hegel develops it in a new direction. His dialectic involves an ongoing process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

The Whole is what is real--it is the Absolute. The Absolute is Being but according to the dialectic Being generates its opposite which is Nonbeing and Being and Nonbeing are "taken up" into the synthesis of Becoming.

If seems abstruse, try reading it in German! Each synthesis becomes the thesis for a new triad, generating its own antithesis, which in turn is taken up into a new synthesis. And on and on goes the process of thought and being. (Thought and being are really the same.)

Ron, if you can help us understand Hegel, please do so. Perhaps in this forum we should keep the discussion fairly general, leaving the technical questions to professional philosophers. My own inclination is to seek some general understanding of the influence of Hegel and then move on

Hegel disagrees with Kant about the opaqueness of the noumenon. He says it "has not enough power in itself, to resist the courage of knowing". That is where rationalism does not end in the phenomena, expanding into the historical subjectivity of the person, and where it becomes idealism. However, a 'deception of reason' submitted the individual 'subjective spirit' to the general 'objective spirit' of the state and history. Hegel is using Fichte's and Schelling's philosophies for this distinction, and adds his own 'absolute spirit' that is expressed in art, religion and philosophy.

What interests me most about Hegel, is his careful attempt to see the objective subjectively and the subjective objectively, avoiding jumping to conclusions. This draws attention to interactions both objectively and subjectively, between the (knowing) organism and his (known) environment, which is so important for the product of these, which I guess is early American functionalism.

Russell said that Hegel's later views might be regarded as an intellectualizing of what first appeared to him as a mystic insight. A mystic insight is like a beautiful ship sailing in from the ocean and crashing on the rocky shores of logic. I think Hegel sensed the wholeness and interrelatedness of the universe and tried to translate this insight into a logical philosophy. But the state is not a suitable symbol for the universe. All this glorification of the state is an effort to force too large an idea into too small a container. I can't explain why but Hegel's ideas seem strangely familiar to me. I must have studied something else that was based on Hegel, but I can't think what it was. Russell considers most of his doctrines wrong though. He has no patience with "beautiful ships." If they can't sail on dry land, he scuttles them ruthlessly with that "Logical Analysis" of his.

Floyd and Ron, when you "professional philosophers" express your thoughts, it takes me a while to translate it into every day understandable language. May have a bit to do with the fact that English is not my mother tongue, but that shouldn't be an excuse.

The way I understand Hegel, Mind is everywhere. The entire universe is a whole. Within this whole there is development. And this development proceeds by the dialectical process, as you mentioned, Floyd. First we discover a thing, a "thesis". Then we discover its opposite or contradiction, an "antithesis." These two are at last reconciled in a "synthesis" which becomes another "thesis", and the process starts all over again.

To put the it in a different way, everywhere, in the natural world or in the mind of man, we find a process of unfolding, Hegel calls it the principle of contradiction (dialectical process).. Everything tends to pass over to its opposite. However, nature does not stop with these contradictions, but strives to overcome them, to reconcile them in a whole or unity.

All the universe is a continuation of this process within the whole. Reality then is the process of evolution, a developing from a less clear to a more clear. This is the process of thought. Therefore, the universe is thought and is subject to the laws of thought. As we think so the universe develops. ( Thoughts are things!!??) Nature and mankind are one within this whole. The same process which are found in man's mind are also found in nature, but in man the process becomes conscious.

For Hegel the universe is a whole or totality. This whole is a thinking process ( mind?) And it develops as does all thought.

Wonder if Hegel studied Eastern philosophies...Yoga? Shasta, that is probably where you came across similar thoughts. Incidentally, to your question why I call Kant's noumenal the "make believe world", it is constructed by reasoning needing the idea of God to serve as a foundation of our moral life. (Your's may be different than mine), at least as I understand it, I am not a philosopher, I am on this forum to learn something.

Bert

PS. Floyd, you say:"In a way that is ironic, since Kant thought he had closed the door to metaphysical speculation. limiting knowledge to phenomena." Did he give up on his idea about constructing the noumenal world , even "by reason", it is metaphysical speculation to me??.

Bert, what is your native language? People who are bilingual always amaze me, since I only speak one language.

Very good posts on Hegel indicating his basic philosophy, as difficult as it is, can be grasped at least to some extent.

Bert, I belive Kant consistently denied the possibility of speculative metaphysics, convinced that it only leads to antinomies (contradictions.) His postulates--God, immortality, and freedom--are not things we know theoretically; they are only assumed for the sake of morality.

Those of you who are very systematic in your thinking may appreciate Hegel more than a disorganized person like me. Kierkegaard--the father of existentialist philosohy--mocked the System. He believed Hegel left out the most important thing of all--existence.

He compared Hegel to a man who builds a beautiful palace but lives in a dog house. We can create the system in our minds but we cannot live as part of the system.

What I find interesting is Hegel's theory of God. God is Idea. By this he means that God must be thought of as the entire process of evolution, past, present, and future. The reasoning process which is unfolding in evolution is contained within God.

Thus, God is the creative reason of the universe and reveals himself in the world, and as the world develops through evolution, he becomes self-conscious, comes to know himself more fully. In man he reaches the clearest self-consciousness. Hegel's God is not complete, but is developing with the world, a developing God.

Shasta,my native language is German.

Bert

PS Floyd, may be we have to finish the palace first, and then move into it. :>)

It is remarkable to see how 18th and 19th century wars (French Revolution, Napoleontic wars) influenced the rise of rationalism and idealism in western Europe. Under these circumstances, people seem more willing to be introspective and find the (ideo)logical reasons for their conduct! When we are all capable of identical reasoning, that makes us more equal than empiricism does. External reality of empiricism states our differences, internal experience of synthetic a-priori's reduces these differences to our common human condition ("what can I know?"), while rationalism makes us exactly equal, so that we can expand our beings into idealism and historicism ("what can I do?"). Could that be an aim of war?

Shasta, this comes in defense of Floyd and your perception of his sexism. (Not that Floyd needs anyone to defend him.) I have known Floyd via Senior Net now for over two years, I have made it a point to read all of his postings and have never read anything to suppose him a sexist. Believe me, if I had I would have taken him on. You know, Shasta, when you get right down to it I get a whiff of sexism now and then from every male I know, even my own brother. I do let them get away with once in awhile - even my own brother.

In reading Hegel last evening , his Philosophy on Law seemed so timely with todays headlines concerning our intrusion into Kosovo. He had a dislike of a unit of states becoming one organization, such as, League of Nations, NATO, etc. in the declared goal of preserving peace. He argues against any organization, be it League of Nations or any such body to limit the independence of any of its members. He felt any attempt to prevent differences among the states would not be good as he felt an occasional war was a good thing. The very nature of the organization of states calls for an enemy for its existence.

Perhaps current events will prove him right. It seems this action into Kosovo has made the members of Congress all philosophers.

I wonder if there is not a serious inconsistency in Hegel's interpretation of history and his glorification of the State. His general argument is that only the whole is absolutely real; each particular manifestation of the whole is incomplete and imperfect.

Logically that would seem to lead to the conclusion that a particular State is not the hightest expression of reality; the dialectic should move us forward to a universal world government.

Hegel's philosophy of history concludes with the claim that Germany represents the highest stage of historical development. He fits the history of other civilizations into his scheme, even though, as Russell points out, he has little knowledge of other civilizations, such as China.

Even if one agreed with Hegel that Germany was the highest development of the historical process, would not his dialectical logic lead to the conclusion that Germany would generate its own antithesis, and that the thesis and antithesis would be taken up into a higher synthesis? It is almost amusing, though also dangerous, to see how a philosopher who believes in the evolution of thought concludes that his own thought is the completion of the process. We see the same mistake in the historical dialectic of Karl Marx.

Floyd, you can't seriously believe you are disorganized in your thinking. Hegel is full of inconsistencies, and many of his conclusions are simply absurd. But doesn't he give us a lot of interesting things to think about?

Bert, I am listening to taped lectures on philosophy. A Princeton professor in his lecture on Hegel frantically tries to translate "geist" and "ding an sich." I've hear the word "geist" used all my life; I thought everybody knew what it meant. Would you understand "ding an sich" to mean the same thing as "noumenon"?

Shasta, "ding an sich", I don't know in what connection or thought you came across that term. I will attempt to explain it. Hegel finds mind creating and realizing itself in objects and institutions. (probably developed out of Kant's thinking). But many believed that the material world was too real to be explained merely as a creation of mind, whether it be individual mind or absolute mind, and that "things-in-themselves" do exist and the world is not merely our idea, and that experience is the only source of knowledge.

Hope that helps

Bert

The "ding an sich" was used by Kant to refer to noumena. We can translate it "the thing in itself." Kant says we cannot know the "ding an sich;" we can only know how objects appear to us. Bert is correct in saying Hegel does not accept this limitation on knowledge.

Shasta, I agree that there is something very impressive and almost awe-inspiring about Hegel's System. Russell is probably correct in saying it grows out of Hegel's mysticism.

I wish I could read German better. Then I might be able to understand Hegel better, though I am not sure I would. He has this maddening way of assigning a technical meaning to a German word and then using it later with a different meaning. An example is Aufgehoben, which is used in the dialectic. Sometimes it seems to mean that the thesis and antithesis are "taken up" into a new synthesis. At other times it seems to mean that the thesis and antithesis are annihilated. Perhaps Hegel wants to say it means both.

I will admit I hurried through Helgel and Kant. I apoligise to no one on that. It offended me that such attention was given to these so called super-intellects. If they were understandable to some, what good is it? The understanding of the abstract ideas of these two were outside the pale for most of us. Why pay homage to such esoteric thought processes? If they are as astute as some say, why can they not put it into language that the poor masses can understand. We know the answer to that. They had no desire to improve the quality of the average man. Snobs! They cared only to seem incomprehensible to the average beast. ROT!

I praise Schopenhauer! He had the courage and contempt to call it what is was - nonsense. To pretend to know these vague philosophers as they wax interminably on such slippery concepts is disgusting. The more I read of Schopenhauer the more I feel kindly toward this pessimist. He was, to me, the ultimate realist. He was really not an unhappy man, just pessimistic of his fellow man. I would have loved knowing him.

If I have jumped the gun on the schedule, I do not apologize. I wish only to dismiss, in my opinion, the vain ramblings of those philosophers that have many of their own admitting they do not understand their conclusions. They have nothing to say to me. I have been exposed to them, given my consideration to them, and am ready to dismiss them. I will gladly join in in the discussion of Schopenhauer. I say to hell with Hegel, and I can’t stand Kant.

Cathy! You want to throw out Kant and Hegel and keep Schopenhauer? I was planning on throwing out Schopenhauer. What do you see in his pessimism that appeals to you? Of course, his idea that will dominates everything is pretty interesting. Since I am a pretty strong-willed person myself, I have to admit that he might be onto something. But what does he mean when he says "The body is the appearance of which will is the reality." Does he mean we will our own bodies into existence? If this is true, I would like to will mine to make some more cartilage in my joints.

And you skipped Byron. Should we throw him out too? I'm in favor of that. What did Russell put him in there for anyway? Byron doesn't have a philosophy; Byron has a neurosis. Russell doesn't even like Byron's poetry, nor do I. Here you have these two crazy men--Byron and Schopenhauer--and what caused them to be so crazy? They were both rejected by their mothers, and it left them bitter and unbalanced. So you see, even if there was never a woman philosopher, women still had an impact on philosophy.

There is no problem, as far as I am concerned, about moving on to a discussion of Schopenhauer. In suggesting a schedule I wanted to avoid the impression that I was trying to shut down the discussion of Hegel, while anyone had other comments they wanted to make.

After reading Russell's chapter on Byron, I am puzzled why he included this chapter in his history of western philosophy. I did not realize that Byron was regarded as such an important person in his own period.

This chapter reminds us of something that is different about Russell's History of Western Philosphy. He does not limit himself to a discussion of those who are ordinariliy considered philosophers. If you compare his book with other histories, the difference is very obvious. Each one must decide for himself or herself whether that is a strength or weakness in Russell's book.

Cathy, I understand why you prefer philosophers who can express themselves in clear and understandable language. Many contemporary philosophers agree that this is the way good philosophers should express themselves.

I question, however, whether one can always avoid using language that is difficult to understand, unless he or she chooses to avoid very complex issues. I cannot peer into the mind and heart of Kant and Hegel but I doubt if they were just trying to do a "snow job" on us. I think they were stretching their minds to the limit and were trying to challenge us to think about reality in a new way.

Enlightenment produced the system of Capitalism. The discovery of The System, as Comte first positively pointed it out, is what Hegel, Marx and their followers (still) call "dialectics". This is no more than digging into parts of The System that have not been looked into before, like libido or will instead of ego by Schopenhauer and materialism instead of idealism by Marx. Perhaps the inconsistency in Hegel's interpretation of history and his glorification of the State, as Floyd called it, was the fact that this closing system simultaneously closed morality.

Does anyone want to comment on Russell's chapter on Byron? Feel free to do so this weekend.

How about getting a head start on Schopenhauer. Those with the book should be reading pp. 753-59. Since Schopenhauer is easier to read than some of the philosophers we have discussed, perhaps you can find a selection of his writings and sample reading from them.

Russell's introductory paragraph on p. 753 outlines some of the most important characteristics of Schopenhauer. Russell also tells us something about Schopenhauer's unhappy relationship with his mother and his disappointment at the way people ignored his writings.This is useful information which helps us understand the philosopher, but I hope it will not distract us from the main points of his philosophy.

Floyd, how are you doing? I hope your treatments were successful, and you are feeling well. Is it springtime in Missouri? I'm farther south than you are and we've had azaleas and dogwoods blooming for the past two or three weeks. An absolute riot of color, with the trees turning green again and the little yellow butterflies just dizzy with delight. Is it all in the mind? If it is, it's quite a phenomenon! Who cares about Schopenhauer?

Ron, are the tulips blooming in Holland, or is it too early?

To answer Shasta's question - I find his stubbornness to be honest with his personality and the vanities of even those philosophers he somewhat grudgingly admired.

My problem with Schopenhauer is his rendition of what will is. How is our will endowed? Who endows it? Is our will influenced at all by our mind. He says our will is not influenced by our intellect. Will would seem to make us puppets. Our will is the life force dominating everything we do. What is the process of it shutting down and why? We all know people who fight death vigorously, but lose. Where was the will then?

I think the difference with Shasta and me, is that we ask why and you guys just repeat what the philosophers have already stated. Don't you like to translate what they believed and how it may influence our beliefs today?

Russell gives the incident when Schopenhauer becoming annoyed with a noisy lady outside his rented room, and in that annoyance pushed her down the stairs. I found it interesting in that, as a young man, visiting his mother with a young friend, Goethe; was himself shoved down the stairs (along with his friend). Goethe had the effrontery to inform her (she was a genius in her own right) that she would only obtain fame through Schopenhauer. Mother and son never saw each other again. I suspect his hatred of women was seeded in that event.

Shasta, you say:"........... But what does he mean when he says "The body is the appearance of which will is the reality." Does he mean we will our own bodies into existence? .........."

Who is we? Apart from will?

"Realism", means that the universe is real and is not a creation of the mind. Although experience reveals only phenomena, an appearance must always be the appearance of something, and reality causes the appearance. Kant called this reality the "thing-in-itself". Hegel had argued that there is no such "thing".

Schopenhauer agreed with Kant that the world of experience is a world of phenomena; but he disagreed with him in holding that we can become aware of the thing-in-itself. The thing-in- itself, for him, is will, the cause of everything. With other words, the universe is the result of will

Question, what is will, what is the cause of the universe, is it Universal Will, ??? Just another name for mind, and Universal Mind respectively. Schopenhauer found in man the will supreme. Will is the fundamental principle of the creative universe. All nature is an expression of will. In the stone, will is blind; in man, it is conscious of itself.. This will to be, will to live, is the cause of all the struggle in the world and thus of all evil and suffering.

The "will" of Schopenhauer corresponds to the soul of other philosopher, and I think that he believes that the individual will is immortal in that it is part of the universal will. At death the individual will ceases to be individual as a particular expression of the universal will.

In Yoga philosophy, "I can control mind and body with my will".....Who is I ?

Bert

Burt - Since you are so enlightned at to what the WILL is how about anserwing some of my questions above?

'What is Will? Is it given, or innate, or acquired? Are we obligated or do we just obey? Is the Will what we call today the Soul? If not, where does the Soul come in?

I think you just repeat what you read, but do not undersand!

Cathy, Floyd is right. Schopenhauer really is easy to read. He writes well and makes himself very clear. He thinks the intellect should be used to combat the will. I just read snippets on art, religion, genius, and women. Even when you don't agree with him, he's interesting. His observations on women are hilarious--"that narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, short-legged race" he calls us. He doesn't miss any of our faults. Why this struck me as funny, I don't know, but I couldn't help laughing. Maybe because some of his criticisms of women are right on the mark. I think I'm going to have to read Schopenhauer.

Schopenhauer was greatly influenced by Kant and he accepts the basic Kantian distinction between the phenomenal and the noumenal world. He thinks Berkeley is correct in saying tht objects exist only in our minds. The phenomenal world is a world created in our minds structured by space and time and the category of universaal causality. It is the world as idea.

But whereas Kant was agnostic about the noumenal world, Schopenhauer thinks we can have some knowledge of "the thing in itself." We can do this through our awareness of our own act of willing. The will is not a part of space and causality, though willing is temporal. The will is the "thing in itself."

Cathy wants us to explain what Schopenhauer means by "will." I have spent much of my day reading "The World as Will and Idea" but I find no place where he gives a precise meaning to the word "will."

DeWitt Parker, the editor of selections from Schopenhauer, says: "By 'will' Schopenhauer means striving, impulse, instinct, interest, desire, emotion."

I think Schopenhaer often uses the word as a synonym for "character." Our will is who we are. And his claim is that we know who we are in a direct manner; we know ourselves as beings who act, because we are such a being.

Schopenhauer does make it clear that he does not think of the will as something distinct from our actions. What he means is that when I will to raise my arm we are not talking about two different acts--the act of willing and the act of raising my arm. Willing to raise my arm is embodied in the act of raising my arm.

Schopenhaer uses our direct knowledge of our will as a key to understanding all things in themselves. He believes that plants and animals and even inarganic things are not merely ideas; they are embodiments of the will, even as our will is embodied.

There is one universal will; it is the will to live. This will is embodied in particular ways. The will to live in a cat produces claws and teeth needed to capture and digest food, etc.

There is inevitable conflict between all of the different embodiments of the will to live. One being can only continue living by eating and digesting other beings. He gives the example of a large ant in Australia. When it is cut into two pieces, the head continues to try to devour the tail and the tail stings the head.

The will is blind. It has only one basic impulse--the will to live. One could say that "the will" is God without the usual attributes of love, justice, intelligence, etc.

I want to add a response to Cathy's question about whether we are obligated to follow the will. I did read a section about his beliefs concerning free will. If I understand him, he is saying we are bound to act according to our nature (our particular embodiment of the universal will.) He does not seem to think that I can change myself by any conscious decisions. Nevertheless, he speaks of us being free when we are able to act according to our nature without external impedimants.

The word "soul" has as many different meanings as the word "will." I do think that one can make a case for saying that Schopenhauer sometimes seems to mean something very much like soul, if one means by soul that which makes us the distinct individuals that we are. He embraces the Vedanta school of Hinduism which identifies Atman (soul) with Brahman (universal being.) That tends to support the association of will and soul.

On the other hand, if one thinks of the soul as the mind, or the ability to reason, Schopenhauer does not identify will and soul. Reason is a secondary activity to willing. Our distinctive hature is not reason; it is will.

Schopenhauer's Will to Live is completely against his teacher Kant's Power to Judge. It is the instinct versus the intellect, the It versus the Superego, the child versus the parent. Empiricism has influenced both in being critical about what the phenomena indicate, but while Kant was no-nonsense (opposed to snobbish philosophers, Cathy!), Schopenhauer was all sense, or lust, just like his mother. I wonder if his pessimism about unbridled lust in the world did not spring from jealousy. He could have used a bit more success in his early years, like his friend Goethe must have had, to impress 'those women' and practice the Kama Sutra.

I could not spot those tulips yet, Shasta!

Ron, you may be drawing too sharp a distinction between Kant and Schopenhauer. I am not altogether clear about what you mean by the Power to Judge, but I believe Kant and Schopenhauer agree that theoretical reason makes judgments only about phenomena. Knowledge is subjectively related to space, time, and causality.

Schopenhauer thinks tht Kant comes very close to realizing that there is a way to have knowledge of the thing in itself through practical reasoning. Kant seems to use "practical reason" and "will" with almost the same meaning.

Now I will grant that Kant is much more committed to reason; whereas Schopenhauer sees blind will as the basic reality. By saying will is "blind" I believe he means it is directed towards only one end--the will to live. Ron, if you are saying that Schopenhaer is a romanticist while Kant is a rationalist I agree.

I am very impressed by the daring way in which Schopenhauer presents a unifying metaphysical view which explains much about the basis not only of human actions but all of nature. He deserves credit for recognizing the close kinship between humans and other animals.

Modern scientists reject teleological explanations, such as the one Schopenhaer presents, but even Darwin could not totally exclude teleology from his theory of evolution. Darwin speaks of "the struggle to survive;" Schophenauer speaks of "the will to live." I see little, if any, difference beween those two statements.

Ron, I have been thinking of your comments about "lust." Schopenhauer writes about the relationship between men and women as an example of "the will to live." The will is directed towards the production of the highest type of the human species.

Those who have a romantic view of love will likely be troubled by the way he reduces it to a sexual basis, but he believes that sexual attraction is determined by the will to live on through the species. He has some interesting comments about why two people are attracted to each other. The aim of the will is to bring together the particular man and woman who can produce the strongest and best child.

In regard to pessimism we know that Schopenhauer did not actually live his life as one might expect a pessimist to live. I do not necessarily see this as a contradiction. Since a more positive outlook may contribute to survival, it is no surprise that the will to live should be expressed in this way.

Floyd, Romanticism according to which we 'cannot help ourselves' is always running after the facts. Therefore, it is a-posteriori empiricism all over again. Human drives cannot be teleological, therefore 'blind will' is a contradiction in terms. The material body to which instinct or Schopenhauer's Will belongs, can never dictate or intervene in nature as the person can, for it is nature, 'the thing', itself. A-priori critique can create the comparisons for Judgement, for it has a memory, consciousness or better, conscience. The Critique of the Power to Judge (Urteilskraft) is about judging whether particular elements belong to general concepts (rules, laws and principles) and vice versa.

I know I can be too dogmatic, so do help me out here

Ron, you say that "human drives cannot be teleological, therefore "blind will" is a contradiction in terms." It seems to me that Schopenhauer is saying that the will is teleological in the sense that it is directed toweards an end--the preservation of life. It is "blind" only in the sense that the will as the "thing in itself" does not always rise to the level of conscious purpose.

Ron, I think you are mistaken in saying that Schopenhauer's will belongs to the body. It is more correct to say that the body belongs to the will, or even better that the body is an embodiment of the will.

Permit me to say what I think is correct in Schopenhauer's analysis and also what modifications I would make in his thought. I believe that he is correct in making the act of willing the starting point for metaphysics. We do not know perceived objects as things in themselves, but we no have an awareness of ourselves as beings who act.

Hume argued that when he enters into himself he never sees the self but only a bundle of perceptions. Of course Hume does not see the self, for it is the self that is doing the seeing. The being who acts (the self) is not something we perceive. It is what we are.

Kant assumed that there is a transcendental ego which does the perceiving and knowing. This ego seems to belong to the noumenal world and, as such, is not an object of knowledge. For Kant, the ego we try to describe is only the phenomenal self.

Can Schopenhauer escape that Kantian conclusion? He can make a case for saying that the will is not something we know as a spatial object, subject to the universal law of causality, but the awareness we have of ourselves as agents who will would still seem to be subject to the temporal process. I think Schopenhauer is aware of this problem, but it does not keep him from concluding that we have a direct awareness of our will, and from that he moves to the metaphysical generalization that the will is the thing in itself.

Our most immediate knowledge of the embodiment of our will is our own bodies, but we observe the behavior of other bodies, more or less similar to our own, and conclude that the will is expressed through all of those embodiments as well.

I think Schopenhauer's mistake may have been his reduction of will to the least common denominator of blind impulse. I believe he did that because he did not want to make the mistake of Leibniz of attributing consciousness to all bodies.

When I reflect on my own will, I notice a scale of inner activity. What I mean is that sometimes I am more conscious and have more of a sense of freedom than at other times. Thus the differences in the mode of activity of willing in nature, which leads Schopenhauer to speak of "a scale of nature," also leads me to speak of an inner scale of being. Perhaps this also extends to other beings. What I mean is that Leibniz may not have been so wrong after all. Perhaps there are different levels of consciousness and free purposeful behavior in non-human embodiments of the will.

This line of thinking also leads me to the idea of an infinite agent, one who is not subject to the limitations of willing that all other beings experience. Thus, whereas Schopenhauer thought experience leads only to an awareness of a self-caused blind will, I think that it points us in the direction of a God who transcends finite wills. I want to concede, however, this this analysis is not really a demonstration of the existence of God. It is an analyis of an awareness we have of an infinite will in and through finite wills, especially our own.

I am very taken with the discussion on the will to live as presented by Schopenhauer. Yet, there is that term "Death Wish". ( Who coined that term?)

Anyway, I feel like it is a legitimate term, as I think I understand the term and have experienced it. Without seeming goulish my daughter and I have both spoken of the frightening impulse to throw ourselves in front of a train or letting go from the height of a very tall building. We both hate railroad gates and skyscrapers. I am assuming that others have experienced the frightening impulse to just let go. What would Shopenhauer say of this.?

Cathy, you ask a very important question about "the death wish." I believe it was Freud who used this term in reference to an unconscious desire for our own self-destruction. It is hard to deny that there is something like a death wish. Look at the many ways we try to destroy ourselves.

It would be pure speculation on my part to say exactly how Schopenhauer would respond to this question. I do know that he discusses a closely related issue--suicide.

If the will is the source of suffering and frustration, why not simply end it all by killing ourselves? Schopenhauer says the act of suicide is a surrender to the will. It is an attempt to find some advantage or increase in happiness by taking our own lives.

I am not sure this makes much sense, though it does seem to be the case that it requires a strong will to kill oneself. A person who is completely overwhelmed by despair often does not have the strength of will to kill himself or herself.

Think of incidents when a person you know has committed suicide. Friends are often surprised, saying I thought my friend was feeling better. We would not have been surprised to hear of his or her suicide when they were in the depths of despair, but they seemed to be coming out of that mood. Yes, but that is precisely the time when one is most likely to commit suicide. One wills to improve life by ending it. That is not a very rational act, but remember that Schopoenhauer thinks the will is not controlled by reason.

If suicide is not the appropriate response to the suffering caused by the will to live. how should we live? Schopenhauer has two basic proposals: (1) Art; (2) Asceticism.

Aesthetic contemplation offers a temporary escape from the slavery of the Will. It is like an oasis in the desert. In aesthetic contemplation one becomes the disinterested observer. It is possible to observe the aesthetic object not as an object of desire but simply for its aesthetic significance.

The second path, the way of asceticism, is the way to salvation. Self-denial is a way to contradict the power of the Will. Here we see he influence of Buddhism on Schopenhauer.

Since the will to live is the most powerful force, men and women are basically egoisic. It is possible, however, for us to have compassion for others, and Schopenhauer regards this as a virtue. On the other hand, we are also capable of malice towards others, and Schopenhauer finds this despicable.

It is easy for critics to point out that Schopenhauer did not practice what he preached. He was not an ascetic, nor was he compassionate. His response is that a philosopher does not have to be a saint; nor does a saint have to be a philosopher.

___________________________________________________________________

Are you ready for Nietzsche? Read carefully what Russell says about him, but I warn you that Russell has a very negative bias. There are many bad things we can say about Nietzsche, but I think we should even give the devil his due.

Schopenhauer said that art was objective, but I have never found anything objective about art. Nothing could be more subjective. All art rises out of the depths of the individual psyche, and the same is true of the appreciation of art. You don't respond to art objectively. Your response is totally personal and individual and subjective. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It helps me to understand one philosopher better if I compare him to another philosopher. For instance, compare the pessimism of Schopenhauer with the egomania of Nietzche. Which is worse? Schopenhauer presents humanity as will-driven nonentities at the mercy of a universal force they cannot control. Nietzsche glorifies the individual superman who is justified in committing any cruelty he pleases.

What puzzles me about Nietzsche's philosophy is that he thought the slavish morality of the masses was detrimental to society. Why should it be? The cream always rises to the top. I suppose Nietzsche thought morality had a homogenizing effect on society, but the superman will always rise above his surroundings; nothing deters him. And usually morality is the least of his concerns. So why deny the rest of us (we of the slave mentality) what consolation we can find in religion? We need any help we can get.

Well, I see I spelled Nietzsche right most of the time. I have a hard time getting those four consecutive consonants in the correct order. The Germans always use too many consonants in words, just as the French have an affinity for too many vowels.

P.S.--- Spelling is not the only thing I have problems with. I have trouble counting too.

Shasta, I doubt if Schopenhauer would disagree with you about the subjective nature of the aesthetic experience. After all, our experience of all phenomena is sujective. I think his main point is that we can respond to art without desiring it. For example, if I view a painting of a nude woman from the aethetic perspective, I do not desire to relate to her sexually. That is the difference between viewing a nude in an art gallery and reading Hustler!

Nietzsche greatly appreciated Schopenhauer. The discovery of his writings is what really turned him on to philosophy.

He thought Schopenhauer was right in giving primacy to the will, but he did not agree that the fundamental drive was "the will to live." Nietzsche says it is "the will to power." He points out that a man will sacrifice his life trying to gain power.

Shasta, I, too, am puzzled by Nietzsche's hostility towards "slave morality," especially Christian ethics and utilitarianism. He admires those who gain power and has to admit that the "slave moralists" have taken control. It seems to me that he does not so much reserve his admiration and praise for those who are powerful but only for those who agree with his aristocratic view of morality. He simply does not like the way Christians and utilitarians dominate morality.

That is really the problem in knowing how to evaluate Nieetzsche. He baically expounds on his own preferences and prejudices without presenting compelling reasons for agreeing with him. About the only way I know o respond is to say, "Sorry Fred, but I have different preferences from yours."

In positioning contemporary philosophy, it seems important to know how rationalism and romanticism ended their fight. Romanticism (Rousseau, Schopenhauer, Nietszche), seems to have overpowered rationalism (Descartes, Kant). Perhaps we can simply talk about emotion versus ratio here. Bergson's philosophy of intuition is in between the two, instinct (emotion) and intellect (ratio). I like to assume that ratio equals emotion in a more compact, controlled, functional manner. Is that a valid statement, or am I trespassing?

Shasta, I have noticed many times your reference to William Durant. I, too, have his wonderful book, The Story of Philosophy.

Let's face it; we are discussing a book, not taking a course in philosophy here. William Durant is far superior than Bertrand Russell.

William Durant's discussion of the philosophers is a delight; Bertand Russell's is a drudge. I can't stand drudges!! BUT, I love philosophy! What is one to do?

Nietzsche, in my opinion, at last got the criticism he deserved by his biographer, Bertrand Russell.

Nietzsche's viciousness toward the ordinary person, especially women, would certainly signal to those of that category - here was sick philosopher. This man lived in a world of phantasy. He was raised by a father that was a preacher in a line of family preachers; and a puritan mother. He was orphaned as a young man because of the suicide of both parents. (Not at the same time.) Nietzsche lost his faith shortly after his mother's suicide. He then became an enemy of Christianity. Some of his criticism of the New Testament I agree with almost completely. But his lucidity doesn't last! He soon rants and raves against Christianity in total. I am always frightened off by those who rant and rave. His deliberate reversal of good and evil was a clue that he had lost it.

Nietzsche wanted so badly to be a Superman. He joined the Army and fell off his horse (Now would a REAL man fall off his horse?), straining his chest muscles to the point he was discharged. He then joined the Medical Corps as a nurse and promptly fainted at the sight of blood. How can a man like this have had such influence on later philosophers? How many warped men hungering for power followed his reasoning and helped contribute to the history of human misery? Too many I fear!

I could go on and on, but why?

I believe Nietzsche is one of the most misunderstood philosophers we have encountered in the history of philosophy. There are probably several reasons for this misunderstanding, not the least of which is Nietzsche's writing style and his inclination to make extreme statements simiply to shock the reader.

His sister is also part of the problem. She took charge of him during his final decade of insanity and arranged and edited his writings for publication. The order in which they were published added to misunderstnding.

Nietzsche has been held responsible for the Nazi ideology. I seriously doubt that Nietzsche would have approved of Hitler and the Nazi movement. Though a German he was not all that fond of Germanic culture, considering himself something of a franchophile.

An example of a specific misunderstanding, which was exploited by the Nazis, is his praise for "the blond beast." Most likely he used that term to refer to the lion, the king of beast, not specfically to the Nazi ideal of Aryans.

Nietzsche is often presented primarily as a moralist. It is true that he wrote about morality, but his philosophical interests included most of the major issues in philosophy. His aphorisms and outrageous expressions of his own preferences are the writings most frequently quoted but there is also serious philosophical analysis of other philosophical problems. I will try to discuss some of those analyses in later posts.

Cathy, I think we like Durant because he is such a great storyteller, but Russell is probably a greater scholar. I feel this discussion of philosophy has been a valuable education to me. Russell may be too negative in some of his observations, but we've had Floyd who has tried to keep us thinking straight.

However, I still want to argue with Floyd about the objectivity of art. Floyd, I don't think viewing a nude in an art gallery is any more objective than anything else we do. You yourself may view the painting objectively, but that's only one man's response. The next viewer may be thinking, "Wow, I wonder if I could get the model's telephone number." And the next one may be thinking, "I must buy this painting for my collection," while his wife is thinking, "Hmm, she needs to go on a diet, or keep her clothes on." The artist's former teacher looks at the painting and thinks, "I was right to flunk him in my anatomy class." The artist himself is thinking, "There's still a little imbalance in the composition and maybe too much green in the shadows, but I hope the damn thing sells; I need the money."

A Bach sonata or a Shakespeare play would get just as many different responses. Nietzsche's response to art was so violently non-objective that he quarreled with Wagner because he hated "Parsifal."

I think Schopenhauer was mistaken in thinking art is an objective haven from the blind force that drives humanity. This blind force drives artists more relentlessly than anybody else, and I think the recipient is just as subjectively driven in his response to art.

Shasta, my post about Schpenhauer was not to defend the claim that art is objective. In fact, I questioned whether that was his view. The point of my illustration was to try to explain how one views art in a "disinterested way" not as an object of desire. There is such a thing as an aesthetic point of view. It does not mean that everyone will agree in their response to a given work of art.

Now I want to support my claim that Nietzsche was a more careful philosopher than is often thought. I will illustrate that here my comments on his view of truth.

Nietzsche attempted to give a radical reinterpretation of philosophical activity. He believed that previous philosophers had pretended to give an objective description of things; whereas, actually they were simply giving their own interpretations, based on their moral prejudices. Nietzsche thought his task was to destroy the old interepretations and to make a fresh start.

This new start would require a new philosophical language and he knew that most would fail to understand what he was saying. That prediction turned out to be true.

Many philosophers, and probably most ordiinary people, have assumed that there is some objective structure to the world and that a description of the world is either true or false, depending on whether the description corresponds with reality. Nietzsche says all of the descriptions are false in the sense that they do not correspond with reality.,

I believe Nietzche had a pragmatic view of truth--a view later explictily presented by William James. A true interpretation is one which works well. The "common sense" view works well and Nietzsche for the most part accepts that view., even though he warns us that it, like all other interpretations, is only a "useful fiction." There is no absolute truth; there is only different perspectives of the world.

In the taped lectures I am listening to, there is a discussion of a book by Nietzsche called "The Gay Science." (That's gay as in merry.) The lecturer says this is a book of aphorisms, rhymes and songs, and represents the light side of Nietzsche. I couldn't believe my ears. The Antichrist wrote a joke book? I looked it up in Barnes & Noble, and sure enough, there it was. But it was only published in 1974 so that's why Russell doesn't mention it.

Nietzsche was a cultural historian. One of his important books is "The Genealogy of Morals," where he traces the development of two kinds of morality--the morality of the masters and slave morality. He claims that every elevation of the "type" man has been the work of an aristocratic society. Aristocrats develop virtues to maturity.

The noble type of man sees himself as the determiner of values. He honors whatever he recognizes in himself--the powerful one. He is the furthest removed from a morality of sympathy or "acting for the good of others." He is a proud man who has faith in himself. He enjoys only what is good for him. Aristocratic values are considered "good" and everything that is opposed to them is "bad."

This aristocratic morality eventually gives way to "slave morality," or "herd morality." The revolt of the slaves in morals begins with resentment. Everything that aristocrats consider "good" is called "evil" in slave morality. Slave morality favors altruism, nonviolence, self-denial, and humility; it and condemns egoism, violence, self-assertion, and pride.

Nietzsche clearly prefers aristocratic morality and despises slave morality. He utterly detests the New Testament, saying it is such an unclean book that one should wear gloves when reading it. Judaism and Christianity are counter-productive to the evolutionary process. They are religions for the suffering weak, those who should be allowed to perish.

Nietzsche calls for a "transvaluation of values." We must take a stand "beyond good and evil. "(Those are distinctions found only within slave morality.) The philosopher of the future, understanding the values dictated by the will to power, will stand apart from the masses as an aristocrat--a creator of new values. For this to happen the truth must be shown to those who are fit to receive it. No doubt he would say that those of us who fail to appreciate this need for new values are simply not fit to receive his truth.

Russell and Nietzsche have one thing in common: they are both opposed to Christianity. But this doesn't keep Russell from despising Nietzsche, does it? I am curious about Russell's opposition to Christianity, so I have ordered his book on this subject. I have always had certain reservations about Christianity myself, but they are totally different from Nietzsche's. I feel that the moral code advocated by Christianity is impossible for the average human being to achieve, and this results in a pervasive sense of guilt and inferiority. High aspirations are desirable, but when they are too high, they can do as much harm as good. For example, the principle of turning the other cheek is not only a violation of human nature, but it could even encourage aggression in the aggressive.

Perhaps Nietszche was a fool - then I should write today, April Fools Day. I became inspired after reading a piece about the idea and reality of war, that I shall link to at the end of this post. As I understand him now, he doubted far stronger than ever did Hume or Descartes or Diogenes who may have been the model in his adoration for the Greek, reality beyond the phenomenal. As if the phenomena themselves were not enough primary reason for skepticism! When I try to explain this from another source than his suicidal parents, it may have been the next stage in unfolding western philosophy: in the protest against Christian dogmatism, the empiricists reduced reality to supposedly external or physical phenomena. Then came the rationalists, declaring it internal, a psychological phenomenon, while there still was supposed to be the impenetrable noumenon (Kant). The idealists took up this divide between the object and the subject and brought it out of the cogito alone, into reality, where the person became a historical, engaged, being (Hegel). The romanticists now completely deny the stance of the cogito, the a-priori or the subject, only following their emotions or instinctual will to overthrow all that it is held responsible for. It may be responsible for lost battles, for generations of losers, for the meaninglessness of lives - in Christianity even a-priori. What is Nietszche saying? That dogmatism, rationality and idealism, and let us add romanticism, have been lying, misdirecting young people to war, to poverty, to misery. Therefore, Nietszche might have had a Christian mission after all. He was a lonely individual, so his ideal of a superman may mean no more than someone who can stand such a situation of anomie, with a prophetic view of lost generations to come, post-modernism and each man for himself.
(April Fools #94)

Ron: I read # 94. Sad and so true.

I want to mention briefly three important ideas in Nietzsche's philosophy: the death of God; the Superman; and Eternal Recurrence. The first two are widely known, but it is the third that is probably most important of all for Nietzche.

In "Thus Spake Zarathustra," Niezsche proclaims "God is dead." What did he mean? I believe he is making a statement about an event in modern European culture. There was a time when the belief in God was a living reality, and people used the idea of God to explain many things. But then that belief died, even though there are still many who do not understand that this has happened. As in so many other things, Nietzche thought he had come too soon; people were not ready for his message.

Nietzche says we have killed God. What can we do to be worthy of such a deed? We must dare to become gods.

A new kind of man is necessary--an Uebermensch (often translated Superman or Overman.) Present humanity is only an intermediate stage of evolution, preparing the way for the arrival of the Uebermensch.

Eternal recurrence is difficult to understand. Nietzche seemed to believe that everything that happens is repeated over and over again. Have you seen the movie "Groundhog Day"? That may be close to what Nietezsche meant.

There is a finite number of combinations of energy that is possible. The energy which has been brought together to make me the person I am will reappear again and again. What a horrible thought! You would think it is enough for the world to endure Floyd Crenshaw once! And do we really want Nietzsche to come back again and again?

One may suppose that his idea of eternal recurrence is the same as reincarnation but I am not sure that is so.

The practical meaning I get out of "eternal recurrence" is that everything I do has eternal importance. Milan Kundera's book "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" brings out this fact in an impressive way.

ALERT TO POSTERS AND LURKERS1

Please take a look at the revised schedule above. If there are further comments on Nietzsche, please try to post them by April 4. Then we will move forward with the remaining chapters in the book.

If we stay on schedule, we will conclude the book discussion on April 20. If there is enough interest, we might take a few days afterwards to discuss some developments in philosophy since the time the book was completed. I believe we should bring this discussion to a close by the end of April.

All comments welcomed.

Heckers, don't bring it to a close, it seems to be a great discussion, hate to see it end, myself.

Ginny

Ginny, thiank you for your encouragement. My only concern is that if we continue too long there might be a loss of interest. I do not want us to end with a whimper!

I know of at least one person who has some things to say about Nietzsche and there may be others. If you don't have an opportunity to comment over the weekend, by all means post them Monday. Our schedule is very flexible and we can always revise it.

I encourage those of you who have been reading the posts but who have not posted to just right into the fray. None of us have all of the answers and all contributions are appreciated.

Perhaps you have heard the old story about someone writing the following on a public wall:

'GOD IS DEAD" ---Signed Nietzsche

Below it someone had written:

NIETZSCHE IS DEAD--Signed God

You may recall that back in the early seventies there was a theological fad called "The Death of God" Theology; or Christian atheism. Time Magazine took the movement seriously enough to do an Easter week cover story on it.

During that period, Billy Graham said, "I know God is alive; I talked to him this morning." Some cars had bumper stickers saying: "My God is alive; sorry about yours."

This popular response to Nietzsche tends to trivialize what he is saying. Nietzsche was an astute observer of human culture and he saw something happening in western culture that many had overlooked. God no longer plays the role in modern culture that he once played. LaPlace, and others, when asked where God fit into their explanation of the universe, have replied, "I have no need of that hypothesis."

Even those who still profess to be religious do not rely o God for an explanation of nature and history as did former generations. God retreated from physical science and history but at first was given a place in psychology. Freud and his successors have largely banished God even from the human soul.

Does it really matter whether God is alive or dead? Nietzsche was honest enoough to acknowledge that a world without God is a colder and lonelier place. As Dostoevsky wrote in "The Brothers Karamozov," "if God is dead, then all things become permissible."

Before we leave the discussion of philosphy perhaps we should have some discussion of what Jean-Paul Sartre said about the consequences of the death of God. We can do that after completing our discussion of Russell's "History."

Perhaps the question to ask this Easter weekend is whether the horrible death of Jesus on the cross means that God is really dead or whether the message of Easter is that God is alive. I have found my own answer through faith and will be in church tomorrow singing "He Lives!

The following part of an Interview with René Girard relates Nietszche to Christianity.
From Anthropoetics II, no. 1 (June 1996)
Markus Müller



Q: We have talked about external and internal mediation, the scapegoating mechanism and the deferral of violence. At this point, I would like to shift the focus of our discussion towards the question of representation in general and language in particular. Generative Anthropology argues that the sign, and consequently language, is born in the originary scene under the threat of violence and I think that Nietzsche has an interesting comment in that regard. In an essay called "On Truth and Falsity in their Ultramoral Sense" (1873), Nietzsche says that because humanity wants to live socially and gregariously together, because it wants to avoid the "greatest bellum omnium contra omnes," it invents an arbitrary yet binding system of language and consequently also of laws to fix "truth."

A: This is a fascinating quote. What bothers me there is what bothers me a little bit with Generative Anthropology, as this process implies foresight. It implies thinking and one of the purposes of the scapegoat business is to have a genesis of culture that makes this completely unnecessary; that it is really a mechanism, you know, that it is a transition between a biological mechanism and culture. All social contracts, in my opinion, are unbelievable. But Nietzsche is an interesting case in regard to questions of scapegoating and victimization. We live in a world where we cannot accuse people directly, we have to accuse accusers, we have to persecute persecutors. So, I would say there is always a perverted Christian problematic inside our conflicts. And I really think that if Nietzsche had the views he had, that combination of extreme insight and complete foolishness, it is that he was the first to react against PC. PC was at its beginning, it was nothing compared to what it is today.



Nevertheless, if you read Nietzsche carefully you can see that, from my point of view, he mistakes the caricature of Christianity for the real thing. He sees the origin of Christianity, the idea of all the weak getting together against the strong, as some kind of super PC. This in my view doesn't make any sense, because Nietzsche is blind to the principle of the mob, whereas the early Christians were obviously a small minority fighting the mob. And Nietzsche sees Dionysus as the opposite of the mob, the individual, whereas it is obvious from Euripides and from everything we know, and the most elementary common sense, that Dionysus is the mob, is that mania, that homicidal fury of the lynch mob that the tragedy portrays. So he is both the most lucid and the most blind in regard to Generative Anthropology. He's a total cultural mystery, he is indispensable because he discovered, I think, the difference between the archaic and the Christian when he said that the latter are for the victims, but instead of finding that good in principle, he says it's bad.

Q: Do you want to say that you put Nietzsche on his feet?

A: In a certain way that's what I do, the reversal of Nietzsche. In Nietzsche, there are unpublished passages that say outright that we need human sacrifice. He accuses Christianity of making human sacrifice impossible by defending the victim. This is out in the open in Nietzsche. And it is extremely profound; it is greater than any theologian of the 19th and the 20th century, but it is also the most perverse conception, because to be against PC and to be for victimization are two entirely different things. We are against PC because we are against victimization and because it is the most insidious and hypocritical form of victimization. And this is indeed how Nietzsche interpreted Christianity: as PC.

--Thank you Julie Shinnick!

I am grateful to Floyd for giving extra time for those of us who had more to say about Nietzsche. I had no idea when I started reading of Freidrich Nietzsche that he would become my favorite philosopher. He has done so. Upon first reading of him I was sure I would give of him no importance. What a mistake that would have been. He spoke to me as not many philosophers can. I love philosophy and therefore had to have a few favorites such as : Voltaire and Schopenhauer, but they ceased to be important to me after reading Nietzsche. Nietzsche was a man of passion. He gave all of himself, right or wrong. He loved with all his might and hated with equal intensity. His whole life was peppered with the love/hate relationships. There was nothing luke warm about Nietzsche. Nietzsche so longed for the perfect man. I believe he longed for the perfect woman also. He dreamed and fantasized about the perfect man, Superman. It would seem that his perfect man was without sentiment, hardened against pity for the weak, scornful of the religious. All of these traits would, upon first exposure, seem to repulse the reader. But to continue to read, the reader soon learns that these very traits were a integral part of Nietzsche himself. He so admired in others what was lacking in himself. What a tormented way to live. And tormented he was! Nietzsche had much to say in his numerous aphorisms. One of my favorites, “God created woman. And boredom did indeed cease from that moment - but many other things ceased as well. Women was God’s second mistake.” Another favorite, “Man wishes woman to be peaceable, but in fact she is essentially warlike, like the CAT.” Another, “What is done from love is always beyond good and evil.” And there are so many, many more.

Nietzsche had his first mental breakdown at 35; he rebounded and did most of his important writing thereafter. His final breakdown came at 56. One of his last statements, I think, sums it up for Nietzsche:”. . .Lo! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that hath collected too much honey; I need hands reaching out for it.” So sayth Nietzsche!

Cathy, it is generous of you to overlook aspects of Nietzsche's thought which have caused many women to despise him. I knew a female graduate student who thought he was so important that she wrote her graduate thesis on his philosophy.

One has to look beyond some of his provocative statements in order to see the positive value in his philosophy.

Did Nietsche believe it was possible for a woman to become a Superman? I believe he said that the highest possible achievement for a woman would be to give birth to a Superman. At least that is better than another statement he makes to the effect that the role of women was to be playmates for barrick soldiers! (My paraphrase.)

I suppose it might be consistent for Nietzsche to say that one who was born as a female could become an Uebermensch if she developed those characteristics of power which he considers masculine. Actually, Nietezsche does not seem all that concerned about whether or not his beliefs are consistent.

In "Beyond good and evil" Nietszche starts his foreword:

Supposed that the truth is a woman - what? Is not the suspicion grounded that the philosophers, as far as they were dogmatics, had no understanding of women whatsoever? That the nasty seriousness, the plump obtrusiveness with which they had approached truth so far, were clumsy and unfit means to even win a woman for themselves? Certain is, that she has NOT let herself win over - and all dogmatism today is sad and depleted.

This matches his thought that fundamental truth could not be found by men - because for that one had to be a woman. She could be approached by many, but not won over - like truth can be described from many angles but not understood as the thing in itself:

Task: to see things as they are! Means: to look at them with a hundred different eyes, and by many men.

He called this "perspectivism of truth". He may have thought that all philosophy, based on different principles, each really driven by instinct, was directed towards the unapproachable Truth - read: the most fascinating specimen of the other gender as seen through her aspiring beholders' eyes.

In addition, this could explain Nietszche's anti-Christian temperament. For the (Catholic) Church supposedly is run by males. However, women's role is to give and preserve life, while men are after the women, if necessary beating each other up to claim the object for themselves. To make life viable, women are smart to demand these men who are after them, to first learn to obey God, worship Him by being friendly to one another in a place that is dedicated to this worship, which is church. Therefore, women are in charge of this educational system for men after all.

Nietszche wants to know truth like he wants a woman and he wants her for himself alone. No church can teach him to treat the competition with respect, not even if SHE would ask him!

Ron, I really have problems agreeing with your interpretation of the passages you have cited from Nietsche. You make him sound like a champion of women's liberation. One has to overlook a great number of negative statements he makes about women to avoid the conclusion that he advocated the subjection of women to men. Consider the following statements:

"To be mistaken in the fundamental problem of 'man and woman' is the typical sign of a shallow mind. To deny here the profoundest antagonism, the need for hostile tensiion, to dream here of 'equal rights,' equal training, equal claims and obligations; to prove oneself shallow at this dangerous spot, may be regarded as suspicious, nay more to be betrayed."

"The woman who 'unlearns' her fear of men, sacrifices her most womanly instincts."

"That which inspires respect in woman, and often also fear, is her real nature, her genuine, carnivora-like cunning and flexibility, her tiger claws beneath her glove, her naivete in egoism, her untrainableness, her innate wildness, her incomprehensibleness, the extent and deviation of her virtues."

Now I concede that the main point he seems to be making in these passages is that the so-called liberation and elevation of women by making them more like men actually robs them of their real source of power. I doubt, however that contemporay feminism would ever look kindly on those statements.

Nietzsche held that we can never get back to the "original text. We are confined to interpretations that reflect our own biases and preconceptions. (At least that is how I undersand Nietzsche.)

When one considers the conflicting interpretations of Nietzsche's writings, one finds confirmation of the claim that we cannot get back to what Nietzsche really meant. Two people can read the same passage in very different ways and we may never reach agreement on which reading is the correct one, in fact Nietzsche would reject the very idea of "a correct reading of the text." Thus I try to avoid saying that my reading of Nietzsche is any more correct than anyone else's interpretation.

His style of writing makes the interpreter's task even more difficult. As we have noted in previous posts, he likes to shock us with extreme statements. He also seems to have different perspectives at different stages of his life.

Whatever his true attitude towards women may have been, he seem rather clear about his rejection of utilitarianism. Tomorrow I want us to consider Russell's discussion of the philosophy of Bentham and Mill, though I will also read with interest anything else posted about Nietzsche.

Floyd, had I today to confront a man like Nietzsche I would have absolutely no tolerance, none, zilch. My admiration for Nietzsche was in his passion and in his clearly stated philosophy. Not for him was the sitting around contemplating whether we really exist or not.

As for his treatment of women, how did he differ from his predecessors? We women have to acknowledge that there were no advocates of women among the early philosophers. William Durant reveals that Nietzsche fell madly in love with a woman called, Lou Salom', she rejected him and found his eyes too sharp and too deep for comfort. I suspect this was due to the budding of insanity. He fled in despair and started composing aphorisms against women. He was lucky to have a sister to tolerate him in his final illness.

But at least the man tried to build a better society with his philosophy, however tinged with madness. He seems to have not influenced anyone of great importance unless it was Hitler. Nietzsche would have been proud of Hitler.

Cathy, your post makes sense and expresses a measured judgment about this fascinating but perplexing phiilosopher.

As promised, I want to turn our attention to the Utilitarians, whom Niezsche despises.

Russell presents a very clear and accurate picture of the Utilitarians in Chapter XXVI (pp. 773-782). He identifies Jeremy Bentham as the head of the "Philosophical Radicals." Although he discusses both the "association principle" and "the greatest happiness principle," I prefer to comment on the latter.

The Greatest Happiness Principle basically says that one should act to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Bentham uses "happiness" and "pleasure" in the same way. He is a hedonist; i.e. one who believes that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. This was also the view of Epicurus, and perhaps also Locke.

Bentham's important contribution was the zealous way he applied this principle to legislation and morality. He was actively involved in legal and penal reform.

In order to make this a useful principle Bentham had to provide guidance in calculating the amount of pleasure which is likely to follow a particular law or action. Thus he developed "the hedonic calculus," which measures pleasure by such criteria as intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty, nearness or remoteness, and purity and fecundity.

We should note the difference between Bentham's greatest happiness principle and ethical egoism. The final considerating in measuring pleasure is its extent. How many people will receive pleasue from this law or action? Pleasure is good whether it is mine or yours, and I should give no preference to my own over yours.

There are many critical questions which can be asked of Bentham. Are pleasure and happiness really the same thing? Is it possible to measure the quantity of pleasure by using the hedonistic calculus? What proof is there that the Greatest Happiness Principle is the highest principle of morality? If everyone by nature seeks his or her own pleasure, what is the point of saying we ought to do so, for it seems we are determined to do so? Even if it is true that I seek my own greatest happiness, does it follow that I also seek the greatest happiness of others, and do I have any obligation to do so?

My concern in the Utilitarian mode is that the "happiness" principle would seem to render man a contented, passive, but manageable citizen. What government would not want that in their citizenry?

It seemed to me Bentham, in his wish to establish a code of laws which would automatically make men virtuous is loaded with danger. Many good facets of human living would be in jeapordy. Human suffering has been the base of many, priceless works of art. A contented mind is fine when it comes through accomplishment, but at best it is temporary (and should be in my view). Discontent, misery, unhappiness is a big ingredient in problem solving, inventing, progressive ideas, great literature, and works of art.

If man is always content and happy does that not nutralize the striving for accomplishment?

It is difficult for me to understand why Bentham thought liberty so unimportant. He thought safety and security much more important. How can one be happy and forfiet his liberty? Yet, Bentham believed in equality! To be equal in an unfree society, to me, sounds like a oxymoron.

Cathy, I don't believe Bentham thought a government could make people virtuous through legislation. He distinguished between legislation and morality, though he believed that the principle of utility applies to both. One may be requred to obey a law for the sake of general happiness but that does not make him or her virtuous.

I do not recall Bentham discussing virtue at any length, though his disciple, John Stuart Mill, does discuss it in his brand of Utilitarianism.

Speakig of Mill, he made an important modification in Utilitarianism, claiming plesures differ not only in their quantity but also in their qualities. One should act to produce not simply the most pleasures but the best pleasures.

Mill said: "It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied; and it is better to be a man dissastisfied than a pig satisfied."

I believe Mill has departed far more from Bentham than he realized, for once we speak of the quality of a pleasure we introduce a standard other than pleasure itself.

Neither Bentham nor Mill thought we can prove that the principle of utility (the greatest happiness principle) is correct, for it is a first principle and first principles cannot be proved. Bentham did argue that any other moral principle either turns out to be no principle at all or a disguised form of the priniciple of utility.

As Russell points out, Mill presented what he called an indirect proof of utilitarianism, but his argument is fallacious. He says the proof that something is visible is that we see it; the proof that something is audible is that we hear it; and the proof that something is desirable is we desire. Since we desire pleasure it is desirable. This fails to consider a difference in the way we use words like visible and desirable. To say something is desirable is to say it is worth desiring, not simply that we desire it.

Floyd, I quote directly, " To Bentham, determinism in psychology was important, because he wished to establish a code of laws -- and more generally, a social system - which would automatically make men virtuous." Page 775. Was he not a behaviourists?

With English utilitarianism, we are shifting back to the belief in the possibility of direct visibility of and control by what once was called the noumenon. J.S. Mill is even claiming it can be an important extension of Kant's rationalism and prove that his imperatives are right or wrong. Mill believes that the a-priori must be felt and in that feeling it presents itself as being good or bad, pleasurable or not. He assumed that it feels good to be a democrat and go for best and most happiness even when it does not include you - something Nietsche rejected after hearing of it. Mill was a real hero of feminism since he was sick and tired of his famous father James Mill's empiricist drill to make him read Greek at the age of 5. Apparently the Victorian age believed that keeping up appearances could actually mold men into real men and women into real women. His wife Harriet and stepdaughter Helen supported him rediscovering his feelings and female side. They shared in writing his most important works - all when this still just wasn't done, yet.

Cathy, Russell may be correct in interpreting Bentham as a determinist, though I am not sure about it. Even if he is correct in saying Bentham "wished to establish a code of laws--and more generally a social system--which would automatically make men virtuous," that does not eliminate the distinction between laws and morality. A social system includes not only a set of laws but a set of morals. I have a hard time believing that Bentham thought legislation could make men and women virtuous. His use of the Hedonistic Calculus indicates he thought each person had to calculate the amount of pleasure and pain that would result from a particular act.

My students and I in classes tried to use the calculus to see if it could tell us what we ought to do in a specific situation. We found it very difficult to make a judgment about the amount of pleasure and pain that would result from a specific act. One problem is that what makes one person very happy my produce little happines for another person, but that has to be calculated in predicting the extent of the happiness. I do think, however, that we sometimes do decide what to do after considering the pleasure and pain that would result from our action.

______________________________________________________________________

NOTE TO READERS: If you have read Chapter XXVII (Karl Marx), I suggest we make our comments on Marx today and tomorrow. This will keep us on schedule. (This is not to rule out other comments or questions about the Utilitarians.

Russell's discussion of Marx is important not only for what it tells us about Marx but also for what it tells us about Russell's "A History of Western Philosophy."

Although Marx has had much influence in economics, Russell's discussion is limited to his philosophy. He finds it difficult to classify Marx's philosophy. He may be viewed as the outcome of the Philosophical Radicals, "the revivifier of materialism,"or "the last of the great sysem builders, the successor to Hegel,"

Marx called his thought "dialectical materialism." He adopts the dialectic of Hegel but agrees with Feurbach that reality is matter, not spirit.

Truth for Marx is found in action, not in passive thought. ""Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways, but the real task is to alter it." Russell says that, as far as he knows, Marx was the first philosopher who criticized the notion of truth from this activist point of view. (In that sense his approach is an anticipation of pragmatism.)

For Marx, politics, religion, philosophy, and art are an outcome of the methods of production. Russell says this has influenced his own way of interpreting the history of philosophy, as presented in the book we are reading. We need to read this section carefully, however, because he does not agree completely with Marx. Russell thinks political factors must be taken into account, as well as economic factors. Furthermore, in regard to philosophy, the economic nd political influecnes apply only to the large philosophical questions of practical and passionate interest. Questions of scientific and logical interest can be addressed in ways to reach agreement and are not the result of the political and economic factors. (I am not so sure about that!)

I do not like Marx. I don't know why exactly, but I think it is because he has had more than his share in showing that he was right. It is interesting to picture him as one of the first who linked knowledge to action though. This very interesting discussion has made it clear to me that I am first of all a Kantian (though Bergson is still coming up!).

Now, let us say the object that Marx is into, is the noumenon. If we do not engage ourselves, this object is open for (scientific) speculation, although Marx just went ahead and did or made do what he thought was right (for his ego, mostly, I am afraid). The subject, which side Hegel was on, is open for interpretation. That might be heuristics, philosophy or religion.

Both the ultimate object and the ultimate subject are unknown to us, although we may speculate and interpret. By just doing things and then see how it feels, like Bentham and Mill did, or just following a blind will or a blind will to power, like Schopenhauer and Nietszche engaged in, in a way you are dictating truth. For there is no proof for your speculation or your interpretation being wrong or right any more: it just IS so, for you JUST DO it. Hegel was still able to say "too bad for the facts", but these guys in a way say "too bad for the theory". I guess that is why I do not like Marx. He was self-fulfilling his theory. That is unscientific and unreligious - it is just an adventure. Can you still believe I am a lefty?

I feel that even when we just do things and experiment with our theories, and even when reality or even history seems to come around to our point of view, there still may be refutation in the end. That is why the eternal recurrence remains interesting. Although Marx said that religion was the "opium for the people", and Nietsche was the Anti-Christ, René Girard in "Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World" (1978 - his book that is the most complete statement of his theories to date) mentions the eternal recurrence in the following Christian context that I feel applies here (p.226):

The word 'sacrifice' -- sacri-fice -- means making sacred, producing the sacred. What sacrifices the victim is the blow delivered by the sacrificer, the violence that kills this victim, annihilating it and placing it above everything else by making it in some sense immortal. Sacrifice takes place when sacred violence takes charge of the victim. It is the death that produces life, just as life produces death, in the uninterrupted circle of eternal recurrence common to all the great theological views that are grafted upon sacrificial practices -- those that do not acknowledge the demystifying effect or the Judaeo-Christian tradition. It is not by chance that Western philosophy begins, and up to a certain point ends, in the 'intuition' of the Eternal Recurrence that the pre-Socratics and Nietzsche hold in common. This is the sacrificial intuition par excellence.

Ron, I think you will find many who share a dislike for Karl Marx. I know that Marxism is a dirty word for most Americans. The Cold War years left most of with a very negative feeling towards Marxism-Leninism.

I suspect that the negative reaction is primarily due to the way his theory was applied in the Soviet Union. I doubt if most of us know that much about his philosophy.

Whatever we may think of Marx, I think he needs to be included on a short list of the most influential people in the modern world. I would include on my short list the following: Newton, Darwin, Marx, Freud, and Einstein. Each in his own way changed the way many modern men and women view the world.

Liberation Theology, which began in Latin America, used Marxism as a tool for social analysis. This does not mean they were necessarily Marxists. They interpreted the New Testmant as teaching" God's preferential option for the poor" and liberation in terms of lifting the burden of oppression.

Whereas Utilitarians may be seen as the champions of capitalists, Marx is the champion of the working classes. In his dialectical interpretation of history, according to Russell, he was mainly interested in the dialectical triad of feudalism, capitalism, and Socialism.

Marx is one more example of the many philosophers who make their own system an exception to their own conclusions. What I mean is that whereas Marx sees all other philosophies as the product of the dominant economic class, he thinks of his own dialectical materialism as the scientific truth.

I am sorry if I am to blame for this loss of communication.

I've always been prejudiced against Marx because I equated Marx with Communism. When I finally look into what he actually believed, I am surprised to find that I like many of his theories. I'm certainly on the side of the working class, and I certainly believe that action is more important than theorizing.

Ron, explain to me exactly what Eternal Recurrence means. I keep hearing this phraze, but I don't really understand it.

Shasta, the way I understand it is as follows: there are 'normal' times and there are 'revolutionary' times. During normal times, life is structured and bears a certain 'necessity' or imperative in itself. It is the way people live their lives because that is how it is done, how things ought to be. The same things occur over and over again so they get a clear meaning in the scheme of things. In Slavic states, where communism has reigned for such a long time, this life was shaped by the state. For example, people were not allowed to keep books, but could only get them through the library. During revolutionary times, like the Prague Spring in '67, people tried to change this, like Milan Kundera, who was expelled and started writing about it as "the bearable heaviness" that it had come to mean for many people. His wife/girlfriend returned to Czechoslovakia even to be accused and locked up there.

So the Eternal Recurrence can be "the heaviest burden" as Nietszche called it, because it is beyond our control and yet the thing that gives us a sense of ourselves. I think this is one of the uses of philosophy: to find the scheme of things and thus have something to hold on to during burdensome times. Of course there can be deep disagreements on how to interpret and understand reality, which the empiricists nicely captured by just sticking to the phenomenal facts. Kant, in the rationalist tradition, called this thing that philosophers (and is not each of us a philosopher one way or another?) can speculate about but that can never be known, the noumenon (literally "the unnameable"). Nietszche wanted to penetrate it anyway so his life became an experiment to find the truth (that is how I see it).

Religion can be seen as a special kind of philosophy: a claim of truth that, if believed, leads to action. Thus, belief can control 'normality' as well. Nietszche hated that and wanted to find out what would be Eternal Recurrence that was out of control of religion. He was looking for the scheme of schemes, the God of Gods, and is it surprizing that this led to his breakdown, crying and apologizing for Descartes to a horse. Marx saw that things could change if the masses went along in a collective transformation of values that Nietszche could only imagine. But his scheme of schemes did not prove viable in the end. Christianity has a longer breath, although a leading Dutch Protestant minister thinks that within a hundred years the church will no longer proclaim the divinity of Jesus.

Ron, I have to confess that I do not understand the quote from Girard and felt incompetent to comment on it. I was not ignoring your post; I simply did not know what to say about it.

I fear that I will have a similar problem with Bergson. I have read Russell's chapter on Bergson. He tries to make Bergson's philosophy understandable, but even he admits he is not sure he understands it.

I know Bergson is a philosopher you appreciate, and I hope you can help us understand what he is saying. I have suggested we discuss Bergson from April 9-13. Hopefully, that will give us enough time to try to understand his views.

Ron, assume that most of us do not have a clue about what Bergson is saying and try to explain it as simply as possible to us. I will greatly appreciate your efforts to do that for us.

This is a great opportunity for me to try and flesh out what I understand about Bergson. I will certainly try to be clear, so please oblige me to correct myself if I am not.

Instinct is closely related to the sensory-motor system. Animals have grown organs to fight or flight in the effort to survive. The human instinct is his sensory-motor, or central nervous system of the brain. To fight or flight, he primarily uses his mental capacities. However, these capacities can also detach him from his roots when he becomes too cerebral (I know all about it!).

Our intellect uses 'clippings' from experience and from imagination to construct a model of material reality. This is often beyond the here-and-now. Memory is one of the most important mental capacities that we have. It gives us a sense of time or duration. Duration is a psychological phenomenon, independent from physical time.

Clippings of (imagined) reality, from an a-priori stance, do not allow newness and creativity. The a-priori is dogma and doctrine and feels it is above things. Empirical experience can only confirm what was already known in thought and social exchange. That is what we increasingly believe, not (just) in growing old but in evolution of the human species. Our actions are the proof of this belief.

But life, especially in its spiritual energy, is much more than the invariant set of symbols we treasure alone. We can understand better, and more, if we make better use of our intelligence. The way to do that is to reach back to instinct that is at an evolutionary lower level. That brings us to intuition. Bottom line for us should be the intuition of duration.

Reality, or its phenomenal appearance, is constant change of things that we perceive, including the 'thing' that we are ourselves. Memory holds on (for some time) to these things and builds them into an organic whole. It is like a music teacher taught me recently: a continuous non-resolution for the harmony, like in Barber's Agnus Dei (adagio for strings).

This stream of consciousness that Bergson envisioned independent from William James, may not be chopped up by an intellect jumping from one conclusion to another (mea culpa). However, there is one way that intellect can help intuition instead of the other way around, which is in mysticism. Hinduism and Christianity claim they have examples of them. These people can show us how to experience better, understand better and live better.

Ron, thank you for beginning our discussion of Bergson. I think I understand the basic distinction you make between instinct and intellect.

Perhaps it would help if we could give some context to Bergson's philosophy W. T. Jones says "Bergson's metaphysical position grew directly out of the materialism versus vitalism controversy." As I understand it, vitalism denied that you could explain life in terms of physical or chemical laws. They rejected mechanism as an explanation. Life cannot be reduced to anything else.

One thing I remember from my undergraduate study of Bergson is his emphasis on "the life force." I have heard him called a "Creative Evolutionist."

I also understand that Bergson attacks conceptual knowledge on the grounds that it falsified a continuously real by dividing it and emphasized intuition as the means by which we have direct and immediate access to the nature of reality. I believe he holds a position, which I have defended, that there is one reality which we know directly from within--the self which endures.

Although I have not read enough of Bergson to be comment on this, it seems that Bergson makes use of many illustrations and figures of speech to present his views. Russell certainly emphasizes that point

One illustration I have heard--though I do not know is was one he used--is that reality is like a rocket shooting up from the earth and that the material work is like the ashes and residue which settle back down to earth. We know the reality by intutition; we cut up matter into categores, thus dividing it. It makes me think of cutting up a living organism. We may know its parts, but we lose the living reality.

Ron, please comment on this and keep trying to help us understand. I hope others will ask some specific questions.

When I was a young girl in college (about l,000 years ago), Bergson was my favorite philosopher. I'm trying to remember why; did I really understand what he was talking about? Probably not, but I understood that he valued intuition above intellect, and I was delighted to discover that somebody did. My teachers certainly did not. I also understood that calendar time was a lie. I knew that time expanded and contracted like Alice in Wonderland, and that clocks and calendars had nothing to do with time. But I also knew that this kind of thinking would never get me through college, and I would have to try to replace intuitive thinking with logical thinking. Well, I graduated magna cum laude but I knew I was a fraud. I never did really learn to think logically.

Floyd, there is something I meant to ask you. You said you considered the most influential people in the modern world to be Newton, Darwin, Marx, Freud, and Einstein. That sounds like a pretty good list to me, too; but I would like you to tell us briefly what influence you think each one had.

Shasta, I believe each of the name on my list was a revolutionary thinker. There are many intelligent people who do good work within the framework of a generally accepted way of looking at the world, but revolutionary thinkers offer a radically different way of interpreting our experience.

Newton formulated the basic laws of nature which were used by scientists for many years; Darwin challenged us to see human beings as part of the development of all living organisms; Marx developed a way of understanding history as the product of the class struggle (a view which became the philosophy of the Soviet Union and China); Freud offers a new way of understanding human behavior, by developing the theory of the subconscious; and Einstein challenged the Newtonian view of absolute space and time by his theory of relativity.

Perhaps we should include Bergson on a list of revolutionary thinkers. I do not know how widespread his influence has been in shaping our view of the wo rld. I wonder if his influence has been greater in Europe than in America. What about that, Ron?

The distinction between instinct and intellect, in my view, is basic to all of Bergson's philosophy. It is like the distinction between science and philosophy, that John Paul II also made in his October 98 encyclical. Science is analytical and identical to matter, mechanical or cognitive, and all that is in between. Philosophy, or metaphysics as Bergson calls it, is or should be about the reverse direction, not streaming along with unfolding nature, but swimming upstream towards the source. Science and philosophy can be very profitable to one another. They meet in experience, but both their object and method are different.

They both grow from the same tree. When you saw the trunk and look at the rings, between the center and the periphery is where growth is taking place: one set of rings moving outwards, the other set moving inwards. Experience is like that: acts and movements are part of the Elan Vital, creativity taking place here and now. Consciousness identifies with the form of matter, but it only resembles all of our personal and common history. Everything new is immediately and intuitively understood enabled by the continuous survival of the past. We are no extensions of what is done away with. We should be like children in continuous awe for the discoveries of the immediately given. Time itself is constantly supplied and adds to the total intuition of duration.

Bergson can make me see who God is and how he acts through all of us. He has been laureated by the Nobel Prize for literature (why not philosophy?). He did not invent anything particular but discovered that everything is invention. Therefore, he is unlike the people in your Hall of Fame. Rather, he can bring us creatures to the root of creation and find ourselves there.

I've reached the chapter in Durant where he's discussing Russell's philosophy. This is a pleasant surprise. I've been listening to Russell for four months dissecting one philosopher after another. Now, I'm listening to Durant dissecting Russell. He said the reason why Russell rejected Christianity is that he couldn't reduce it to a mathematical equation. I've now read Russell's "Why I Am Not A Christian", and I think Durant is right.

My other commentator said that Bergson uses all these analogies because he's describing the inner world of intuition. Logical language belongs to the outer world of the intellect, and there is no other way to approach intuition except through analogy and metaphor.

Russell, of course, has no patience with Bergson's analogies and assumptions. Consider page 801 where he says, "Bergson does not know what number is," and then proceeds to give us a lecture on the theory of numbers. Now, isn't that deathly dull? Who cares about that?

On the whole, though, I find it all highly entertaining.

A very helpful post, Ron. You say >>Bergson can make me see who God is and how he acts through all of us.<<

I have wondered about how God fits into Bergson's philosophy. Does he identify God with the Elan Vital?

I see at least some connection between Bergson and Schopenhauer. The notion of the "life force" seems very similar to Schopenhauer's "will to live." Also, they agree that we have a direct or intuitive knowledge of our selves as beings who act.

How does one decide whether or not to accept Bergson's world-view? Russell concludes that there are no rational arguments which can prove that it is correct. He thinks we have to respond Bergson's philosophy in the way we respond to a poetic picture of the world.

Perhaps a Bergsonian would agree with Russell. Given Bergson's attitude towards intuition and intellect, I do not think he depends on intellectual arguments to support his view. Bergson's view either does or does not match our own intutions. On that level I find much that is attractive and convincing about his view.

I especially like what Bergson says about morality and religion. There are two types of morality. "The first type of moality rests on obligations resulting from the structure of society and the pressures which the elements of society exert on one another; the second type of morality is a creative morality, the expressions of man's moral genius and insight." (Quote from Thilly/Wood "A History of Philosophy.)

Bergson also draws a distinction between a static religion which is a product of myth-making and a dynamic religion associated with mystical insight.

Recently I heard a quote that seemed to spark a realization that the remark was much more profound than its simple construction. It was the ending statement made by Governor Murio Cuomo at a debate concerning our obligations to our fellowman. He said, “God created the universe and left it up to man to finish it.”

To me Bergsom was saying the same thing in his making a distinction between intellect and intuition. As I understand him, it is our ability to put ourselves in the place of others that we begin to understand we are always in a state of becoming; on the other hand, intellect retards and interrupts our state of becoming. Intellect, in the form of science, takes a life form apart to study the parts in order to explain the whole. Intuition accepts the whole life form, knowing that it is in a state of becoming and; therefore, not concluded. Life can never be truly known in its complete essence because it is always changing.

He applies this difference to two modes of religion, which Bergsom calls “static” and “dynamic”. He claims that ALL men are religious in one way or another, and it must be innate in human structure. In a static religion, the whole is taken apart then put together again as a doctrine and sets of rules of restriction - endangering the whole. A dynamic religion, on the other hand, is more in the nature of mysticism. Just as intuition grasps reality more completely than intellect does, so does dynamic religion discover God more vividly. For, says Bergsom, we must consider static religion “as the crystallization, brought about by a scientific process of cooling; of what mysticism had poured; white hot, into the soul of man.”

You make some very good points, Cathy. Obviosuly you have been thinking carefully about Bergson.

Bergson certainly believes the world is not finished. He rejects what James calls a "block universe," i.e. the future of the universe is open to many different possibilities. I wonder, though, what it would mean in the context of his thought to speak of finishing the universe. That presupposes there is some determined goal. As I understand Bergson, what happens is not determined by either mechanical laws or teleological goals.

Ron, do you think we are in danger of turning Bergson into too much of an anti-intellectual? The fact that he values intution so much does not necessarily imply that he sees no important role for intellect, as expressed through analytical thinking.

God is positive spiritual energy, preceding even intention. The white heat condenses into matter that evolves with perfect logic into living forms, in which the Elan Vital resembles the authentic (forms of) energy. All forms of life really are one dynamic, organic unity. Our creativity uses pre-existing material and immaterial (cognitive, mystic, loving) forms to shape matter. Everything new contains the essence of its past and in present tense intuition of duration we realize the materialization of these forms. Change is what makes us aware of our situation. Destabilizing internal (intellectual) and external (societal) factors are annihilated by norms and rules of a closed morality and static religion (god), while open morality and dynamic religion (God) is transparent and has no boundaries.

Ron says: >>God is positive spiritual energy, preceding even intention<<

It is not clear to me what that means. I assume it means God is not to be identified with the life force, but is in some sense antecedent to it. Does this mean that God transcends the creative process? In traditional terms are we talking about pantheism or something closer to traditional theism?

I continue to be concerned about Bergson's poetic languge. It is sometimes beautiful and perhaps at some level I understand it intuitively, but it lacks the clarity that I hope to find in philosophy. This may ironic to my critics, since I am often accused of using language so unclearly tht no one can understand what I mean.

Hume and his logical positivist successors would probably consign Bergson's metaphyics to the flames, because they can find neither analytic nor empirically verifiable statements in it. This really challenges us to think about the nature of philosophy and how it is related to mathematics, science, and poetry.

To me William James’ “new” doctrine means the following: The doctrine of mind over matter is a mistaken concept. His doctrine eliminates the ghost as conductor of the human machine. He claims mind and body are of the same stuff organically and the trigger of mind development comes from experience. (I love it when a philosopher is driven to use such a vague term as “stuff”.) Yet - I would have the belief that each of us feel there is something which makes us feel unique and apart from each other and from our biological entrapment. In other words what makes me me and not you? In philosophic terminology - “Consciousness of Self”?

His theory of the will to believe leaves me a little perplexed. I suppose most of us will our belief systems. I doubt there are many of us who really fool ourselves that we are truthful in constructing our personal belief system. I would wager most of us inherit our systems of belief; those of us who do not, have a life time of collecting facts trying to establish one. Thus, it would seem that is our life’s task.

I especially like his maxim, “The sin of “Science” is to attain conceptions so adequate and exact that we shall never need to change them. There is an everlasting struggle in every mind between the tendency to keep unchanged, and the tendency to renovate its ideas. Our education is a ceaseless compromise between the conservative and the progressive factors. “

I may be jumping the gun on William James. If I am, I will keep this as my contribution in trying to understand his philosophy and sit back and see what others receive from him.

Floyd, it is never clear to me what Ron is talking about, but it always sounds like he's talking about something marvelous if only I understood it. I especially like "the white heat condensing into matter." That sounds to me like the way the world came into existence. And Floyd, I don't believe for a minute that anybody ever accused you of using language unclearly. I'll bet you taught school all your life, didn't you?

I heard that!!

I applaud Ron's efforts to explain a metaphysics that requires the reader to change his or her way of viewing the world. Most of us who have attended a college or university have received a basically scientific and mathematical education. Even if we have studied the humanities, they may have been presented in an academic way which left us in the clutches of analytical thinking. (Shasta, I believe you complained about the dominance of that approach in your education and your efforts to rely more on intution.)

The challenge in trying to interpret someone like Bergson is to remain faithful to his thought but to try to explain it in ordinary language. I doubt if there is any real substitute for reading Bergson. Perhaps I will find the time to do that soon.

Cathy seems eager to move on to James and I am prepared to do that tomorrow. I want to be sure, however, that everyone, especially Ron, has the opportunity to say what he or she wants to say about Bergson.

Just go ahead with James: I am busy reading two (of 17) Bergson books, that you propelled me back into. One is re-reading (B. Delfgaauw), while the other I just found out to be highly readable after all ("Bergsonism", G. Deleuze, 1988). When I bought it on holiday in England (Oxford library), it was far too hard to read, but now, thanks to this forum I might add, I see it exactly addresses what Floyd is missing! So, allow me FYI only to drop a post in the middle of your discussion within a day or two.

I know I am a bad communicator and I try all I can to improve that, as though my quality of life depended upon it! Did I scare away Bert? Then I apologize again.

Although Russell discusses William James and John Dewey as representatives of American Pragmatism, James says that Charles Sanders Pierce was really the founder of Pragmatism.

According to Pierce, philosophy must become scientifically objective. He treats all ideas as hypotheses to be tested. In order to determine what a concept means we must examine its future practical consequences. For example, to say that a diamond is "hard" means that if we use it to scratch a piece of glass it will cut the glass, rather than being cut by the glass. Practical consequences, for Pierce, are empirically verifiable.

Pierce distinguishes between belief and doubt. A belief implies a rule upon which we are prepared to act. Doubt implies an unsatisfactory or uneasy feeling which may lead us to inquiry, which begins with genuine doubt, not the kind of feigned doubt we see in Descartes. The aim of inquiry is to remove the doubt.

Even though Pierce was the pioneer Pragmatist, it was William James who popularized the method. James, however, was a very different kind of man than Pierce, and he made radical changes in Pragmatism by humanizing it. He made pragmatism a philosophy of life.

James agrees with Pierce that a belief is pragmatic insofar as it represents an idea upon which we are prepared to act, but whereas Pierce limited his pragmatism to practical results that were scientific and experimental, James also applied it to beliefs which were religious, moral, and personal.

James says certain beliefs are useful in that they make things happen--they can make certain things true. Pierce developed pragmatism as a theory of meaning; James insists that it is also a theory of truth. An idea is true if it works. One way an idea works is that it may bring us into contact with reality. Suppose I believe I can walk right through a brick wall. Now that idea does not bring me into a useful contact with reality! On the other hand, my belief that I can leave the room by opening the door and walking through the doorway is useful.

But James thinks there are other ways that a belief can work. If I believe you will become my friend and approach you on that basis, it is likely that I can actually make you my friend. I make my idea true. Although James illustrates his theory from personal relationships, he also applies it to moral and religious questions. I will discuss that in future posts.

Ron, it wasn't you who scared Bert away. It was Cathy. She hurt his feelings. But I hope he will come back and talk to us again anyway.

I love William James. You'd never guess he and Henry were brothers, would you? What I like about William James is his optimism. He said we should believe whatever makes us happy. Now, what philosophy could be more practical than that? Nobody can prove whether God exists or not, but if it makes you happier to believe in God, then that's a perfectly valid reason to believe.

I never believe in anything myself. I don't believe in UFO's. or ghosts, or angels or devils, or Hell or Heaven or Purgatory, or those letters Reader's Digest keeps sending me telling me I may have won a million dollars. I don't believe anything I can't see, and sometimes not even things I can see. For example, I don't believe airplanes can fly; that's why I never get on a plane.

But pessimism is a stupid way to live. I don't advocate it; I just can't help it. This is why I love William James. He probably woke up every day expecting something good to happen, instead of worrying about what calamity the day would bring.

Although James is often accused of providing a license to believe anything we want to believe, he places some important limitations on this right to believe. This is expressed clearly in his essay "The Will to Believe," which he later said should have been called "The Right to Believe."

James defines a hypothesis as anything that is proposed to us for belief. He distinguished between "live hypotheses" and dead ones. A live one has enough interest to us that we are tempted to accept it.

He next refers to an option or choice between two rival hypotheses. A Genuine Option is one that is live, forced, and momentous. A live option is one where I have an interest in both hypotheses. It is forced if I cannot avoid making a choice; it is momentous if it has important consequences.

Suppose NASA said to John Glenn, "You can either be on the space mission or decline the invitation ever to go into space again." I am sure that would be a live option for John Glenn; it would also be a forced option, for he must either say "yes" or "no." And it certainly has momentous consequences.

Now James says that whenever we can make our choice on the basis of evidence we should do so, but there are genuine options which cannot be decided on the basis of evidence. James says in such a case we are justified in following our passions.

James things the choice between accepting or rejecting the religious hypothesis is a genuine option for many. The religious hypothesis, as James defines it, is that the best things are eternal and we are better off here and now believing that is true.

If the choice between accepting the religious hypothesis is a genuine option and there is no way either to prove that it is true or that it is not true, you must follow your heart. One might respond, "No, I will neither accept it as true nor reject it; I will remain an agnostic." James argues that there is no practical difference between atheism and agnositicsm. Both the atheist and the agnostic live without the comfort which can come from believing the religious hypothesis is true.

This pragmatic justification of belief is a double-edged sword. If one follows his or her heart into atheism, James really has no way to argue that they are mistaken, for this is an option which cannot be exercised on the basis of evidence.

P. S. We are nearing the end of our discussion of philosophy. I hope the few we have participating in the discussion will stay with us until the end. I want everyone to feel welcome.

I do not know very much about James. In college though, we discussed a book that our professors of theoretical psychology (philosophy of psychology) had written, based on James, "Between design and reality", 1982. That is, it discussed the Subject, the Object, and their interaction. James' role was to support the view that every form of knowledge is based on action or interaction between (knowing) organism and reality. Not only pragmatism supports this view, they say, but also, for example, operationalism and Soviet psychology. It is a crying shame that Bergson was never mentioned.

So, now for the announced last post on Bergson.

I consider his view revolutionary. He explains how the aforementioned interaction takes place in consciousness, denying fundamental presuppositions of common sense, like (perhaps most important) the ordinary theories of memory:

For it is a single illusion about the essence of Time, a single badly analyzed composite that makes us believe that: (1) we can reconstitute the past with the present; (2) we pass gradually from one to the other; (3) that they are distinguished by a before and an after; and (4) that the work of the mind is carried out by the addition of elements (rather than by changes of level, genuine jumps, the reworking of systems).
G.Deleuze, Bergsonism, 1991:62

Or, in Bergson's own words:

The perception being defined as a strong state and the recollection as a weak state, the recollections of a perception being necessarily then nothing else than the same perception weakened, it seems to us that memory ought to have to wait in order to register a perception in the unconscious. Indeed, it must wait until the whole of it goes to sleep. And so we suppose the recollection of a perception cannot be created while the perception is being created nor can it be developed at the same time.
H. Bergson, Matière et Mémoire, 1896:160-161

Bergson assumes that the recollection of a perception can be created while the perception is being created and developed. This leads to viewing the Elan Vital as movement of differentiation, much like Plato's views. This is why I think Kant was so great, for he fused without confusing empiricism and rationalism, using psychological Time as the essential traît d'union in his a-posteriori's (analyses, empiricism) and a-priori's (synthesis, rationalism).

We should study our intuition to see if that is how it happens in our own consciousness or not. It does in mine. Therefore, intuition can be a method that can be studied empirically and analytically, by using psychological testing methodologies. Unfortunately, I never was a good student or else this would be what I was into. Now I am also into it as much as I can, with my 'business' of Personal Memory Management.

Undoubtedly, I was unclear again, perhaps this time even extremely so. I hope one day I shall be perfectly clear and relight Bergson's brilliance, if only in a peaceful state of my own mind.

Ron, we thank you for sharing those quotes from Bergson, along with your explanation. I can see how your interest in memory leads you to a greater appreciation of Bergson.

I now want to say something about the Radical Empiricism and Pluralism of William James.

William James says: "Radical empiricism consists first of a postulate, next of a statement of fact, and finally of a generalized conclusion."

The postulate states "that the only things that shall be debatable among philosophers shall be things definable in terms drawn from experience." The statement of fact asserts "that the relations between things, conjunctive as well as disjunctive, are just as much matters of direct particular experience, neither more so nor less so, than the things themselves." The generalized conclusion states "that therefore the parts of experience hold together from next to next by relations that are themselves parts of experience,"

James attacks the notion that there is a gulf between the mental world and the physical world. Pure experience is simply our field of awareness, which we then interpret as either objective or subjective. The original field of awareness is neutral: it is neither subjective nor objective. This is what is meant by Neutral Monism. There is only one basic reality--experience. Mind is not a different kind of substance from material things.

James' radical empiricism leads him to a pluralistic view of the world. He rejects any form of monism, the view that everything fits into a single, fixed whole. The door of experience is left open for novelty and change.

This also leads James to reject determinism. He believes determinism leads to a pessimistic view of the world, and as an optimist he believes in our ability to make choices which can make the world better. He cannot prove that we have free will but affirms it for pragmatic reasons.. A belief in free will satisfied him much more than a belief in determinism.

Plese note how Russell agrees with much of what James says about radical empiricism, though he cannot accept his conclusion that experience is all that there is.

Cathy, I was only teasing you. Did you read Durant's chapter on William James? It's pretty interesting.

Ron, what is Personal Memory Management?

There is an area in James' thinking that confuses me. If he considers the field of awareness to be a form of Neutral Monism, how can he reject monism for pluralism?.

A very perceptive question, Shasta. It does seem that the way James places the emphasis on experience alone is a form of monism. It depends on how one uses the word. What James is rejecting is the notion that there is some complete, fixed, system of reality. He wants to insist that there is no limit on the variety of experiences we may have in the future.

Some earlier American philosophers were Absolute Idealists. They thought the only think real was the universal Mind or Spirit. James thinks that is a mistake, for it locks one into a static view of the universe. Absolute materialism makes a similar mistake.

I don't think James ever used the term "neutral monism" to refer to his own philosophy of experience, so we probably should not use that as a weapong against. The point I was trying to make by using the term is that James agreed with Spinoza that mind and body are not separate substances. He thinks we simply interpet our experiences in two different ways, objective or subjective.

Shasta, personal memory management is what we do in our minds. I made this my business when I started studying psychology about 990 years ago and now I have a software program called like that. It helps in learning and making tacit knowledge explicit, to be exchanged and consulted more adequately. For example, expertise and competence in companies needs to be shared.

Ron, I have a memory management problem myself. I am a lifelong gardener, and I know the names of hundreds of plants. But in recent years, I find myself forgetting the names of commonplace plants. Yesterday, I couldn't even remember the name of camellias. Do you think there's any hope for me, or am I just getting senile?

Shasta, I am pretty sure your faculties are in top order, judging from some of your posts. Not all of them, like when you start discussing my unclarity with others behind my back, but hey, who's perfect!?

I will be busy tomorrow but I hope participants will move forward with a discussion of John Dewey. After completing that discussion, there is only one more chapter in Russell's book. We should complete the discussion on schedule.

Early American functionalists, like James and Dewey, have turned attention to the outcomes of thought and thereby away from rationalist/subjectivist thought like Wundt and Titchener were still very much practicing in Germany. Intentionality used to be associated with rationalism/subjectivism, but now with this start of behaviorism (psychology) or functionalism (philosophy), intentionality became associated to 'independent variables' such as the outcomes of behavior. This was closer to the American no-nonsense common sense of "just do it: survive!" then the more sophisticated and introspective European philosophies. So this time around, it seems that the subject and the object, the a-priori and the a-posteriori, did not get their impetus in the person (the subject, the ratio), but in the dynamic, interactive environment in which the person was taking part. Subject and object therefore seem to be having a cyclical relationship: once they get their input from the person and then again from his environment.

William James has given me much food for thought with his “will to believe” belief. At first, I thought he sounded like, what I think, is currently called an”inspirational leader”. Something like a pep talk, “act is if it were so, and it will be” school of thought. Then I realized that was not what he meant.

He means, I think, to be so completely convinced of an idea, that it does become a reality with the thinker. I chewed on this awhile and realized that I have had proof of that in my experience.

Several years ago I was lucky enough to be acquainted with and worked with a lovely personality that proves, to me, William James’ thesis. Evelyn, her real name, was a woman convinved that people basically were good. She loved people. I was present when I saw her deal with people that I would have rather taken a beating than have to deal with them. But, for Evelyn, these beasts of mankind, turned into pussy cats. Evelyn was so convinced that people are good that for Evelyn they were. Her world was filled with kind and responsive people. People responded to the warmth and obvious caring of this woman and created the world for her that she believed in. Magic!

I think this was William James’ message: Believe it and it will come. Anyway, I believe in the pragmatism method or doctrine or whatever we wish to call it. If deep study of the philosophers resulted in the tools for enriching our lives and answers the pathetic question, “why are we here?”, it is well worth the effort. But to spend volumnes of time and words, both spoken and printed, in pondering the “unponderable” leaves me a very cynical person.

Russell makes the important point that whreas most earlier philosophers used mathematics as their model for thinking the American pragmatists relied more on the physical sciences. We see in John Dewey the importance of biology.

Dewey emphasizes the interaction between the organism and its environment. We do not passively receive knowledge from the external world; we gain knowledge by active intelligent attempts at problem solving.

Dewey was especially interested in education and has had a great influence of the developoment of American schools. Students are not to sit passively obsorbing knowledge from teacher. Instead teachers are to help set up problems to be solved. This is Dewey's instrumentalism.

For Dewey there is no gulf between theory and practice. Experience and thinking can only be known instrumentally in terms of what they accomplish. The scientific method is simply a name for the intelligent process of problem solving

Floyd,

Experience and thinking can only be known instrumentally in terms of what they accomplish.

This means that the a-priori, or even God, is replaceable. We guess until we get it right. Is intelligence no more than leveraging the obstacles? Is there no genuine, real, authentic and true road from the subject into reality? Christianity, or rather 'open morality' prescribes that this is our salvation and revelation. Life is more than survival.

Would you say this is our accomplishment in Judaic-Christian history? When Jesus said just before he died "it has been accomplished" - was that because he was only human, and religion and morality were only the highest levels of functional structures we as a people could reach? Is God our construct?

How about the explosive force in matter, sub specie durationis, the 'white heat' of spiritual energy?

I never knew anything about John Dewey before reading Russell; and after reading Russell, I still don't know anything about him.

It seems to me that Russell uses invalid examples to criticize both James and Dewey. On page 817, he tests James' logic by using the question: "Did Columbus discover America in 1492?" and proceeds to prove that James' logic can't answer that question. Then on page 825, he tests Dewey's logic by asking "Did I have coffee for breakfast?" and arrives at the same conclusion. But are these the kinds of questions philosophy is concerned with? If you want to know when Columbus discovered America, you turn to history, not philosophy. Maybe James and Dewey can't answer philosophical questions either, but Russell's examples haven't proved they can't.

By the way, I wonder how many people today would understand his comment about coffee and the war effort. Russell wrote his book during World War II, and he often makes poignant references to the ongoing war. There were all kinds of shortages--coffee, sugar, meat, gasoline, etc. We gave up these things as part of our effort to win the war. Women went bare-legged because all the nylon was being used to make parachutes. Our cars broke down, and we walked, because there were no mechanics to repair them. All the men were gone, and the assembly lines were producing tanks and jeeps and airplanes.

Sorry for getting off on one of my tangents, but this is the kind of trick that memory plays on you. Just that little comment about coffee, and I am plunged back into World War II again.

Shasta I hope you will click on the NEW banner at the bottom of the page. It will take you to the new WW II folder.

I was preparing to praise Russell's discussion of John Dewey, but after reading Shasta's post, a defense may be more in order. I think Russell accurately describes some key aspects of Dewey's thought, and in doing so presents an outline of his own understanding of truth.

I will try to respond with some comments about truth that may address questions raised by both Ron and Shasta.

Russell says, "Dewey makes inquiry the essence of logic, not truth or knowledge. He defines inquiry as follows: 'Inquiry is the controlled or directed transformation of an indeterminate situation into one that is so determinate in its constitutuent distinctions and relations as to convert the elements of the original situation into a unified whole."

Russell objects that this is not an adequate definition of inquiry; it could refer to the work of a bricklayer and Russell doubts that Dewey would call that insury. (Pehaps he would!)

What Dewey's definition of inquiry brings out is that inquiry arises when an organism encounters a situation which causes dissatisfaction. It is like a person who cannot tolerate a messy house and immediately starts organizing everything into a satisfactoryy order. Russell may be correct in saying that Dewey's preference for achieving organic unity may be a hangover from Hegelian philosophy.

The substitution of inquiry for truth means that Dewey rejects any notion of apriori truth. A belief is more or less true. For example, Newtonian physics was more true than Aristotelian physics, but it is less true than Einstein's theory. (My illustration, not Dewey's)

Russell main objection seem to be that Dewey places too much emphasis upon subjective changes within the organism and not enough on the objective facts outside the organism. He uses the example of a general who changes his strategy in the midst of a campaign. Russell insists that the changes are made because of a change in external facts.

His use of the illustration of Columbus is that whether it is true or false to say that Columbus sailed in 1492 is determined by the past, not by whether it will satisfy me in the future to believe it is true.

Russell's final point seem to respond indirectly to the question Ron raises about God. He thinks Dewey is in grave danger of what he calls "cosmic impiety." One who believes that truth is determined by objective facts realizes the limitations on his or her power. One like Dewey who believes we can form our beliefs subjectively and practically without those beliefs being caused by the facts has too high an opinion of his or her own power. Russell sees this confidence as the result of the American belief that together we can do whatever we set out to do.

Dewey is a naturalistic philosopher. There is no room for God or the supernatural in his thought. The only kind of religion possible is a naturalistic sense of wonder. Nietzsche said that since we killed God we have to become gods ourselves. Perhaps Dewey is saying that together we can be gods. We are capable of solving our problems without divine intervention.

Ron, I will have to think about your question concerning the words of Jesus. I do recall that some ofthe "death of God theologians" did date the death of God at the moment of crucifixion.

In the reading Russell’s "History of Western Philosophy" the word “Truth” and its various degrees of meaning has confused me. It has not always been clear to me, if the philosopher under discussion, in explaining his concept of truth is using: absolute, perfect, relevant, final, static or eternal terms.

Truth seems to be chameleon in nature. What is the difference between perfect truth from absolute? Doesn’t final truth always have to be relevant? Does final truth always mean static proof? Does eternal truth mean we have solved all mystery for all time in a given category or does it mean the mystery of our origin has been achieved?

Every philosopher seems to emphasize a different kind of truth.

How does a philosopher rid himself of wishing to prove truth in which his unconscious will wishes to be true?

It seems to me William James and Dr. Dewey give elasticity to the meaning of thrush. This means, of course, it has not been found yet. What is “IT”? I’ll be darned if I know.

I well realize I have represented the novice in this forum. I have had trouble with the terms used, but I have tried to express what I think I have leaned in my language and not regurgitated the text. I hope I have not made a comedy out of my remarks. I think I have leaned enough in this discussion to justify the time and effort.

This posting ends it for me.

Cathy, what you feel and express must resemble very much of what we all feel and not always dare to express. Therefore: thanks for the valuable and very recognizable comments. I am always wresting with that quest for Truth. One time I think I have found it in philosophy, then again I believe it is hidden in theology. Next, I find someone who knows all about philosophy and theology and he points me into again another direction. All I know from experience, is that when I hold on to what I value most of all that has been shared with me, at a moment I do not expect it, all these ideas start to fuel each other up. I am able to think, and say, and act: (idea) A leads to B, B to C, C to D etcetera. The reference of Z to A would make it circular and therefore account for the containment of 'spiritual energy'. Of course, this is not final and it never will be. Would that not really be the end? There is at least essence and meaning to this particular material body representing "me".

One of the merits of the American pragmatists is that they do give a rather clear practical meaning to the word "true' or "truth." For Pierce, truth is what inquirers agree upon. For James and Dewey, truth is "warranted assertibility." It is what we are entitled to say based on inquiry. In fact, as Russell says, Dewey replaces the notion of truth with his idea of inquiry.

The Pragmatists reject the notion of Absolute or Unchanging Truth. That which is true at one time may not be true at a later time. Truth is relative in that we can speak of a belief as being more or less true.

Perhaps a mistake in philosophy--though this is open to debate--is that phiilosophers have often absolutized the notion of Truth, making it sound far more important than it actually is. Pragmatists place more emphasis on what is good, in the sense that it satisfies us. So truth is really a species of the good--it is the belief that works best for us in the long run. (One question which might be asked is how long the run must be!)

Looking ahead, I will make a few comments about Logical Analysis and about the importance of Ludwig Wittgenstein. I do hear the message: those who have participated in the philosophy discussion are ready to move on to something else and I will not beat a dead horse. I do appreciate all who have contributed and I am glad I was able to devote some effort to continuing the good work which L.J. began. I am sorry he was not able to live long enough to bring the discussion to a conclusion.

Last contribution from this "green-horn" to this folio:

The reasons I stopped posting, for one, the discussion entered writings of philosophers I never studied, and then, I don't have Russel's book which is the main subject of the discussions here.

Floyd remarks on James: "....There is only one basic reality--experience. Mind is not a different kind of substance from material things."

This comes very close to my philosophy. Thought is a potent power which tends sooner or later to objectify itself,----to materialize eventually.

Also, Floyd: "......Some earlier American philosophers were Absolute Idealists. They thought the only think real was the universal Mind or Spirit. James thinks that is a mistake, for it locks one into a static view of the universe. Absolute materialism makes a similar mistake." Here, I can not quite see why it locks one into a static view of the universe.

What is Truth? Quote:"Truth is that which is beyond all contradiction and free from all doubt; forever one and the same, unalterable, and unaltering, universal and therefore independent of all human ideation." Unquote. [It is knowledge which is independent of the endless vicissitudes of human opinion..but.......of course, we all have opinions.]

Can we find truth by studying books? I doubt it. Books can point the way, but truth you have to find within. But a balance between knowledge and feeling is necessary, and the truth obtained by contemplation (meditation) needs to be tried and tested. Meditation apart from experience is inevitably empty.

"Truth, as the knowledge which reveals the nature of reality, will not live up to its name if it merely offers us a collection of thoughts and not that which is the essence of thoughts....Anything that can be written down can not be a statement of ultimate truth; at best it can only be a statement of someone's idea of truth." Mind Is. The nature of God?? It is impossible to form any clear and coherent idea of what which transcends all finite ideation; we can only approach.

Here I quote again:" Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. Truth being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable, cannot be organized, nor should any organization be formed to lead or coerce people along any particular path." Unquote. Krishnamurti.

Who knows, Laotse may be right after all:" He who knows, does not talk, and He who talks does not know."

As an after thought,....whenever I studied (informal) philosophy, I always had the impression, these guys could have said a lot more with fewer words. I always compared it with my school experience, like writing a difficult test in mathematics ( prior to electronic calculatores). You had a scribble sheet, on which you tried to work things out before putting it onto the final paper, you know you scribbled something down, had to correct again and again, crossed things out and so forth. . Well Philosophers never used a "separate" scribble sheet, it's all included in their final work. :>)

The cultivation of mystical intuition, the practice of mental quiet and meditation exercises are absolutely indispensible to all those who are still in the stage of seeking.

"When peace of mind and concentration of thought have been gained, then only, will one be fit and ready to embark on the quest of Ultimate Truth."

"Yoga is the control of the ideas in the mind." Patanjali

I have enjoyed all of your posts, sorry I could not contribute much.

Thanks, The Best

Bert

If in pragmatism truth is the belief that works best for us in the long run, then how can we make agreements and how can people be responsible or held accountable for their deeds? Relativity or even unimportance of truth, as I see it, was introduced with Nietszche's and Schopenhauer's "will", "to live" or "to power", and now with James "to believe". They let go of necessity. I can want to believe in God, but I can also have to believe in God. People in misery (Yugoslavia for example) need God, religion, morality, and ethics, on a universal scale. From that bare need and necessity, logical analysis must have developed. Say it is not so.

Ron, James would agree with you that we need religion and ethic and defends our "right to believe" even in the absence of absolute proof. As for keeping agreements, I think a pragmatist would say it is very useful for people to keep agreements. A society where agreements are often ignored will not be a satifactory society.

Now on to Logical Analysis.

The final chapter in Russell's History of Western Philosophy expresses his own view that the proper task of philosophy is logical analysis. Russell himself made a major contribution to the development of modern logic.

Russell and Alfred North Whitehead co-authored "Principia Mathematica," in which they showed how pure mahematics develops from logic. From this Russell concluded that much of philosophy consists of syntax--the way words or put together and related to each other.

Russell illustrates his method of logical analysis in his Theory of Descriptions. I cannot hope to improve on Russell's explanation of this , as found on page 831. The theory is meant to answer the following question: "What is the object of our thought when we are judging that something does not exist?"

Suppose I say "The golden mountain does not exist." What is it that does not exist? Some philosophers assumed that "the golden mountain" must denote some kind of entity. Russell analyzes the statement as follows: "There is no entity c such that 'x is golden and mountainous' is true when x is c, but not otherwise." In this and other examples used by Russell he shows us how to eliminate the denoting phrase "the golden mountain."

Rather than getting into a detailed description of the theory of descriptions it is more important for our purpose to see how Russell and others turned most, if not all, of philosophy into the logical analysis of language. This is sort of a piecemeal approach to philosophy, Instead of tackling big general philosophical questions, analytic philosophers examined specific philosophical questions, one at a time. They concluded that a great many of those questions arise out of a confusion in our use of language. After proper analysis the problems are not so much solved as dissolve. It turns out that the problems are not real problems.

Gilbert Ryle wrote an essay on "Systematically Misleading Expressions." Some of the example of bogus statements are: "God is an entity;" "God has being;" and "Satan is not a reality." Are those statemetns true or false? Rather than arguing one way or the other Ryle wants us to conclude that the statements are misleading, because they treat words like "entity," "being," and "reality," as real predicates.

A. J. Ayer's book "Language, Truth, and Logic" became "the Bible" of the analytical movement which become known as logical positivism. Ayer concluded that the meaning of a statement is its method of verification. If a statement cannot be verified, at least in principle, it is nonsense. This banishes all metaphysical and theological statements from the field of meaningful discourse. Ethical statements, though not verifiable, continue to have an emotive meaning.

I hope this gives some general sense of the linguistic turn in philosophy. Later I want to say something about the crucial importance of Ludwig Wittgenstein in this movement.

Ron - You ask much the same question, I think, I was asking. William James points out if a certain belief system works for us, then is not our search for Truth validated? However, if there should be a shift in our fortune, on the down side, would the old Truth still serve? Would our belief system require a new beginning? If so, then we did not have Truth to begin with. Huh?.

Another question, if when we say or type Truth, with a capital T, are we saying that Truth is God? Or are we meaning the ultimate in one truth or category?

I thought I was not going to post anymore, but Floyd, Herbert Paul and Ron stimulated me again into comment. THANKS, I think!

Have philosophers been influenced by Logical Analysis? Do you think they have learned to make themselves any clearer in their writings? Philosophy is an area where we could sure use some clarification of language.

Shasta, I do believe that analytic philosophy has exposed some of the mistakes often made in philosophy. I would not say, however, that the writings of the analytic philosophers are always clear and easy to understand.

Logical Positivism had trouble in stating a criterion of meaning that was strict enough to exclude metaphysics and theology while broad enough to permit the kind of theoretical language used in science.

What kind of meaning does the verification criterion itself have. That criterion is stated as follows: "The meaning of a statement is its method of verification." It seem that this statement is not itself verifiable. It is more of a recommendation to use the word "meaning" in a particular way.

I should add that Logical Positivists did want to include logical and mathematical statements as meaningful. They did this by saying they are not empirical statements; they are tautologies, like "p is p."

One implication of Logical Positivism is that sentences such as "Murder is wrong" are not really statements at all; they are experssions of emotions. It is if I said "Murder. Ugh!"

Tomorrow morning I want to begin a discussion of Wittgenstein's "Tractatus." Although Russell does not discuss him in his book, Russell had great appreciation for him as a philosoher.

If there is sufficient interest, I am willing to prolong the discussion of Contemporary Philosophy for a few days. In addition to Logical and Linguistic Analysis we really need to look at the Existentialists.

Cathy, the capital T of Truth stands for absolute Truth that is necessary and unconditional. Conditional truth is validated 'de facto' by empirical testing, like asserting that "this ashtray is green", when it could have been orange, while necessary truth is validated 'de jure' by definition, as in contemplating that "a circle is round", which is so always and everywhere. Thus, these tests for truth are physical in one case or mathematical (logical) in the other. However, in social exchange, the variability of (acclaimed) "Truth" becomes apparent when it turns out people have different norms and values, manners and habits, that are taken for granted by one party but questioned by the other and vice versa. In the 'socialization of truth' (Bergson), we need to be critical (skeptical) and keep applying physical and/or mathematical tests, neither to rule each other out nor to merely mimic each other for comfort. Therefore, we should prolong, and stay open for debate.

Ron - thanks, that explanation was very satisfactory to my inquiry on Truth.

In listening to political pundits; U.S. Congressmen, former retired generals, decry our bombing in Yugoslavia, I couldn’t help but think that the decision makers of any government ought to have one or two philosophers at the table, one of which should be a Pragmatist. We need people who ask the right questions.

How many times have we heard that massive bombing does not work and will not work because it did not work in the past. I have heard no one counter that statement except Mr. Rooney on “60 Minutes” last Sunday. In general he said just because it has never worked in the past, is because the facts were different then, but it could work at the present time.. It would seem to me there is a place for professional philosophers in our emerging world power status. (Mr. Rooney may not be a professional philosopher, but he is certainly an amateur one.)

Cathy, you will probably recall that Plato believed that philosophers should be kings, You offer a more modest proposal--they should be advisors to political leaders. Pragmatists might be willing to assume this role, but analytic philosophers would likely reject it.

When G. E. Moore, a British analytic philosopher who wrote about ethics, came to America, he was surprised to find students turning to him for ethical advice. He told them if they wanted advice they should talk to their pastors or rabbis. His job was not to tell people what they ought to do but only to analyze what is meant by such terms as "right" or "good." Some think this makes analytic philosophy largely irrelevant to real life.

________________________________________________________________________ The following summary of the life and work of Ludwig Wittgensten is found in a footnote on p. 200, in W. T. Jones "The Twentieth Century from Wittgenstein to Sartre."

Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) was born in Vienna into a wealthy and cultivated family. After studying engineering in Austria, he went in 1911 to Manchester to continue his studies and do research in the design of airplanes. Soon his interests shifted to mathematics and logic and he moved to Cambridge., where he was a student of Bertrand Russell., While serving in the Austrian army during the First World War, he finished his "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus." At the time he thought he had solved all philosophical problems, but he gradually began to question many of the doctrines of the "Tractatus." After teaching in Austria for a few years, he returned to England in 1929 and resumed his study and teaching of philosophy. He gave away the fortune he inherited from his father and lived very simply. He published nothing but dictated notes to his students. These notes circulated widely in an unauthorized form and began to have a great influence in Britain and the United States A corrected version appeared after his death under the title "Philosophical Investigations."

In my next post I will comment on the "Tractatus."

Wittgenstein's "Tractatus" has been interpreted in many different ways. All I hope to accomplish here is to share a general sense of the book.

Bertrand Russell wrote the introduction to the book and indicates areas where he both agrees and disagrees with Wittgenstein. He writes: "Mr. Wittgenstein's "Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus", whether or not it prove to give the ultimate truth on the matters with which it deals, certainly deserves , by its breadth and scope and profundity, to be considered an important event in the philosophical world."

Wittgenstein writes in the Preface: "The book deals with the problems of philosophy, and shows, I believe, that the reasons why these problems are posed is that the logic of our language is misunderstood. The whole sense of the book might be summed up in the following words: what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence." That statement, if heeded, would put an end to much idle philosophical speculation.

Wittgenstein states six general propositions in the book and then adds supporting propositions for each one.

I The first general proposition is: "The world is all that is the case." He explains that the world is the totality of facts, not of things. Russell says that "facts cannot strictly speaking be defined, but we can explain what we mean by saying that facts are what make propositions true, or false."

II. The second general proposition is: "What is the case--a fact--is the existence of states of affairs." Wittgenstein explains that a state of affairs is a combination of objects. or things. Objects are what is unalterable and subsistent; their configuration is what is changing and unstable. In a state of affairs objects stand in a relation to one another. States of affairs are independent of one another.

" We picture facts to ourselves." This is a very important statement. Wittgenstein thinks of language as a picture of facts, much as a musical score is a picture of music. "A picture is a model of reality." What language pictures is the relationship among elements. "What constitutes a picture is that its elements are related to one another in a determinate way."

"There must be something identical in a picture and what it depicts...." What they have in common is a pictorial form. Logical pictures can depict the world. " In order to tell whether a picture is true or false we must compare it with reality. It is impossible to tell from the picture alone whether it is true or false. There are no pictures that are true a priori.

I will pause here before going on to Wittgenstein's other major points. I hope his basic approach is fairly clear up to this point. He is assuming that an ideal language would be a logically perfect picture of the world . This language would picture the relationship between the basic facts which make up a state of affairs. Later, Wittgenstein largely repudiates this view of language and facts, but his ealier view was influential in the development of analytic philosophy.

Did Wittgenstein later repudiate his earlier philosophy entirely? Or did he decide it was too limited? Rigorous logic is admirable, but you just can't force all the chaos of the world into strict logical propositions. He must have come to realize this as he grew older. And yet the Tractatus is still being studied so it must contain something that remains useful.

By the way, Existentialism sounds good to me.

Existentialism sounds good to me.

Same here.

Shasta, I do not think Wittgenstein totally repudiated the conclusions of the Tractatus. What he later concluded is that there are countless uses of language and the Tractatus dealt with only one particular use. The meaning of language is its use, and there are countless uses of language.

I encourage each of you to read what you can find about Existentialism. Perhaps we should concentrate on Jean-Paul Sartre.

Before moving to existenialism, however, I would like to say just a little more about Wittgenstein's philosophy.

His third general proposition is: "A logical picture of facts is a a thought." "A state of affairs is thinkable; what means is that we can picture it to ourselves."

"Thought can never be of anything illogical, since, if it were, we should have to think illogically. It used to be said tht God could create anything except what would be contrary to the laws of logic.--The truth is that we could not say what an illogical world would look like."

The fourth general proposition is: "A thought is a proposition with a sense." "Man possesses the ability to construct languages capable of expressing every sense, without having any idea how each word has meaning--or what its meaning is---"

NOTE WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT PHILOSOPHY: "Most of the questions to be found in philosophical works are not false but nonsensical." "All philosophy is a critique of language."

Once again he states his picture view of language. A proposition is a picture of facts.

I will not bore you with any more of the Tractatus, except to emphasize his final conclusion. What about the language used in the book itself? Is it a picture of facts? No, for we cannot talk about the relationship of propositions to facts; we can only show them. I quote the final paragraph of the Tractatus:

"My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them--as steps--to climb up beyond them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.) He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.

"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence."

This final statement bothered Russell and other analysts. It leaves us with a mystical aspect to Wittgenstein's thought. We are left with silence.

Tomorrow I want to share a few statements from the "Philosophical Investigatons," then we can move on to our discussion of Existentialism.

After completing the Tractatus, Wittgenstein followed his own advice by leaving philosophy and retreating into silence. He served in the Austrian army during the First World War, built a house, and taught school in a little Austrian village.

Wittgenstein moved back to Cambridge in 1929 and resumed his work in philosophy. He developed his new approach with small groups of students, using the Socratic method. "Philosophical Investigations" grows out of this inquiry.

Wittgentstein says: "...since beginning to occupy myself with philosophy again, sixteen years ago, I have been forced to recognize grave mistakes in what I wrote in that first book."

His big mistake was that he had a limited picture of human language. He thought it conisted of attaching names to facts. Now there is a primitive language which does that, but there are many other functions of language.

He now speaks of "language games." The term "language-game" brings out the point that it is related to a form of life. Consider the following multiplicity of language-games: Giving orders, and obeying them--Describing the apperance of an object, or giving its measurements--Constructing an object from a description (a drawing)--Reporting and event--Speculating about an event--Forming and testing a hypothesis--Presenting the results of an experiment in tables and diagrams--Making up a story; and reading it--

You get the idea!

"Think of the tools in a tool-box: there is a hammer, pliers, a saw, a screw-driver, a rule, a glue-pot, glue, nails and screws--The functins of words are as diverse as the functions of these objects."

The later Wittgenstein influenced the development of "ordinary language analysis." The goal is no longer to produce a perfect language--it is to understand the many different uses of language.

If you really want to see how Wittgenstein applies this new approach, you will need to read "Philosophical Investigations." It is hard to overestimate the importance of Wittgenstein in contemporary philosophy.

You may comment and react as you choose. Perhaps then we should move on to Existentialism. I will later make a general statement about this movement; then I suggest we concentrate on Sartre.

No, I don't get the idea of these language games. I have a couple of taped lectures on Wittgenstein, and the lecturer goes on and on about this game business, and I don't understand a word he's talking about. But this may be because games are a blind spot of mine. I hate most sports and as soon as somebody starts comparing something to a game (especially football or baseball), my mind shuts down completely. I love language, and I don't like people calling it a game.

One of the modern-classic books in Dutch (that students read for their highschool exams) is based on one of Wittgenstein's aphorisms (the author had also translated the Tractatus into Dutch):

I can look for him when he is not there, but I cannot hang him when he is not there.
One is tempted to say "then he must be there when I look for him".
Then he must also be there when I shall not find him,
And also, when he is not there.
(Adaptated by author)

I cannot see what the later Wittgenstein is rejecting. Language has become better appreciated as a descriptive tool but less as explanative, if I understand Floyd correctly. However, his description of his former idea of language seems too degrading. Judging from his general propositions, he was NOT just attaching names to facts. Was he not also capturing the relations among elements?

Context and meaning contain, I feel sure, nothing but (semi) logical relations among particular elements in views of an object, without becoming a primitive language. The elements acquire more different meanings the more they are used in different perspectives. Thus, they become melting pots or explosive composites. For example: from one point of view, someone is a loving person, but from a different point of view, this person is diabolical.

It is not right to compare words with tools, unless they are Swiss knives. They are multi-functional because the same words, predicates, states of affairs or stories, depending on what they depict, function in different contexts. Their reuse collects functions and facilitates the complementarity or integration of these functions, which is how their power builds up.

The problem with the pictorial approach of reality is that the metaphor of the eye becomes too strong. We have other senses that function quite differently. Most important is that the pictorial approach only depicts the geographical, quantitative, measurable visuals, whereas time (duration) is qualitative and emotional.

Modern French philosophy (Derrida, Foucault, Levinas, Ricoeur) is almost all about language, heuristics, storytelling and narratives, but I very much doubt whether this is the direction Wittgenstein pointed in.

(BTW, Cathy, I guess you knew that Sartre's wife was perhaps the most important feminist…)

What Wittgenstein is rejecting in the Investigations is the notion that all meaningful language is a picture of facts and that it consists in attaching names to specific entities. He says: "That philosophical concept of meaning has its place in a primitive idea of the way language functions. But one can also say that it is the idea of a language more primitive than our own."

it may sometimes be useful to say that language is like attaching a label to a thing but that is not the only way language is used. The point of his illustration of the tool box is that the function of words is as diverse as as the functions of the different tools.

Shasta, your objection to the use of the term "language-games" may be due to a fixed meaning of "games" that you have in mind. People asked Wittgensten, "What is the essence of a language-game?" His reply: "Instead of producing something common to all that we call language, I am saying that these phenomena have no one thing in common, which makes us use the same word for all--but that they are related to one another in many different ways."

What is common to games? "Don't say: 'There must be something common, or they would not be called "games."--but look and see whether there is anything common to all....Don't think but look."

There are board-games, card-games, ballgames, etc. Do oll of these examples of games have one thing in common? You might say, "They are all amusing?" But that is not necessarily true. You might say, "They all involve winning and losing, but when a child throws a ball against a wall that feature disappears.

Yes, there are similarities to games, but no common essence. The similarities are "family resemblances." Games form a family.

Logicans have looked for precise definitions of terms. They want to draw exact boundaries. But we often use words like "games" without drawing any exact boundaries. These are open-ended concepts; they have fuzzy boundaries. We do not have to draw precise boundaries to know the meaning of words.

Language is like games in that there are rules governing the use of language. This does not mean there are exact rules which must be consistently followed. That is not always true of games. We can change the rules of a game as we go along and we can even make up new rules.

Critics say, "We need to draw exact boundaries." But what does "exact" mean? It depends on the context. Suppose I say, "I will meet you exactly at noon" and I arrive at fifteen seconds after twelve. Are you going to say either that I lied or that I did not know the meaning of "exactly"? Sometimes we might need to be exact to the second, but that is often not the case, anymore than the dimensions of a board must be exactly six feet long. It depends on what use you make of the board.

I think Wittgenstein is trying to introduce common-sense into philosophy. Philosophical confusions arise out of the misuse of language. As he says, "language goes on holiday." We need to bring it back into the context of our ordinary lives.

Philosophy is therapy, trying to help us get over our confusion in the use of language, instead of adding to that confusion. "Philosophy has the form: 'I don't know my way about.' Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it....It leaves everything as it is."

"For the clarity we are aiming at its indeed complete clarity. But that simply means that the philosophical problems should completely disappear. The real discovery is the one that makes me capable of stopping doing philosophy when I want to."

Existential philosophy takes its name from its concern about human existence, Existentialist thinkers emphasize the themes of dread, anxiety, and despair. It is fundamentally a philosophy of alienation. There are both Christian and atheistic existentialists. Kierkegaard is a representative of the former type, Sarte the latter type.

Soren Kierkegaard, sometimes called "the father of existentialism," was born in Copenhagen on May 5, 1813. He had what he called "a crazy upbringing" by his father, a man of strong intellectual ability, who brought up his chldren in the fear of God. During Soren's years at the university, he followed what he called "the path of perdition." For several years he lived a disorderly life in rebellion against his father and God. On his 25th birthday he was reconciled to his father, followed a few days later by a religious conversion. After his father's death, he inherited a small fortune and in response to his father's wishes began the study of theology, though he never became a pastor.

Although Kierkegaard lived only 42 years, he wrote numerous works during his short life. Some of the most important are: The Journals; Either/Or; Fear and Trembling; Philosophical Fragments; Concluding Unscientific Postscript; Stages on Life's Way; The Concept of Dread; Sickness unto Death; and The Attack upon Christendom. If you want to read Kierkegaard, I recommend A Kierkegaard Anthology, edited by Robert Bretall, (a Princeton Paperback).

Although there is no way I could adequately discuss, Kierkegaard's philosophy in the space available, I will share a few general impressions.

1) Revolt against Hegel. Even though Kierkegaard was influenced by the Hegelian dialectic, he objected to the System. In trying to understand reality, Hegel left out the most important thing of all--what it means to be exist as a human being.

2) Kierkegaard selected as his own epitaph the words "That Individual." Modern man is swallowed up in the masses. Authentic existence requirs us to assert ourselves as individuals.

3) There are three stages or dimensions to life: the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious. Each one of us must make an Either-Or choice. Both/And, the aesthetic outlook, is the way to hell. One enters the ethical stage of life when he or she makes a choice or a commitment, accepting responsibility for his or her life. The transition to the religious stage takes place through "a leap of faith."

4) An uncommitted life leads to boredom and despair, which is "the sickness unto death." Kierkegaard says: "I have just returned from a party of which I was the life and soul; wit poured from my lips, everyone laughd and admired me--but I went away--and the dash could be as long as the earth's orbit---------------------------and wanted to shoot myself."

5) The leap of faith involves "fear and trembling." To become a Christian one embraces the Absolute Paradox with passion. The Absolute Paradox is Jesus Christ--the God-Man. "Faith is the objective uncertainty along with the repulsion of the absurd held fast in the passion of inwardness, which precisely is inwardness potentiated to the highest degree." Faith is not what you believe but how you believe. S. K.'s complaint against Christendom is that it lacks this inwardness of passionate inwardness. He hesitated to call himself a Christian, preferring to say he was in training to become a Christian.

Well, Floyd, you did your best to justify Wittgenstein's language games, but I still think he could have come up with something better. I've done crossword puzzles ever since I was seven years old, and I'll play Scrabble with anybody I can snare into playing with me; but that's as far as I will go in calling language a game.

As for philosophy clearing up the confusion of language, I've never seen such a bewildering use of language as in philosophy. I thought psychology played havoc with language, but philosophy is definitely worse.

Tonight I'll read something on Kierkegaard.

Shasta, I wonder if you have this lingering suspicion that the notion of "language games" fails to take language seriously enough. I think you are assuming some fixed essential meaning to the word "games." if Wittgenstein is to be justly criticized, it should not be that he does not take language seriously enough; he might be more fairly criticized for taking it too seriously, for he turns philosopohy into an analysis of language.

There is at least one interesting similarity between Wittgenstein and Nietzsche. I believe both of them saw philosophy as a form of therapy. Nietzsche thought the problem is that language is distorted by the cultural forms of which it is a part. Wittgenstein believes the problem is that we sometimes try to separate our language from the forms of life out of which the language grows.

I can only suggest that anyone who thinks Wittgenstein may be correct about the importance of ordinary language should try to read the "Philosophical Investigations." One will find many gems in this book.

One final quote: "One cannot guess how a word functions. One has to look at its use and learn from that. But the difficulty is to remove the prejudice which stands in the way of doing this. It is not a stupid prejudice."

Okay, Floyd, I'll take your word for it that Wittgenstein's game-playing is serious. Now, here's Kierkegaard with his own private language. He defines aesthetics as hedonism--another of those linguistic liberties that philosophers claim for themselves.

I listened to a lecture last night in which Kierkegaard's romanticism was contrasted to Kant's rationalism, by comparing the two men's reactions to the Biblical story of Abraham and Isaac. Do you think Sarah was really 90 years old when Isaac was born? Or is this another of those Biblical exaggerations like Methuselah's age? She was probably 45 or 46, and just felt like she was 90. I know the feeling.

Anyway, Kierkegaard thinks Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son is a grand and glorious gesture. It simply sends him into raptures, all this blind devotion to God. Kant, on the other hand, analyzes the request cautiously and comes to the conclusion that God would not ask anything that violates the categorical imperative; therefore, God must have some good reason for this strange request.

Personally, I would have told God, "NO, I will not sacrifice my son. If you need a victim, take me; and let my son live." He would have said, "I don't want you; I want your son." And I would have said, "Well, I can't stop you from taking him. You're stronger than I am. But I will never voluntarily agree to this atrocity."

That's why God asked Abraham instead of Sarah. He knew Sarah would never agree to such a monstrous request. And it never occurred to God or Kant or Kierkegaard that Isaac had any rights of his own in the matter.

I don't really understand why Existentialism is any different from any other philosophy. Aren't they all concerned with existence? And I think Kierkegaard's insistence on Either/Or is simply forcing an issue that doesn't exist. You don't have to choose one or the other; the two can co-exist.

Shasta, you have good reasons for being troubled by the story of God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. I am personally inclined to say that Abraham misunderstood what God wanted from him. He saw devotees of other religions sacrificing their children to their gods and thought he must demonstrate his faith by doing the same.

Now Kierkegaard's use of the story in his book "Fear and Trembling" is of interest in itself. He focuses on the fear and trembling of Abraham as he takes his son out to the mountain to offer him as a sacrifice. There was no objective certainty that this was the right thing to do. It required "a teleological suspension of the ethical."

We know the end of the story; we know that God prevented Abraham from completing the sacrifice; but within the story itself Abraham does not know the outcome. As far as he was concerned, his child of promise would be killed by his own hands. This was a heavy weight to carry.

Part of Abraham's burden was that he could not discuss this with anyone else. He could not tell Sarah, or explain to Isaac. It was his choice and his alone.He dared to be a "knight of faith" in that he thought even if he killed Isaac, God would restore him to life.

By the way, it is likely that Kierkegaard was thinking about the sacricice which he thought God was telling him to make. He was very much in love with a young woman, Regina Olsen, and was engaged to marry her. But he felt that his unique calling and mission in life, plus the history of insanity in his family, made marriage impossible. So he sacrifices Regina. Unlike Abraham, he lacked the faith to believe that God could restore her to him.

The point is that there is no objective certainty possible in such matters. Faith is like a leap in the dark. There is always the possibility that the command to sacrifice his son did not come from God at all. We will find Sartre using this same illustration to pinpoint the awesome responsibility we have in making decisions.

Shasta, I agree that most, if not all, philosophers have been concerned with existence in some ways, though most of them have been more concerned with finding enduring essences. What distinguishes existentialists, is the narrow focus of their thought. Human existence is at the center of their analysis. Furthermore, existentialism developed in Europe after World War II in the midst of a culture of despair. Many critics say existentialism is too pessimistic, but Sartre claims it is actually an optimistic view of human possibilities.

Jean-Paul Sartre was born in Paris in 1905. His academic training in philosophy was received in France and Germany. He taught philosophy in French colleges before and for a short time after World War II. His war experiences included service in the French army, prisoner of war in Germany, and work with the French resistance movement. He wrote many philosophical monogaphs, novels, plays, and literary essays. He died in 1980.

Probably the best introduction to Sartre's philosophy comes from reading his essay "Existentialism and Humanism," in which he defends and explains his form of existentialism.

Sartre says there are two kinds of existentialism. There are the Christians, among whom he names Jaspers and Marcel, and atheists, including Heidegger and himself. What they all have in common is the belief that "existence comes before essence." We must begin from the subjective.

Sartre illustrates this point by using the example of a manufactured product, such as a paper-knife. An artisan had a conception of the paper-knife before making it. The essence of the paper-knife is the sum of the formulae and the qualitites which made its production and its definition possible. Its essence precedes its existence.

If one believed God creates human beings, than they are like the paper-knife--they are manufactured objects with a distinctive human nature. Atheistic existentialism declares that there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, beings which exist before they can be defined by any conception.

Sartre explains: "We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world--and therefore defines himself afterwards.. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is."

There are numerous implications which follow from the assumption that "existence precedes essence." Men and women are responsible for what they are. I am responsible for all human beings,because when I make a choice I am choosing an image of man as I believe he ought to be.

This awesome resonsibility produces anguish, abandonment, and despair. Anguish comes from the awareness of my complete and profound responsibility. It is the anguish of Abraham.

The experience of abandonment comes from the realization that God does not exist. As Dostoevsky sai, "If God did not exist, everything would be permitted." We are condemned to be free." There are no fixed standards to tell us what we are to do.

Despair means that "we limit ourselves to a reliance upon that which is within our wills, or within the sum of the probabilities which render our action feasible." We act without hope. I cannot depend upon decisions which others will make; I am absolutely responsible for my own decisions

Last year, I tried to read "Being and Nothingness" but it is such a dense jungle that you need a machete knife to hack your way through it. I bogged down in the first section. Later, somebody told me that the Introduction is the hardest part of the book, and you should read the rest of the book first.

I've read other people's interpretations of "Being and Nothingness," and even these are hard for me to grasp. Nothingness is supposed to be consciousness. I suppose he meant literally No-Thingness, or that which is not a Thing. But it's more than that. He really wants to stress the negative quality of consciousness. I find it hard to grasp how consciousness can be nothingness, or emptiness. I realize it has no Thingness, but it must have some positive quality, but he says not.

He also objects to Freud's Unconscious. He thinks there is no such thing as unconsciousness. However, he replaces it with Pre-Reflection. That sounds like the same thing to me, but he says Freud's Unconscious contains things we know nothing about, while his Pre-Reflection is things we know but are not currently focussing on.

All this terminology of his seems confusing to me. Being-In-Itself. Being-For-Itself. Being-For-Others. Being-In-Itself, I suppose is Nature, but it lacks the differentiation that Consciousness gives it. Being-For-Itself is Consciousness? Being-For-Others, I suppose is the persona we present to the world.

Cathy said every philosophy book should have a glossary. Well, this book does have a glossary, but it doesn't help much.

Shasta, you have made a daring attempt to understand Sartre by starting with the most difficult of his writings. His phenomenological analysis in Being and Nothingness is important, but I believe we can understand his major contribution to human understanding without getting too bogged down in all those distinctions he makes there.

I usually introduce students to Sartre through the essay "Existensialism and Humanism" or through some of his novels.

The distinction between Being-in-Itself and Being-for-Itself is important for seeing the differences between consciousness and things. He uses that distinction in his analysis of "self-deception" or "bad faith." He uses several examples to illustrate this point.

"Bad-faith" is when we lie to ourselves by refusing to take responsibility for our actions. The phenomenon of self-deception is rather puzzling when you think about it. It involves knowing the truth yet hiding the truth from myself.

As Shasta points out, Sartre's will not accept Freud's explanation of that by using the notion of the unconscious. One of his arguments against Freud uses the example of the patient who suddenly breaks off a relationship with a therapist who is getting close to uncovering some repressed memory. Sartre says that the patient must have some awareness of what Freud says is unconscius or he would not react as he does. Sartre does not want to leave us with any escape route from our profound responsibility.

I think Sartre goes too far with responsibility. His remark that everybody gets the war he deserves is too harsh to be true. I suppose he means this figuratively and not literally. It's true that one can control one's reactions to disaster, even though one cannot control the occurrence of disasters.

Another interesting theory of his is how emotions work. This is really a new idea to me. I think of emotions as almost automatic reactions to certain situations. If somebody offends me, I get angry. If somebody tells me a joke, I laugh. If a friend dies, I am sad. If I stump my toe, I hurt. Emotions are reactions, consequences.

Sartre says emotions are not automatic, but directed toward a purpose. He says we create our emotions to accomplish an end. An example is a child having a temper tantrem in order to get what he wants; and of course, adults have temper tantrems too. Another example is falling in love in order to indulge in irrational behavior.

In some instances, you can see that we do use emotions to get what we want. But is this true of all emotions? For example, fear. Do we deliberately experience fear in order to get something we want? I have a fear of falling. I've always had this fear. It's a terrible nuisance. It prevents me from riding in airplanes. When I was young, I loved swimming and I was a good swimmer; but I could not dive because I was terrified of falling through space. What does a fear like this accomplish for you?

Let me make a few small comments on Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard and Sartre, since I am running behind. Sorry for that - I just didn't know what to say.

For Wittgenstein, 'common sense' seems to have been a major objective. His 'language games' seems to have influenced the basic sentences project, giving a proper place to all words, and eventually to Strawson's "descriptive metaphysics", that has been a major part of my education. Yet logical positivism is no more, even when it still keeps all attempts at philosophy careful. Common sense seems to be close to 'the object of the intersubjective' as Floyd once called it. It stems from a gut feeling that all great philosophies share, a sense of what is relevant to all and that is shared to be kept alive and to make each other strong and realistic.

Yet I agree with those who fear inversion of cause and effect here: instead of the importance of a gut feeling leading to share it with others, the sharing with others of 'social truth' that could be anything to fight off negative feelings and creating positive ones. People simply feel more secure when they share ideas, whichever they are. It gives them a language, an identity, and power. This is how mimicry gets into the world, creating its scapegoats to fight off inevitable aggression (Bergson, Girard).

Existentialism, starting with Kierkegaard, cuts the bonds of dependency of one individual upon the group. This seems similar to Protestant separation from the Catholic Church. Kierkegaard was just sick of anybody or any behavior being 'Christian'. He just listened to his own conscience and his God. Sartre took up the great responsibility of anything happening in his world, created by him. At least he said so. This view of the world and of man sprang from the ultimate freedom given to us out of Nothingness. So he thought he could have any girl in town and went for them - I wonder how Simone de Beauvoir put up with that. Well, she had her other lovers as well, eventually.

Shasta, perhaps emotions have their own method, like logic does (methodology). For example, depression may be a tool, getting us out of traumatizing situations. We often think (philosophically speaking) that emotions depend upon cognition, but they also influence them. Perhaps when cognition gets under the spell of emotion, we can free ourselves at least from nausea.

Thank you Shasta and Ron. Excellent posts.

I, too, think Sartre takes freedom and responsibility too far. He says that the French resisters were never more free than they were under Nazi occupation, for they chose to assert their freedom in the face of tyranny. I may be locked up in prison but I can still be free in my consciousness.

I believe a poet said "Stone walls do not a prison make, nor iron bars a cage." I suppose that is sort of what Sartre is saying. We can be free whatever the external circumstances.

Sartre does acknowledge what he calls "facticity." It is a fact that I was born in this century, as a man, as an American, with a particular set of ancestors. It is a fact that I have the kind of body that I have. It is a fact that I am going to die. But none of those facts destroy my freedom or determine my destiny. I will be what I choose to become. My nature will not be finally fixed until I die.

Later, Sartre seemed to recognize that people could not fully exercise freedom when the social and economic system repressed them. During that period of his life, he was actively following the Marxist program of trying to reform society.

In my static role of catch-up I will make a few observations. Having to scurry around to find some further references besides our original text of Bertrand Russell and the philosophers presently under discussion I started my catch-up reading with Analytic Philosophy in Sumuel Stumpf’s , Socrates to Sartre.

This chapter’s emphasis on precise use of language was very welcomed by me. Although even this chapter is written, I think, in somewhat obscure language. One of the amusing statements made in this chapter was made by A. J. Ayer. He said in his desire for clarification and prevent the abuse of language in ways that would cause us, “ ...to draw false inferences, or ask spurious questions, or make nonsensical assumptions.” This concern of A.J. Ayer was that we often use propositions about nations as though nations were persons, we talk about material things as though we believed in a physical world “Beneath” or “behind” visible phenomena, AND WE USE THE WORD ‘IS’ IN RELATION TO THINGS WHOSE EXISTENCE WE COULD NOT POSSIBLY WANT TO INFER. So, our President was using Analytic Philosophy in his response, “ ...it depends on what you mean by the word“is” is. Oh, how much fun we made of him. Poor man was only using analytic philosophy instead of what we accused him of - gobbledygook

RON - your question whether I knew Sartre’s wife was a feminist is interesting to speculate on. I know little about Sartre, except I can remember he was very popular during the turmoil of the 60”s. However, I can’t help but wonder if she, his wife, became a feminist before or after she married Sartre. Since he believed we have no excuse of being less than we wish, and that circumstances ARE NOT responsible for our lack of progress to fulfill our essence; it would seem like a very important Issue in their marriage. Of course, as you well know, women blame men and their applied restrictions for the fact that women have been crippled in their efforts for fulfillment. I am motivated to read more about Sartre. I withhold judgment until I learn more about him.

I think I am in more understanding of Existentialism that I have ever been. I, again, wish to read more about it. While reading about the three levels of development: aesthetic stage,. the ethical stage, and the religious stage, it made good sense to me and I think I embrace the philosophy. With more reading, I will see.

I hope I have not confused people with my behind “Posting”.

Cathy, you are downgrading yourself too much. If you want to read about existentialism through feminist eyes, pick up books by Simone de Beauvoir. I bet the nearest library has more of her books than her husband Sartre's!

Ron, were Sartre and Beauvoir actually married? I didn't think they ever were, but that's beside the point. Their relationship was more enduring than most marriages are. As for their affairs, they were both French, so they wouldn't have been bothered by a little infidelity.

Sartre's opinion of human relationships was pretty cynical. He thought all social interaction was mostly a matter of clashing egos. Each person wants to gain power over the other person before the other person can gain power over him. He went on to state that the primary purpose of sex was -- not pleasure -- but possession and mastery over another person.

To some extent, you can agree with him. When you read in the news that a young man broke into the home of an 80-year old woman and raped her, your initial response is, "My God, was he that desperate for sex? An 80-year old woman is not exactly a sex object." But that's not the real explanation for his actions. He wanted to demean and degrade a helpless person because it made him feel less helpless and inferior himself. A bully is always a coward who desperately needs to prove somebody else is weaker than he is. Rape is a coward's way of making himself feel powerful.

Sartre carries the idea farther than I would, and says all relationships between humans are based on the power motive. I think that's going too far.

Shasta, coming to think of it I am not actually sure about their having a formalized marriage either. I guess I was biased by my own situation. I was with a woman, and only her, for 17 years, but we never married.

Cathy and Shasta have directed our attention to Sartre's views on human relationships. One criticism of existentialism is that it emphasizes the individual to the point of ignoring the importance of our relationships with others.

I believe existentialists, such as Kierkegaard and Sartre, assume that alienation is a fundamental human problem. Kierkegaard was first alienated from his own father, from God, then from Regina, and finally from the established Lutheran Church in Denmark.

Sartre seems to say that intimate human relationships are inevitably doomed to failure. (Perhaps that statement is too strong, for it seems to introduce a determinism which Sartre rejects.)

Sartre does say, "Hell is other people." The other always imposes a limitation on my freedom. The other fixes me with his or her gaze, turning me into an object. Sartre also concludes, as Shasta has explained, that a sexual relationship always involves an attempt to control the other, turning the other person into a sexual object. There is "no exit" from the facticity of our situation.

Mrtin Buber, a Jewish philosopher who was influenced by existentialism, distinguished between "I-Thou" and "It-It" relationships. The former is characterized by sharing and participation, the latter by control and manipulation. There is a tendency to turn each "I-Thou" encounter into an "I-It" relatinship. Nevertheless, I believe Buber is more optimistic about the possibility of genuinely meaningful personal relationships.

Ron - what have you wrought? Grrrrrr! I have a rather full life. I don't need, necessarily, to find my identity through this forum or the male physic. However, I must admit I am a feminist. I know I can't be too agressive and win male approval (do I need it?) as opposed to who in the hell needs it. I always thought there was a path in between. Sartre, I think, bombed it.

Anyway, next week has a day or two already chewed up by you and your challenge. GOLLY, do I need this?????? At my Age????

Don't shoot me, Cathy, I'm only the piano player!

I cannot be the peacemaker in this exchange between Ron and Cathy, because I do not understand the nature of the disagreement. I know there have been some exchanges about a feminist interpretation of existentialism, but I need further explanations from Ron about those interpretations.

Cathy, believe me, I am sure there is more truth then we at first are willing to assign to the saying "When God created man, She was only joking!" In fact, what I do believe is that when men fight over women, as they always have, with the rise of culture, women have seized their power of being a "love interest" to make the men learn to respect them. This was done by requiring a viable world for them and their children and by establishing some (religious) order through which each one knew his place in the hierarchy.

Ron - It has been with humor to react to your posts. I like your playful attitude. We get too serious in this forum - sometimes.

It is ok to be the piano player, just watch those sour notes , too many spoil the tune. :- )

Ron - I took your advice and did a bit of research on Simone De Beauvoir. I think Shasta is right, Simone and Sartre must had never married. As a matter of fact, Simone seemed to think marriage was a bad idea. She wrote in her book, The Second Sex, that “If nature is to be invoked, one can say that all women are naturally homosexual.” She must have been bisexual.

I don’t think I will do any more research on her. The study of philosophers and their philosophies can be depressing.

A good reason for studying philosophy is that it gives you alternate ideas to consider, instead of just remaining stuck with your own ideas. I've always followed Carl Jung's theory that each individual is born with an innate personality that only needs to be developed into its fullest potential, as an acorn is born to be an oak tree. The study of genes seems to confirm that. But Sartre rejects that completely. He says we are born with no innate Self at all, and it's up to us to create one. That's an absolutely fascinating idea; it means you could be anything you wanted to make of yourself. If I could believe that, I wouldn't mind accepting the responsibility that goes with it. But I know it is not true. Those old genes and those early experiences remain with you like a ball-and-chain that you drag around all your life. Humans are not as free as Sartre thought they were. The only freedom a human has is to decide how he will live in his particular prison.

Shasta, your point is well taken. I do not think Sartre can consistently deny that we are born with a human nature. That seems to come out in his claim that when we choose we choose an image for all persons. That seems to suggest that we do have something in common as human.

In moving from Kierkegaard to Sartre we skipped the influence of Martin Heidegger. The key word for Heidegger is Dasein. It is "being there." Dasein is care or concern. It refers distinctively to human existence.

Human existence is open toward the future. We confront possibility and are filled with Angst. Heidegger follows closely Kierkegaard's analysis of dread. I try to escape Angst by retreating into the anonymity of "the One." (Instead of saying "I do," I say "one does."

I can overcome Angst only by facing my existence in its totality. That means I have to face my own death. Authentic existence is "a being unto death." It is not simply that "one dies;" the truth I must face is that "I die."

Dasein, as Heidegger analyzes it, is a solitary existence. The existence of other people is acknowledge but I do not permit others to intrude into my Dasein.

Heidegger is important not only because of his influence on Sartre but also because of his influence on Christian theologians, especially Tillich and Bultmann. That is ironic considering the fact that Heidegger had a secular outlook. He did not actually deny the existence of God , but he made no use of that concept in his own analysis.

Shasta - I am so impressed with you and your comprehension of what life is. I always seek your posts as they are always so rich in wisdom. They are not re-quoted, they are usually your own nuggets of wisdon of your having searched and found your own truth.

I don't want to embarrass you, but I just want you to know how much I appreciate your revealing of yourself to us. We need more philosophers like you. You are so honest!

Bye, Cathy!

When I was in college, I read Sartre and felt very 'comfortable' with Existentialism. That was before I discovered that other French philosopher. Recently I have studied, that is, read De Beauvoir as well. When she suggests that women are stronger or that, as an Irish pop song goes "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle", that reminds me of "Blue" by Kieslowski who I feel, in the Russian and Czech or Polish tradition, films existentialistically (Tarkovski, Zanussi). It is about a woman who loses her husband and children in a car crash. She cannot feel anything and has to work through it. Other women help her in a way that I believe only women are strong enough to - men are too proud and vane for that. I once read a critic describe this style as "hanging on the object".

I wonder what came first: Existentialism or Constructivism, for the latter means the total constructability of one's, no my, life. Funny how paradoxical total freedom and total responsibility seem. I have read a solution for this paradox a few times in Vatican I or in Faith and Reason, but I cannot reproduce it. That is how subliminally a solution to a problem may lie. In psychology, both nurture or "be who you want to be", and nature or "become who you are" determined personality 100%. So that is 200%, whereas we are confused by the idea that together they can explain no more than 100. Though I have never been totally convinced by that assessment.

Sauerkraut and Kindergarten are typically German words, but Angst is typically Dutch. Angst is a very existentialist word. There are paintings (like "the cry" I believe it is called) that express what people felt in Vernichtungslagern (concentration camps, literally "nothinging"). In Nausea, Sartre writes about a tree, of which the roots are somewhat above the ground and are all black. He loses the idea of "tree" and only sees a giant black claw with its nails in the soil... Existentialism is close to the struggle for survival.

Do you think the existentialists describe the existence of all men and women or only those who are unusually disturbed and troubled by anxiety and guilt? I had a classmate who responded in class one day when we were discussing Kierkegaard, "My momma never felt all that anxiety and guilt, and she was just as good a Christian as Kierkegaard."

Ron refers to Nausea, which presents the notion of life as Absurd. But why did Sartre feel that life is absurd? I wonder if he might have been disappointed because he could no longer agree with Leibniz that there is a sufficient reason for everything. But if there is no sufficient reason, why not simply accept that fact without regret?

A similar question can be raised about Sartre's inability to believe in God. Many philosophers, including Hume, did not believe in God, but they did not shed any tears over the loss of God. They just went on with their lives working on their philosophy. But for Sartre "the death of God" changes the whole situation. Even he, however, went on to say that even if God exists we would still have to make our own choices and accept responsibility.

Perhaps a good saying which might keep us from falling into the existential abyss is: "Blessed are they who do not expect too much; for they shall not be disappointed."

Is an Agnostic automatically an Existentialist? I think so.

At a time when communication is easier than many of the older philosophers would ever have believed, truth is still as evasive as in their time. I am thinking of the Yugoslavia muddle. Daily, we are given what we, as a people, believe by the polls. Then there are the “Briefings”, we are told that our actions are prevailing and truth is being served by those actions. Jean-Paul Sartre said it, “If you begin by saying, ‘Thou shalt not lie’, there is no longer any possibility of political action.” Anyone familiar with C-Span would admit that they genuinely try to give both sides of any dispute. They do a good job, but it does not seem to make much difference to its listeners. Each listener has his own “truth” and will not entertain any others’ truth.

I particularly like T. H. Huxley’s thoughts on truth, “Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates, as old as the writer who said, ‘Try all things, hold fast by that which is good’ , it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is of the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.”

In a nation obsessed with polls, Henrik Ibsen would be demonized. He said, “The majority never had right on its side. Never, I say. Intelligent men must wage war. Who is it that constitutes the majority of the population of the country? Is it the wise folks or the fools? The stupid people are an overwhelming majority all over the world. The majority has might on its side - unfortunately, but right it has not....The minority is always in the right.”

Cathy, please explain further why you think an agnostic must be an existentialist? Remember, I am from Missouri and you have to "show me."

I wonder if your own reference to Huxley does not provide evidence that an agnostic is not necessarily an existentialist. His agnosticism did not lead him to dwell on anxiety, despair, and the absurdity of human existence.

Your point about reliance on polls is well taken. Heidegger would certainly say that authentic human existence requires each of us to make his or her own decision without escaping into the crowds. I think that is at least in part what he had in mind when he spoke of "The One." The desire to identify with the opinions of the masses is a sure sign of inauthentic existence. Kierkegaard made a similar point, as he made scathing attacks on the newspapers of his time and the popular form of Christianity presented by the State Church.

I didn't know "angst" was a Dutch word. How interesting. I never think of the Dutch as being a gloomy people, but I suppose living below sea-level could cause a little anxiety.

Heidegger said the German language was the only language that could produce philosophy -- with the possible exception of Greek. But of course every language produces its own kind of philosophy. The German language produced German philosophy -- dark, moody, ambiguous, and mystical.

Heidegger said we must confront the great issues of human existence -- guilt and death. Well, who can avoid them? And where did they lead Heidegger? To the Nazi party and the Holocaust. I know Floyd is going to tell me to consider the man's philosophy, not his life. But if a person's philosophy doesn't determine what kind of life he lives, what good is his philosophy? I find it hard to think of Heidegger as anything but a Nazi, but I will try.

He said we've been thrown into a world we didn't ask for, and can't get out of alive. Well, I agree with him there. He also said we have to face these grim realities without flinching. If we refuse to face them, we are "fallen." Our "falleness" consists in falling short of our potential, being less than we could have been. This self-betrayal results in the cosmic sense of guilt that haunts us. It's our original sin. A sin, not against God, but against ourselves. Somebody said Heidegger's philosophy was basically theology with God taken out.

Shasta, I agree that Heidegger's Nazi period is a deplorable aspect of his life, and I even agree that if one embraces existentialism it should makes a significant difference in his or her life. I have similar problems with Sartre's flirtation with Marxism and the Communist Party. Neither fascism nor Communism seem compatible with existentialism.

It may also be instructive to apply a little "linguistic analyis" to the existentialists--especially to Heidegger, who loves to talk about Being and Non-being.

Now the word "is" functions quite usefully as a verb, but when it becomes the noun "Being" it may produce all sorts of confusion. One may be misled into talking about Being is if it were some kind of substance with attributes.

It pains me to make this linguistic criticism, for Heidegger says many things that have helped me understand my existence. I first encountered Heidegger through reading Paul Tillich and Rudolf Bultmann. Tillich discusses the anxiety which results from the tensions of an existence which is an alienation from Being, one in which we are threatened by the possibility of Non-Being. We are challenged to have the courage to be in spite of the threat of non-being.

Bultmann says that existentialism is "the good luck of Christianity." He interprets the gospel as deliverance from an inauthentic existence to an authentic one. God's grace gives us freedom from the bondage of the past and makes us open to the future. After Bultmann got through demythologizing the New Testament, what he had left was an act of God which enables us to be authentic persons. Where he differs from Heidegger is in his belief that this transformation is not something we can do by ourself; it requires the grace of God.

Agnosticism? Why must I prove to you that God exist? God is unknown and unknowable. How safe can one be in an argument! Agnosticism is the only way out of that round.

Existenialism is the process of trying to use one’s life to prove there is a reason of one’s life. I think that is understandable. Don’t you?

Cathy, the difference between most agnostics and existentialists is that agnostics simply accept the fact that they cannot discover any ultimate reason for the existence of the world or any ultimate meanaing to life. This does not cause them any great distress or anxiety. They simply do not bother themselves with the ultimate questions.

Existentialists, such as Sartre, think the agnostics are deceiving themselves. The fact that we have no reason to believe God exists or that there is any ultimate meaning we can discover creates great anxiety and desair for existentialists. Sartre cannot understand how an agnostic or an atheist can just go on cheerfully living their lives as if the absence of God makes no difference.

Atheistic existentialists are not willing to live without a meaning to their lives so they take the responsibility of creating values and meaning for themselves.

Now I suppose one can define existentialism in ways that bring it into close association with agnosticism, but if we are talking about Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Sartre, we cannot overlook their anxiety and despair.

In Dutch there is a saying "what you don't know about cannot hurt you". I noticed that these ignorant people close their minds once they have accumulated enough to be happy with. I wonder if it could ever be recommended to close your mind. One exception is a traumatizing environment like a concentration camp. But it also happens in the upper classes, where people don't want to know about poverty, even across the street. Perhaps that is true for all of our western society. Would that have closed, in a way, its philosophy as well?

Ron, your comments have encouraged me to think about the difference between those who do not seem to be troubled with nausea, anxiety, or despair and those for whom it is a serious concern. Which ones are living authentic lives?

When Kierkegaard discusses Dread and Despair he includes an analysis of those who do not experiences those feelings and concludes that such lack of awareness of our existential alienation is itself a sign of our alienation. Likewise Sartre says such people have "bad faith."

Trying to challenge this view is like trying to convince a psychotherapist that you are not mentally ill. I may insist on my sanity, but the therapist is likely to see that as denial and repression. Perhaps the basic existentialist claims are not falsifiable by any possible evidence. In that case one wonders if the claims have any meaning.

Sartre, influenced by Marx, seemed to think the sense of alienation and despair would be strongest among the proletariat. I do not believe, however, that this is the case. Few working people seem to express such feelings; perhaps they are too busy working. The followers of existentialst philosophers are more likely to be found among the bourgeoisie. Perhaps one has to have enough leisure time to sit around crying in his or her beer.

Ron, we have the same saying here: "What you don't know can't hurt you. Ignorance is bliss." I'll bet there isn't a nation in the world that doesn't have some version of that old adage. It must be one of the basic attitudes of the human species, a defense mechanism against pain. My mother used to say to us when we were children, "Just don't think about unpleasant things." My siblings accepted her advice, and are all happy contented people. I was the one who could not stop asking questions and worrying about things. Needless to say, my life has been less peaceful than theirs. I wonder if I could be an Existentialist and never knew it?

Facing our own death is usually not a very pleasant thought, but Heidegger insists we must do that if we are to become authentic persons. American culture is often death-denying. We feel more comfortable openly discussing sex than death. We use various euphemisms to conceal the grim reality of death.

Of course, we know that people die, often prematurely and violently; but it is always the other who dies; it is hard to face death as our own imminent reality.

At what point does a preoccupation with death become a debilitaing morbidity and to what extent is it an essential requirement for authentic lives?

Death and sex seem to have in common that they both can or want only be oriented toward the outside of the object. We all carry death inside us, just like our Animus (the 'male' mentality in the woman) or Anima (the 'female' mentality in the man) as Jung says. Yet our physical constitution does not allow us to know all there is to know about that other side. Therefore, we interact about it socially and create a 'collective unconscious' to create archetypes about these mysteries. I do not believe we talk about sex easier than about death: when this seems to be so, that is just a fad. It is a try-out that needs to be made for the purpose of assessing its definite value, which is almost always left behind at one point or another. Then, collectively, we try something else again. And we hold on to what we can work best with. But this is as much about sexuality as it can be about death.

Ron, possibly your society has a different attitude towards death than we have in America. I even see changes towards a more realistic view here. We are confronted with news of violent deaths almost daily. But it is one thing to read about the death of others; it is something else to come to terms with the existential reality of our own death.

Existentialists sometimes say, "Death is something we must experience alone. Each must die his or her own death." The old spiritual says, "You must walk that lonesome valley. You must walk it all by yourself."

Of course I must die my own death, but does that really make the experience of dying unique or more existentially significant than other experiences? I also have to digest my own food! No one else can do it for me.

Once again I am torn in too directions. On the one hand, I think the existentialists are on to something when they emphsize our "being unto death." Then I try to analyze what they are saying and I begin to wonder if they are trying to make too much out of a simple fact, which applies not only to death but to many other experices as well.

I am watching the funeral for Isaiah Shoals this afternoon in Denver, Colorado. I am so impressed with the way blacks conduct their funerals. Music is such a part of their sorrow. And their simple faith is almost painful to watch. Simple faith is such a blessing. It is denied to many of us.

Some people never seem to ask the questions that others of us ask. Why we are tormented is our tired question? Maybe most of us seem to accept the unanswerable questions and let them pass. But I don’t think so. I think we scream silently for anwers, but know they are not forthcoming. We Must accept the ways of fate. I so envy those who can state their faith without doubt. How can they be so sure? How am I so in doubt?. Why?

I would like to quote Ralph Waldo Emerson, he is my all time favorite philosopher. Why? Because he did not copy, his words of warm wisdom were not mimicked from the ancients. He was a TRUE free thinker. His home was one of the first historical pilgrimages I ever made. I had many of his works on my Library shelves, but I have given too much of it away.

One of my favorites: “Society never advances...It undergoes continual changes; it is barbarous, it is civilized, it is christianized, it is rich, it is scientific; but this change is not amelioration. For everything that is given something is taken.”

I wish somebody would tell me how to be philosophical about what's going on in Kosovo. I keep watching these streams of refugees pouring out of there, and I can't believe this is happening in a world that is supposed to be civilized. I know that other nations are trying to help these suffering people, but are we really doing them any good? I hope the politicians know what they are doing when they keep bombing Serbia, but it certainly doesn't seem to be doing any good so far.

Cathy, I agree with you that blacks have developed effective coping mechanisms in dealing with death. Perhaps this has grown out of their experience as slaves, which must have been a fate which seemed worse than death. They sang, "Before I would be slave, I would be buried in my grave; and go home to my Lord to be free."

African-Americans have incorporated the biblical story of the exodus from Egypt and the journey to the Promised Land into their mythology of death. Jordan is no longer the literal name of a river; it is a symbol of the transition from our years of wandering in the wilderness we call life to entrance into the promised land of Heaven.

A question: Is this way of death and acceptance of its existential reality or is it a form of denial and escape from that reality? I am just wondering. I really don't have a clear answer in mind.

Shasta, I am beginning to hear the voice of a few moral philosophers and theologians trying to make sense out of the situation involving Kosovo. USA Today has a brief article by Charles Colson today,on p. 15A. asking whether this war meets the criteria established by the Just War theory.

I will state the criteria as he does and summaraze his answers:

(1) A just war is one aimed at repelling or deterring aggression. (NATO's response may meet that criterion because it seems to repell agression against the Kosovars, but why have we not repelled similar aggression in other parts of the world?)

(2) A just war must be authorized by a legitimate authority, not by a private act. (NATO's involvement may meet that test, but American involvement does not follow our own Constitution.)

(3) In a just war the intentions must be genuine. (This is hard to evaluate in this situation, especially since our president's credibility is so low.)

(4) War must be a last resort, with all peaceful alternatives exhausted. (NATO has not exhausted all peaceful alternatives.)

(5) In a just war, the probability of success must be sufficiently clear to justify the costs. (This is where justifiction for the adventure falls flat.

(5) The damage inflicted by a just war must be proportionate to the objectives of the war. (So far, we are not preventing suffering in proportion to what we are causing.)

(6) Finally, noncombatants must not be targeted in a just war. (It is almost impossible to observe that in practice in this war.)

Colson's conclusion seems to be that this war is not justified. But I do not think Colson has the final word. At least he is raising the important philosophical questions.

The question of authenticity is too important to just forget about because we are working or because we should only think about pleasant things. We all have moments in our lives that we must choose, and choose the best we can. If I do not, it makes me deeply insecure. I cannot stand blame and shame. And if I am blamed or ashamed of myself anyway, then at least I know I have done all I possibly could, which basically was a choice in awareness of my options. By the way, the risks of choosing the wrong option seem to make us better aware of those options. But who can say he has made all the right choices in full awareness of the consequences? The best chess players can only think 12 steps ahead. That is exactly from here to the front door. That seems to be where commitment enters. Loyalty to employer, spouse, myself eventually, however, seems to always be in conflict with openness and honesty. We hardly have systems that allow their co-existence. Marriage or contracts are the only ones I can think of. Within the boundaries of these, I am loyal and open. But I cannot be open to the outside world and that conflicts with my wish to be true to myself and be authentic. Maybe that is why the choice of spouse or any contract we have is so damn important to us. Maybe the necessity of the awareness of risks in making choices contributed to the rise of memory, evolutionarily speaking. One of the propositions of Bergsonism is that consciousness is the product of a process of selection - from the virtual into the actual, at each instant (Gilles Deleuze).

Ron - You make my head spin. Authentic self? How in the hell, do we ever ascertain that? We are ever subject to change. One day, I am completely loyal to an ideal; the next week I may see all kinds of flaws of what I believed exactly a week ago. What is a soul to do? Must we bend our future selves to fit our former selves. Our constant becoming makes much of what we say inauthentic. How do we ever know our authentic self? Our selves are under constant change from birth to grave. Any Truth is a temporary one and lucky is he who sees it engraved in stone.

Cathy, we are not subject to change - we are change itself. Every move we make is mediated, if not by our brain, then by our body. Every will or intention is actualized out of the virtual, when we think the time is right. This will may be changing all the time, but since it always belongs to us, there is a possibility of assimilating the muliplicity if it to a deeper will, that is even more us, perhaps even into the genetic code that is our universal identification. We must adapt to a changing environment all the time, but in return it adapts to our will - if we don't live in Kosovo.

USA Today (April 29, 1999) reviewed a book that might be of interest to us. It is "A Map to the End of Time: Wayfarings with Friends and Philosophers," by Ronald Manheimer, published by W.W. Norton.

The author asks what we should do with the extra time we have in our senior years and suggests we should take up philosophy, though not the textbook kind but "the ideas that have made a difference in the lives of ordinary people." We just need to ask the right questions and be open to unexpected answers.

I did not intend my mention of death to kill our discussion! I will presume to say something else about existentialism and death.

Kierkegaard wrote a work called "The Sickness Unto Death." He did not mean by this a sickness which literally leads to death. No, he is speaking of "despair." One may be so filled with despair that he or she wants to die but cannot die. Kierkegaard seems to say that there is something worse than death--despair. Even those who are not aware of their despair may be in despair.

Of course, we know that Heidegger thought "authentic existence" was a "being unto death." Sartre added the insight that human essence is not fixed until death. As long as I live, I continue to create my essence or my nature by the choices I make.

Does Sartre think it is possible for others to pass judgment on those choices? Since there are no absolute values that would not seem possible. He does, however, think we can make a logical judgment. We can point out to someone that he or she is acting in "bad faith," i.e. he or she lives in self-deception. Is this a moral fault? Perhaps not, but we can at least say it is an error. Actually, Sartre goes further, for he does not hesitate to say that one who refuses to accept responsibility for the choices made is either a coward or a stinker.

We are talking about Death, Nothingness, Despair while outside spring has begun. Let me offer you some vitalism. These (negative) ideas are supposed to make us understand the whole of our past perceptions. They actually suggest that this whole is nothing, that it is reduction in the Russellian way. Instead, our past perceptions are more than what the present can ever give. We may be unable to present an appropriate recollection of the past fitting the actual, making us hesitate, perhaps even cringing our soul. But it is just because we are waiting to make the virtual actual, while intensity and meaning grows. We are extremely creative at these times, figuring out how to make the best sense of our recollections, resembling all that we know, to let them explode into action.

I think we do so by sorting out their different uses in different times, each use being a concept resembling a past period, perhaps even a philosophical era when we are not just talking about our own lives. Next these different concepts should be re-integrated to fully understand what may be going on, and then we can finally act and restore our Being in reality.

I did not mean to make your head spin or let go because of unclarity. I am so much into this Bergsonism that I attempt to start a forum about it on Bergsonet.

Ron, it is easier for me to be an existentialist in the midst of winter than in spring! Of course, I know that the human condition does not really change with the seasons.

Sartre rejects the criticism that existentialism is a pessimistic philosophy. It is optimistic in that it believes we have the ability to make choices. He believes naturalistic writers, which portray us as a victim of circumstances we cannot control, are much more pessimistic than exixtentialists.

I returned late last night from my fiftieth year high school class reunion. What a despressing experience to spend an evening with the class of '49. It is now impossible for me to deny the fact that I am an old man.

One thing I noticed is that the women have weathered the passage of time much better than men. Perhaps they care more about how they look. Most of us men are old, fat, and bald.

Most of all the evening made me think about the significance of time. It is so hard to believe that fifty years have passed since our graduation. Perhaps a dose of Bergson would help be realiz that this way of thinking is due to the artifical way we cut time up into minutes, hours, months, and years. I wonder how old I would feel if I did not know how old I am.

But Floyd, how old do you feel like you are? Only a logical thinker like you would not know how old he feels. I have never paid the slightest attention to my statistical age. I know how old I really am -- l75 years old, and my knees are even older than that.

Shasta, after an exhausting day yesterday, I am feeling as old as Methuselah today; but tomorrow, after getting some rest, I hope to feel younger than springtime. I may even become as optimistic as William James when he is having an especially good day.

Catching up on the post this afternoon was depressing.

Do you guys think maybe our despair, as we grow older, is because we see our influence and ability to change diminish? Do I hear laughter? Knock it off!

Ron, if I understand you, you are saying that essentially my will was set by my perceptions in the first years of life and I am what I am irregardless of choices made by me presently and in the future? Maybe I don’t understand what “will” is. Would you explain your meaning of will?

I find as I grow older I am less of a social animal. Why is that? My will, I think, is that I become more of a social animal. But your saying “will” won and what I really want is to be a recluse. NO!

Cathy, will is freedom of choice. We are caught up in our own process of selection. We are so used to think of ourselves in terms of material bodies that we forget that the past, as the future, is a creation of the mind.

The present is full of movement that is our body's processing of information. In the process, memory is involved. In this memory, perceptions are collected. To adapt our eyes and ears to new visuals and sounds, we recollect selected (freely chosen) perceptions from memory to meet this newness.

Thus, there is a constant adding of new layers to the collection of perceptions, fitted to the object and to what we temporarily recollected in an effort to concentrate. So the deepest layers are our 'deep past' and may be genetic code. However, who we are, the acting material body with a 'virtual' mind, is showing selectively recollected perceptions, information and knowledge from all layers at once, including the eldest ones from youth.

Bergson gives the metaphor of a ball of wool, that unrolls at one end, but rolls up at the other. This is how all life unrolls in action but at the same time rolls up in the 'virtual reality' of our Being. And it is not a computer game!

Assuming that Sartre is correct in saying we create our own essence by the choices we make, I do think that what I am is more fixed now than it was when I was much younger. But the creative process is not finished. I still have choices to make and that means my essence is not fixed. (Sarte says it will not be fixed until I die.)

On that assumption, the paradox is that I will never know what my essence is. Others will look at my life and make that judgment. They, of course, will have to make decisions about how to perceive and evaluate the choices I have made. It is in that sense that "hell is other people." I want to believe I am free to become what I choose to become but I cannot control how others will view me.

The Christian spin on this is that God will have the final word. That is what is represented by a belief in the Final Judgment. Some who report "near-death experiences" say they saw their whole lives pass before their eyes and were then confronted with the question, "Well, what do you make of it?" If that is correct, then perhaps others do not have the final word. God chooses to permit me to make that final judgment.

Ron, intrigued as I was with you definition of will, I looked up some thoughts of known existentialist. Rollo May, "Human will begins in a "no." The "no" is a protest against a world we never made, and it is also the assertion of one's self in the endeavor to remake and reform the world." Is that not a definition of politics also? John F. Kennedy, I think, said that politics was the art of the possible. Was that an existentialist statement? I think so.

Cathy, we didn't mean to be depressing with all our talk of aging and death. Neither one really bothers me. I have lived with a certain amount of despair all my life, and it has never really stopped me from doing anything I wanted to do. I have also come close to death a few times, and it holds no terrors for me either. I find life as interesting today as it ever was. I have literally lived three or four distinct lives in my lifetime; that's why I feel so old. I've put a lot of mileage on myself. I do regret that my knees decided to retire before I was ready to, but they don't slow me down much. I think the main thing you lose as you grow older is your illusions. I'm sure you've heard the saying: "Ask a teenager for advice while he still knows everything." A lot of the enthusiasm of youth is simply based on ignorance. You think you've lost something valuable, but it was really just your ignorance and egotism that fell by the wayside. I consider myself a cheerful pessimist, and most of the time I'm quite happy in spite of my pessimism.

Shasta - You just made one of the most eloquent posts I have ever read on Senior Net.

When posting can bring out such deep emotions I am very priviledged to be a participant. Thank you for that!

I want to thank everyone who has participated in the discussion of "A History of Western Philosophy." We have kept the discussion open for a few days to encourage further posts on Existentialism and other items of philosophical interest.

I have now completed my role as a leader of the discussion. I leave it to those who oversee the Book Discussions to decide whether to close the discussion group or leave it open for other posts. There have never been very many involved in the discussions, but I do hope it has been worthwhile for those who chose to participate.

Floyd, thank you - you did a great job!

I think this discussion has just been splendid, I've been very proud of it and of Floyd, who very kindly stepped into the breach that LJ left when he died, it was a lovely tribute to him and I've just enjoyed every post.

I expect it's time to Archive it now, and keep it forever for reference in our Archived discussions, and if you all ever would like to begin another book, you are more than welcome to do so and to recruit everybody you'd like!

It was one of our better attended discussions (lots of people lurking but not posting) and that matters, too.

I commend you all on a superior job and the door is open at all times for your next endeavor! Join us in the other book discussions, too!

Ginny

Floyd, I just want to say how much I've enjoyed our survey course in Philosophy 101. You're a great teacher, and have inspired me to begin doing some serious reading in philosophy. I'm going to start over with Plato .

Shasta, what is the most basic philosophical question that you are seeking an answer for?

Boy if LJ were here he'd glom on that Plato, do you all wantt o try a little Plato?

Ginny

Jenny - YES for Plato! Is Ron offering his services? Shasta are you for another round? I AM!

I am always in for a new round of philosophy. However, in Dutch there is a saying "a warned person counts for two". What I must warn you about is that this time I will compare each philosopher to Bergson., since to me he is the most important one. (As if I had not been doing that all along so far.) I want to know exactly where they correspond and where they differ! And since no-one visits Bergsonet...

Ginny, Ron - I am in for the long haul. I love philosophy, Lord help me!

Ron, I've been trying to think of the answer to your question. Is there a God? I've already answered that question to my satisfaction. Is there life after death? I've worked out my answer to that question. I suppose the question that bothers me most right now is: How much free will do humans have, and how much is predetermined by their genes? I don't know if that is philosophy or biology.

I think a discussion on Plato would be great. Is Floyd willing to direct it for us?

How totally fabulous, Guys!! I'm so excited, you all are always way over my head, let me know what and when and I'll put it up.

I'll be your secretary!

Ginny

I am on board. What text need I buy? I assume you, Ron. are our new leader!

We want FLOYD!!

Besides, we want all lurkers out there to drop a line or two...!

Is this an Apology? To lead a philosophical discussion, you need a man or woman of wisdom and I am not (though my last name, in Dutch, is "the Wise"). We need someone who can see beyond things, in comments that are always to the point, even tempered. As you know I am biased towards Bergsonism, therefore I cannot point out the particular interests of participants' views.

Ron, we've elected you our leader. I think we should select a particular book on Plato and use it so that we can keep our discussions focussed. Barnes & Noble has a list of books on Plato, and Senior Net likes to use their books. I would suggest something that is not too technical so that we don't get bogged down in Plato forever. Then you should select something on Bergson that we can read so that we can follow you. Again, it should be something pretty basic and not too technical. I haven't checked Barnes & Nobles' listings on Bergson, but they usually have just about anything you could want. What do you suggest?

I have never read Plato myself. I am prepared to do so now. Here follows an argument for reading Philebus. You tell me whether I am getting too technical here - all I do is follow Bergson's interpreter Deleuze. This theme is important for understanding the precision and robustness of Bergson's philosophy.

It seems Plato has introduced the method of division. His dialogues may be mistaken for a kind of dialectic method. The ideas of the One and the Multiple have been interpreted in such a way.

We are told that the Self is one (thesis) and it is multiple (antithesis), then it is the unity of the multiple (synthesis). Or else we are told that the One is already multiple, that Being passes into nonbeing and produces becoming.

Bergson condemns this movement of abstract thought. Bergsonism is incompatible with Hegelianism. Bergson criticizes the dialectic for being a false movement, that is, a movement of the abstract concept, which goes from one opposite to the other only by means of imprecision. The denunciation of the Hegelian dialectic as false movement, abstract movement, failure to comprehend real movement, is a frequent theme in Kierkegaard, Marx, and Nietzsche, albeit in very different contexts. The concrete will never be attained by combining the inadequacy of one concept with the inadequacy of its opposite. Correcting a generality with another generality will never attain the singular.

Plato was the first to deride those who said "the One is multiple and the multiple one - Being is nonbeing," etc. In each case he asked how, how many, when and where. "What" unity of the multiple and "what" multiple of the one? (cf. Plato, Philebus)

(Excerpts taken from Deleuze, "Bergsonism", 1966; 1988, p.44. Link to Plato thanks to Jenny Siegul, upthread, and maybe lurking like Floyd.)

Ron and Shasta (alphabetical!) - I would like to continue with you in your discussions of Plato and Burgson. But strictly as an amateur.

If you select a certain text, please give me time to order. I have a little bit of Plato on my library shelves, but am not sure of Henri Bergson.

Ron, could you give me a “thumbnail sketch” of the philosophy of Bergson? I do know he had power as a philosopher and was an influence is some important pieces of literature. If I had a little uncomplicated advanced knowledge of him perhaps I will be a better participant in our discussions.

I agree with Shasta completely that level of philosophical discussion is very important. A complex rendition with esoteric language will result in the death of philosophy on this website. I will probably get argument on this, but we shall see.

Will wait to hear from you two as decision makers.

Yes, this is so good, let's give people a little chance to get the book and join in, we'll publicize it, too, and you can spread the word in the folders you also like to go to, if you see somebody who seems to like philosophy.

Very grateful to you all,

Ginny

Cathy, please keep me from any complex rendition with esoteric language. A 'thumbnail sketch' of B's philosophy follows: We probably need to correct some things in our daily thought. The first thing is, to get back in touch with intuition - but then a particular kind of intuition. It is a very precise one instead of what we usually think intuition is. It is the way we 'handle' present and past. We incorrectly assume that the past is not with us. It IS, and it is what makes us see the present. Is that too esoteric? Then accept my apology.

Shasta and Cathy, and Floyd who hopefully is just looking where this is going, please suggest any reading of Plato, for the link to Philebus is only an 'educated' guess or rather a footnote in a book I happen to study. Ginny, are you just hosting or would you like to join us?

hahaha, Dear Ron, if you knew my mental capacities you would never ask such a thing. I'm not hosting at all, I am your secretary who will put stuff at your direction into the heading till you all elect a leader who can then move into the wonderful realm of html, will be glad to show what little I know!!

Ginny

Come on Ginny, there are better excuses than "my mental capacities.."!

How 'bout my lack of time? Am already leading one, (The Poisonwood Bible) and about to start another on the 15th, the Lucia in London, so I must, regretfully pass. But I appreciate it!

Ginny

Just downloaded, "PHILEBUS". All 45 pages. I had no idea how long it was. I hope to have the time to read it this weekend (remember it is Mother's Day weekend).

Do we agree on reading Philebus then?

I have read half of it now and I must say there is much in it that interests me, but how about you? It seems what Socrates and Protarchus are inquiring (according to Plato) is the relationship between body and soul in terms of pleasure and pain versus wisdom, that we could translate into our readings of empiricism/materialism versus rationalism/idealism. The more permanent question, of course, being how the two may be related.

I was surprised to read about examining the conditions under which each is generated, about the interest for the importance of expectation ("true and false fears"), memory, perception and recollection or even the unconscious (I thought Freud invented the term - apparently not so!) The basics of the psychology of learning can also be found in it, like the replenishment of pain or pleasure stimuli. (This interests me because I was trained to be a psychologist.)

As for me, I really like to go for it. I suggest - do correct me if you feel I am wrong- we take two weeks from now to buy or download, read and comment on it. Next, any book of Bergson would fit in perfectly I am sure, and I would suggest reading The Creative Mind, An Introduction to Metaphysics, subtitle "1+1=3" (if only the introductory chapters) which is one I enjoyed most and which can be acquired through the net.

Had a lovely Mother's Day weekend and even managed to read half of Philebus and comprehended less, I must say. But I like it and will comment as I read. Any arrangment you want to make is fine with me. Does Shasta want to lead off with Philebus?

Yes, that's okay with me. Ron, let Ginny know when to start the discussion so she can schedule it in SeniorNet. Any date is all right with me. I will also see if I can get "The Creative Mind." That sounds interesting.

Now that we have to wait a little for the banner and advertisement for our in-depth discussion of Philebus and The Creative Mind, Shasta, perhaps you could give us some background on Plato. What was his first name, where did he go to church, that sort of thing. And... why does he interest you so much?

Ron, I have no idea what Plato's first name was. Every reference I have just calls him Plato. Do you know what his first name was? The reason why I wanted to study Plato is that he is generally considered the most important and influential philosopher of all time. They say there is no question any other philosopher has raised that wasn't dealt with by Plato. So if I am going to study philosophy, Plato seems to be the place to begin. We reviewed the pre-Socratics in our last discussion, but Plato deserves some in-depth study. What I had really planned to do was study about a dozen of the most important philosophers in chronological order. This was just a private goal of mine. I didn't know anybody else would be interested.

Shasta, I assume you are kidding me in return. I don't think he had a first or last name, nor that he went to church anywhere.

Do you have any idea where Plato might have addressed the question of nature (determinism) versus nurture (free will) that bogs you? It is in Philebus and certainly in The Creative Mind, but since all questions go back to Plato, as they say, there may be more appropriate writings of his.

Cathy, what is your most pressing philosophical question? Perhaps Plato addresses it as well somewhere in his writings!

By the way, our banner for Plato will be displayed on the 16th.

Ron, Shasta - for what it is worth I have quite a few quotes of Plato in my book called, THE GREAT THOUGHTS, by George Seldes. In the section containing Plato he is designated as: PLATO (ne' Aristocles). I am sure you guys will know if that was his family name or ,even, his step-fathers name.

Ron, I am into trying to nourish my mind so that when the body begins to wear down I can live in my head. That is where the sustenance of life dwells. I am hungry for good conversation. My favorite kind of recreation.

As I read Philebus, I remembered that there was some discussion of the Socratic dialectic back at the beginning of the Russell discussion. Several of the participants in this discussion were teachers, and they were commenting on the usefulness of the method. I went back and found some of these comments -- #83, #84, #88, #89, #93. There were probably others. In my college, the method was never used and I have no experience with it, but it seems to me a cumbersome process. Still, isn't this what psychoanalysts use with their patients? I know it is very efficient in the study of dreams, because dreams really are concerned with knowledge you already possess, but don't think about.

Patricia asked me what catchphrase could be put in the "New Discussions" Page. I am tempted to repeat our arguments:

1. Always wanted to study philosophy and Plato's writing seemed a good place to start.
2. Nourish the mind and live in the head when the body begins to wear down.
3. Happening to be a Bergson freak who constantly refers back to Plato.

Please advise.

It looks like to me it is Plato vs. Bergson back to Plato. I am game!!

Sounds okay to me.

Cathy, what does your book on Plato say about his best quotes, or rather, his best works? I know little about him. Do you think the Socratic method is your kind of conversation?

Shasta, I am not so sure we all know precisely what the method meant to achieve or how it should be conducted. As Floyd said up there, Socrates was merely playing with the Atheneans. We have had a television show here that explicitly practiced what they called the Socratic method. One guy in the middle of a group was interrogating all others (officials of all parts of society) in an unpredictable order and more or less simultaneously. He asked one question after another, changing the degree of seriousness of the issue a bit from time to time, so that eventually "yes" answers became "no" answers. Thus was revealed where the ethical boundaries could be found so that conversation could continue among those who weren't turned around yet as opposed to the others who were at that point. That was a clear way of putting what the method supposedly was all about. I am not sure if they were so systematic about it in those days (just playing?). The only form of thought that was more or less systematic that came from them directly, I always understood, was the syllogism "Socrates is a man, all men are mortal, therefore Socrates is mortal".

Do you think Pat Westerdale has enough material for putting up an attractive advertisement for our new initiative in the "new discussions" thread?

Now that our advertisement just mentions Plato, I guess we better strap on the philosophy belt and really start to study this dude. Let's collect all that is interesting about him right here.

Ron/ Shasta - I have been fascinated by the Socratic method of teaching ever since I have had exposure to it.

I can’t think of a better method of teaching than to have a student, by the “answer a question with a question” method. It requires of the student to answer each step of his deduction by the teacher when the student makes an assertion of a so called fact. It is a method of accountability. It, the method, makes the student think, step-by-step, to his deductions and why.

I don’t see any fault with this method of teaching. Why is it not more prevalent in our classrooms?

Ron - I realize you asked me more about the importance of Plato and I anwered you in terms of Socretes. In my understanding of the two (in my sources of information) Socretes did not record any of his philosophy. His entire method of teaching was oral and not documented by himself. Plato was the only source of Socretes’s influence, as Plato recorded all of Socretes’s dialouge in relations to his students..

Historians agree that to separate Socretes philosophy from Plato’s is almost impossible.

I wonder why Socrates never wrote anything. He must have realized that his ideas wouldn't reach future generations if he left no written record. He couldn't have known that Plato would immortalize him. If Plato had not written about Socrates, we would know almost nothing about him; and it's not absolutely certain that Plato's statements about Socrates are factual. Russell thought Plato had the imagination and the talent to "invent" Socrates, if he had wanted to. But maybe Socrates was not interested in leaving a legacy for future generations.

Jesus never wrote anything either, and I've always found that curious. Is it possible that he was illiterate? Would the son of a carpenter have been taught to read and write? He knew the Jewish scriptures, but he could have learned those from listening to the wise men in the temple. He must have wanted to get his message across, and yet he never wrote anything.

Ok, I'll break the spell and call your attention to the fine new graphic in the heading, courtesy of our own Jim Daisey, Books and Literature Art Director!

Now, how about a little background on Plato for the heading? Are there any URLs you'd want besides the text? That looks marvelous, am so excited about this discussion.

Ginny

Here is a try, Ginny:

Plato thought philosophers should be kings. Only they would be able to remember (by reincarnation) and express the ideas of pure Beauty and pure Goodness. These pure ideas should be separated from what is learned from experience, including morality. As Socrates' student, he put down the ideas he had learned from his master in a dialectical form (the Socratic Method), and later developed his own ideas about the State.

Shasta and Ginny, please replace, correct or complete the above.

Socrates and Jesus have in common that they were scapegoat offerings, uniting the Greek and (early) Christian societies by their sacrificial deaths and making others write about them. Aggressive societal tendencies had put them in the spot of the scapegoat and the sibling rivalry of the 'war tribes' was resolved by their disappearing into myth (René Girard).

BTW that banner IS be-autiful. Thank you! Is it a painting?

I don't know what it is, Ron, but Jim will know, he'll tell us.

But I do agree, I love it!

Ginny

Don't believe the header is a painting as the detail is too sharp and no apparent brush strokes. I do think it is a hand drawn graphic. I downloaded it from ART TODAY, resized it,added the text background and the text.

Well it's classy I'll tell you that! Thanks for all the quick work, our Jim!!

Ginny

There isn't much biographical data on Plato. His dates were 427-347 B.C. His family were aristocrats who traced their ancestors back to the god, Poseidon. (I wonder if Plato really believed this.) It is not known whether he ever married or had children. He became a student of Socrates at the age of 20 and continued to study with him until Socrates' death, eight years later. He traveled for the next 12 years or so, and then returned to Athens to set up his academy.

Inscribed on the door of Plato's academy were these words: "Let none unversed in geomety come under this roof." (That disqualifies me from studying Plato right there.) He was convinced that all philosophy had to be based on geometry. In 367 B.C. he went to Syracuse to tutor the young prince in the hope of realizing his dream of a philosopher king. But when he began drilling the prince in geometry, the young prince proved to be an uncooperative student, and the experiment failed.

Plato's academy was the forerunner of today's universities.

Before we begin our discussion of the "Philebus" on the 23rd, maybe we should review some of Plato's general ideas.

According to Bertrand Russell, the most important aspects of his philosophy are:

1) His description of Utopia in the "Republic". 2) His theory of Ideas (an effort to solve the problem of universals). 3) His arguments for immortality. 4) His cosmogony (which is rather bizarre). 5) His concept of knowledge as reminiscence rather than perception.

The one that fascinates me is his theory of IDEAS. According to A. E. Taylor in "The Mind of Plato", these are not what we usually mean by the word "ideas". The Greek word literally means "shape" or "form", not a mental concept. He says the IDEAS were not created by God, but existed parallel to God, or perhaps were even superior to God. He thinks Plato's God had certain limitations that the Christian God does not have. I am not sure other writers would agree with this interpretation. If God did not create the IDEAS, where did they come from?

Aspects #2 and #5 are related. Plato's philosophy was dualistic. On the one hand, there were the perceptions ordered in a plane, but on the other hand, in what Plato calls 'space', there was a third dimension that went beyond this plane, where the clear ideas were to be found. Our idea of space includes this third dimension and since Einstein we add as a fourth dimension 'time', while the third is 'depth'. Shadows projected on the wall of the cave do not contain this depth, but the third dimension is what we call time, and what Plato called reminiscence (Bergson's Duration). In memory, fuzzy ideas and internal reflections of the 'world outside' are added into wholes and reshape fuzzy outlines into clear ones.

Althought Plato’s cave is a classic of early understanding of the human concept of reality, it is a silly, in my opinion, the symbol of the human grasp of reality under today’s discussion. Who among us would equate a comparison of today’s cave and today’s reality? What of the clever ones that stretched their necks and were not content to always look forward? Much can be discerned by side sight. The desire to always obey the current direct look can, in today’s concept, be a very duresstic mistake.

Are you sure about that Cathy? We have extremely many more comforts than cavepeople, but the idea of projection and projection-screens is not so silly at all, if you allow me the comparison. Looking into the future with a giraffe neck may not be all that pleasant so that it would be better to just stay in the here and now. Telling the driver where to go next while continuously studying the map instead of looking out of the window can bring you all around the world without having had one real experience other than map-studying. Indeed there are many people, if not all of us, who do just that. But then, still the window is a projection-screen and what is in it is a projection!

Keeping our precepts, interpretations and prejudices close to what is immediately given in experience, withholds us (a bit) from misjudgment and misguidance. It also prevents anxiousness for the future's reality but then we get into the paradox of instincively not using an instinct that particularly belongs to the species of the homo sapiens, in contrast with all other animals (except for the intelligent ones like dolphins and the ones with long memories, like elephants). We cannot deny ourselves. That is exactly why we should take a renewed interest in intuition, which is the fringe of instinct, or of the same but now consciously, intelligence.

Ron, my seemingly lack of respect for tradition is hard to defend sometimes. To me, tradition is a measure of how Nature fails to make progress in its attempt to keep evolution going.

Our parents work hard at carrying on their traditions. I teel nature tries, just as hard, for us to make progress beyond what we call ‘’comfortably’ tradition. I guess, what I am saying is: Youth must always resist tradition. Tradition is not sacred. Our ancestors would have us believe that we must keep our eyes on the shadows of our cave and forget about the quick glimpes that every young mind wants to capture: something different to align their lives with.

I must sound like a fool to argue against a fixed idea of how we develop. I think, in a measure; it is true, we are a product of our past. I think Nature works against that concept by making us restless in our following of tradition.

Cathy, you are right about resisting tradition, and not only youth but all of us. But at the same time, let us not throw away the child with the bathing water (Dutch expression). Things that seem profound are worth looking into and given a place of their own.

I have been looking for the metaphor of the cave in Philebus and found some reference about half-way: Socrates suggests the perception of an indistinct appearance, which turns out to be a man standing by a rock and under a tree. This may take some time, of which Socrates says that

...at such times the soul is like a book… Memory and perception meet, and they and their attendant feelings seem to almost to write down words in the soul, and when the inscribing feeling writes truly, then true opinion and true propositions which are the expressions of opinion come into our souls - but when the scribe within us writes falsely, the result is false… The painter, who, after the scribe has done his work, draws images in the soul of the things which he has described.

From this past and present he further adds:

And do all those writings and paintings which as we were saying a little while ago, are produced in us, relate to the past and present only, and not to the future?

So, there you have it: Plato (describing Socrates) says that perception, in touch with memory, projects the future. I think that is quite profound.

Shasta, are you giving up (where are all those lurkers?) or will you tell us how to read this.. Floyd might rejoin us in a little while. Let's hope he will keep doing ok and his spirit will remain high.

By the way I have found what I was looking for concerning The Creative Mind.

Here and "lurking" trying to get a handle on where it is where we is at. I will keep reading this thread, but I am sure I am not as well read as you all are. So, I will just lurk for a while until something makes sense, then I may jump in and contribute some "nonsense" . In any event I am reading Philobus from the computer.

Jenny

Sorry for "spamming" in some other threads here at seniornet. I just did not want to let this one pass away. Anybody still interested in this thread please identify yourself.

Hi, Jenny, and welcome to this discussion! I know you will have a great time here, everyone has such marvelous ideas!! Stay awhile and visit some of our other forums here, too!

I like your enthusiasm, Ron!

Ginny

Ron- Thanks for your analysis of the Cave Shadows. I completely agree with you. It is easy to get off balence over past wisdom and today's wisdom.

By the way, I have the book, Creative Mind, 2+2=3. Berkson is hard for me to digest. I will read your guidance carefully.

Jenny Seigul - you are very well equipped at joining this forum. I have read much of your postings and have been very impressed. Golly, it will be nice to have you on board.

I continue to hope that Shasta chooses to join us.

Whoops, sorry Ron, it is 1+1=3. Is there a signifcant difference?

I do want to emphasize that I will need guidance in understanding the Metaphysics by Henri Bergson. How willing a teacher of philosophy are you Ron? I am willing to show my ignorance and hope you are not bored out of your mind to post with us.

Where, or where is Shasta?

Cathy, indeed Bergson is at first a bit hard to digest. But if you really give it a try, you will find that he has so many brilliant metaphors that can make you visualize what he is saying that you will wish to read on, even when you do not understand everything. I am reading him for the 5th or 6th time now and I keep finding things that I did not seem to pick up before.

So I am prepared for an exegesis and clarification where needed of Bergson now. We will refer to Plato wherever we can, for Bergson was a Platonist. Perhaps the hardest part is right in the beginning, when he is talking about the 'retrograde movement of the true growth of truth'. He simply means the wisdom of hindsight. He wants philosophy to be more precise, to be more like the exact sciences and be robust. Then he talks about an error that is made in metaphysics when it treats time like time is treated in the exact sciences. That is: as if everything happens in periods or moments, while in fact time flows, so that movement, change and transition can be really felt and not be abstracted into formula's or graphs on paper. This is what he calls 'duration'. It is never the same, always adds something to itself, so that exact prediction is never possible, while in space (as opposed to time or duration) things are only set apart.

In science, time is added to space while in metaphysics, in reverse, time is 'spatialized'. Bergson argued extensively about this with Einstein to complete his theory of relativity with metaphysics. But Einstein and his followers thought Bergson wanted to deny his theory, which was not the case. The thing was, in experience, movement had been robbed of its mobility, change of its fluidity and time of its duration, by "E=mc2".

Do you follow?

Btw, Plato's point of view also started in experience, or the subject, of the Idea. Aristotle, who was more of a physicist, therefore called Plato's views meta-physical, that is: "after-physics" or ideational as opposed to material.

Cathy, what I will try now, is a long shot, but it may hit target and be of great benefit. It is how I think about life and matter (I have a company that is called "Matter to Man"!), so it is metaphysical. It is how Bergson thought as well, to my great surprise. It may also be how Plato thought, since Bergson is a Platonist. Tell me if it rings a bell.

Life is a process of the universe. In it, products are made, like matter, both inorganic and organic, and the fabrications of man. Matter that is most full of life, is the mind. We think it is not material because it is so different from what we usually believe matter to be - like a table that hurts us when we bump into it. Yet, matter can be of different kinds and brain-matter plus cognitions, are material as well - of the highest possible kind.

Matter and life develop in opposite directions. Life contracts, matter expands. When life contracts, it may actualize itself into something that becomes material when it expands again. This actualization is the present that we live in. Contracting life is (un)consciousness. At each moment, we recollect the 'future'. This future is our (part of) life in general. Actualization is when we do something with this life.

The first thing we do with life that contracts itself in us is perceive. The unconscious becomes conscious, that is, we discard all that is not needed at that moment to act. This may be an intelligent act, to avoid an obstacle (the opaqueness of an object). Then we really understand what it is that is in front of us. We may even start to move and behave, which is 'acting' in the most common sense.

Perception and action are the materialization of life, when it expands in duration and forms a reservoir of memory, consciously or not. When time passes, new thoughts, insights, understanding is added to the reservoir. It may be recollected again for later perceptions, to make sense of what we see at that point in time. In addition, it may lead us, as experience, around any obstacle or object.

Therefore, the relation between life and matter is precision in the 'turn' between contraction of life and relaxation into matter. Bergson has always said that philosophy was not precise enough, for it should be as precise as (physical) science.

Tell me if this makes sense to you (at all).

Ok, Ron I am trying to understand - are you saying that the mind is the most full of life entity in existance and it contracts and expands as we sort and focus on a thought that then, as we act on the selected choice - action; is the mind expanding or is it that life is expanding?

Is life a product of the brain?

If life is expanding then does that compute that the universe is expanding? As I understand the above theory then the universe would also contract. What evidence shows the universe contracting?

Where does body memory come into all of this? Is body memory simply another stimulant that the mind stores for future selection to act?

My questions may be as a result of my misunderstanding your posts. Please clearify for me?

Barbara, you - and Jenny! - are most welcome. Thanks for trying to understand. I will try to answer your questions one by one.

Indeed the mind is most full of life in the entire universe, as far as we know. As we sort and focus on a thought, it contracts and recollects memories that fit the object in front of us as a tight jacket. When the thought, focusing on an object, grows, new perceptions and thoughts are replacing the former one, that steps back and relaxes, joining all former thoughts in a great reservoir in our heads.

As we act on the selected choice, consciousness (in the mind) expands in waves of relative relaxation and new recollections take their place. These new recollections are more contracted since they are to meet new objects presented to our perceptions as we move.

Life is a process in the universe that produces matter, like the brain. Therefore life is not a product of the brain, but of that which is beyond the universe and that we cannot grasp. Life is organic, while its product, matter, is inorganic. Man's brain can create fabrics, which are another sort of matter, but also a product of life, that is life as it became a organic matter. In short, life first produces organic matter and then, through it (him, her), inorganic matter.

You need to make a difference between the matter that is in the universe (protons etc.) and life that is in the universe (energy). Life is not primarily expansion, but contraction. Before it becomes actualized in action in the present, if the organism decides to do so and not to 'hesitate', life contracts in a recollection of present memories of the past. After it is actualized in perception and action, it is materialized and has become one more, still contracted, memory, that expands into the whole of memories of the past.

Body memory comes in where present forms, behaviors, become part of the past. For example, we get 'conditioned' by our actions (Burrhus F. Skinner) and next time tend to do the same things we did more quickly, more experienced or more intelligently. Another example is our DNA, which holds all information of all our past experiences of all our genealogy! Still another example is the memory of cells, that is used for their reconstruction when they get hurt. This theory, backed up by Bergson's writings, is actually used in contemporary cancer research.

Hi Ron,

In confronting a never experienced problem, are you saying our (life) contracts, searches within our subconscious and perceives an appropriate action to cope with the new problem which, in doing so, the mind (matter) expands? What is the difference between subconscious and (un)conscious as is used in contracting life.

Bergson’s desire for a preciseness in philosophy, as in physical science, seems a contradiction to me. How can the mind be measured and weighed? Isn’t our mind in a constant state of flux? Is Bergson wanting one philosophy that fits all?

Another question: Your statement that “ matter can be of different kinds and brain-matter plus cognitions, are material as well - of the highest possible kind” are you saying cognition is inborn knowledge?

I found you insights in understanding Bergson very interesting.

Cathy,

When we are confronted with a problem we never experienced before, our intellect recollects perceptions from the past that are stored in memory and the subconscious, to find a creative solution. In fact, that is the whole movement of life: contraction to be creative. Then these recollected perceptions from the past relax and expand back into memory and (sub)consciousness again, for they have to make room for new recollections as time passes (or duration). The subconscious is what we know but are not conscious of, while the unconscious is what never became conscious or recollected in the first place.

Bergson's preciseness in philosophy is not about measuring or weighing the mind. It is about avoiding a mistake in metaphysics, that is, in talking about what we perceive and about perception itself. The mistake is that time as we perceive it, is in a constant state of flux, 'becoming' all the time, and that in the present what is in consciousness can be actualized into behavior. Only then it becomes measurable, but before it never was. Precision further means knowing what happens when it happens, that is, life contracts in creative intelligence, intuition, instinct or emotion, until it has found a way to deal with a problem and it actualizes in behavior, talk, or even thought when it is ready.

Yes Bergson wants one-fits-all panacea for philosophy (like all philosophers want). I say he may as long as I don't see any flaw in his making (perfect) sense. That doesn't mean I don't like Kant and James, to name a few, as well, and… last but not least, Plato.

Cognition is to some extent inborn but that is hard to prove. It is material for it can actually be measured as a process (not or hardly its content though). Energy (life) tries to stay in its purest form of a flux of white heat, but when it meets something material, it is creative and holds on to forms that allow it to endure as unchanged as possible. Organic matter does a better job at this than inorganic matter. But the organic has been created from the inorganic, by cosmic energy or life itself.

I hope Shasta is just bored with us and that she is ok!

Gail mentioned this site in another forum and I decided to stick my nose in to see what was going on. For a while (perhaps a long while) I will follow that old adage that "its' better to keep your mouth shut and be considered stupid than open it and remove all doubt." So I will try my best to understand what you are all talking about and in the meantime from me you will hear the deafening sound of silence!

Robby

Ron,

I am only guessing on this, but I think Shasta wanted to concentrate more on Plato than we have. I have not meant to ignore her interest, but wonder if that was her "take" on the matter.

I did purchase the Creative Mind An Introduction to Metaphysics, by Henri Bergson, and have more or less focused on it. I did not in anyway wish to by-pass her interest.

I am going to continue my reading of the Creative Mind and post when I have something to say. OK?

And, of course, I am going to comment on Philebus when so moved.

Robert - welcome, in lurking mode or speaking your mind! "Speaking is silver but keeping your mouth shut is gold" - is that an expression? (It is in Dutch.)

Cathy, You may be right about Shasta, but then I wonder why she suggested and offered to introduce us to Plato. I would like to give Philebus more attention.

Plato is explaining how we acquire knowledge of the world. Many concepts were picked up in Bergson's theory of knowledge. Philebus on my computer has 50 columns so when I sum up the concepts and then summarize the theory developed in Philebus, I will refer to the column number.

These concepts have been reused in Bergson's theory, which were already in Philebus:

infinity of kinds (6),

genus (7),

division according to kinds (7),

disappearance of quantity and measure (11),

expectation (18),

memory (19),

unconsciousness (19),

distinguishing memory from recollection (20),

the moving principle in every living being having their origin in the soul (21),

false expectations (22),

precision in terms (23),

actual memory and perception (24),

the soul as a book (25),

images as extensions from the soul (25),

attribution (26),

simultaneous juxtaposition (27),

comparative importance and intensity (28),

interval of time in memory (28),

mixture of the external and the internal in composites (32),

the principle of division (34),

pure kinds (37),

the relation of instruments to their genesis (39),

empiricism (40),

accuracy and truth (41).

This is how the argument develops:

That one should be many or many one, are wonderful propositions; and he who affirms either is very open to attack. (3)

The infinity of kinds and the infinity of individuals which there is in each of them, when not classified, creates in every one of us a state of infinite ignorance. (6)

Divide pleasure and knowledge according to their kinds. (7)

At each creation of more or less, quantity disappears. For, as I was just now saying, if quantity and measure did not disappear, but were allowed to intrude in the sphere of more and less and the other comparatives, these last would be driven out of their own domain. (11)

Socrates refers to Greek physics to sort out the elements (many) of the world (one).

We see that the elements which enter into the nature of the bodies of all animals, fire, water, air, and as the storm-tossed sailor cries, "land" [i.e., earth], reappear in the constitution of the world. (15)

Then the soul is referred to as an entity that creates things (pleasures and pains) that are not real.

Let us next assume that in the soul herself there is an antecedent hope of pleasure which is sweet and refreshing, and an expectation of pain, fearful and anxious. (18)

The other class of pleasures, which as we were saying is purely mental, is entirely derived from memory. (19)

Now reality and perception are considered to be composites:

That is such cases pleasure and pains come simultaneously; and there is a juxtaposition of the opposite sensations which correspond to them. (27)

There are some mixtures which are of the body, and only in the body, and others which are of the soul, and only in the soul; while there are other mixtures of pleasures with pains, common both to soul and body, which in their composite state are called sometimes pleasures and sometimes pains. (32)

Next, pureness is introduced to sort out what are "kinds":

And now, having fairly separated the pure pleasures and those which may be rightly termed impure… (37)

Let us investigate all the pure kinds. (37)

Relatives (multiple) and absolutes (one's) are discerned:

Some things are for the sake of something else (relatives), and other things are the ends to which the former class subserve (absolutes). (38)

The next idea is one of an ancient analysis of variance:

Clearly the science which has to do with all that knowledge of which we are now speaking; for I am sure that all men who have a grain of intelligence will admit that the knowledge which has to do with being and reality, and sameness and unchangeableness, is by far the truest of all. (42)

Finally everything is turned around and the composites and mixture of reality and idea should be sought after:

And now reason intimates to us, as at our first beginning, that we should seek the good, not in the unmixed life but in the mixed. (45)

The most perfect mixture is next on the menu:

There would be great want of sense in any one who desires to see a fair and perfect mixture, and to find in it what is the highest good in man and in the universe, and to divine what is the true form of good - there would be great want of sense in his allowing the pleasures, which are always in the company of folly and vice, to mingle with mind in the cup. (47)

Finally, the perfect mixture is supposed to be found by three parts of the Good:

Then, if we are not able to hunt the good with one idea only with three we may catch our prey; Beauty, Symmetry, Truth are the three, and these taken together we may regard as the single cause of the mixture, and the mixture as being good by reason of the infusion of them.

Many of these ideas about knowledge and its acquisition by man have been used by Bergson. In particular he picked up the idea of the One and the Multiple, but also the movement of differentiation into "kinds".

Ron, I think for the sake of learning and being introduced to Plato it may be easier if we are not referenced Bergson. It is just throwing on another layer of thought that was developed long after Plato and Socrates. Could we pretend to be English school children reading Plato and gleaning our own understanding before we learn Bergson's understanding of similar thought?

As we post our insights it would be grand to share with us your knowledge of how Bergson inturpreted our discovered thought but, I do feel ovewrwhelmed just now since, I do not share your philosophy background and I am hearing others share their feelings of being overwhelmed as well. Gold is great but, we are the silver haired of society and this forum allows us the wonderful opportunity to learn, without embarrassment, ideas many learn as school children. We in Seniornet books are in the habit of learning by sharing our silver thoughts.

You are in the unique postion of having studied not only philosophy but Bergson and easily see the connections. I am afraid rather than exchanging ideas with many comtemporaries of thought in this forum you may have to become a patient observing teacher. We are lucky to have you and I hope you understand we would like to come to our insights through our reading rather then through the study of another philosopher. I hope you continue to share Bergson's thoughts with us but, I am hoping we can read and post, referencing directly Plato's Philebus.

Consider me another student who is only in the First Grade. Please speak slowly and explain each term.

Robby

Ok, I dare you. Let's start with what (anything!) you picked up so far that you find yourself wondering about. Try to summarize just that. Then ask yourself - and next the rest of us: what is the main question you have right now that needs an answer?!

Of course, you can and should try and answer it yourself, but then we can all jump in and see if that brings us further.

I suspect that defining your question (one at a time) properly - so that it could actually be 'tested' in reality or in other people's minds - is the essence of philosophy, like it is in science, and perhaps even in life.

Ron: I just entered here and haven't yet followed the thread so I don't have a question. But I consider myself a thinking person so I will have a question from time to time.

Robby

Ok - Great - I do need to get back to reading the Philebus again before I can post.

Here is a method to help you make your 'tacit' question explicit:

make a shortlist of any philosophical issues that interest you (the more they interest you, the better);

make another shortlist of any (quasi) philosophical views you may have, to look at these issues and make some sense out of them;
For example: I am interested in memory, perception, the soul, attribution, juxtaposition, meaning and time-intervals. Philosophical views I use are: the views of Plato, Bergson and my teacher.

Now:

create a table with the philosophical views on the horizontal axis and the philosophical issues on the vertical axis;

in each cell of the table, assign the issue on the horizontal axis to one or more views in which you suspect it is used or in which it may play a role of any significance. Otherwise, leave the cell open. If you are incorrect, then that doesn't matter.
For example: I assign memory to Plato and Bergson, but not to my teacher; I assign perception to all three; I assign the soul to Plato alone…etc.

Now:

create another table for the first view only, with the philosophical issues on both the x and the y axis. Diagonally the cells have the same reference so they are cancelled out. Also, the issues that were not assigned to this first view are cancelled out on both the x-axis and the y-axis.

for each cell that is now open: ask yourself how the issue on the x-axis may be related to the issue on the y-axis, in this view. If you don't see a relation, after wondering about it, just skip it.
For example: I assigned to Plato's philosophical view both memory and the soul. Now I wonder how the two may be related. I look it up or think about it and see that according to Plato's view the soul reincarnated, assuming a collective memory carrying on over generations.

Hope this helps. Have a nice weekend!

I suggest we start discussing The Creative Mind a bit later than planned, on June 10th. In doing so, we need not disturb any ongoing discussion here at Plato's but use a new and dedicated thread nextdoor.

Ron: I am hanging in here but may not stay long. I'll be frank with you. It's more like an advaced graduate class in Philsophy. You ask that we make tables, and then cells in tables, etc. etc. If I was taking a course for credit (or even just for interest) and had the time to do homework, I might get in deeper. I thought this was a group where, in a much lighter vein, we talked about Plato's philosophy and its relation to our lives.

Robby

Robert, thanks for your respons. You can absolutely forget about anything I say, when it does not suit you in pursuing your own goals in here. Naturally I do not mean to cause any confusion but only help clarify things. Say whatever you would like to and we go on from there!!

Regards, Ron.

I did not mean to spoil the fun!! Or has this thread simply ended?

Ron: Maybe there are others who think as I do.

Robby

Robby - I agree with you entirely. I am interested in philosophy for the deep thinking it promotes and for the priviledge of picking other people's brains.

I like the idea that we just read and when we have a point we wish to be discussed we ask for it.

Ron: In all due respect (at least from my point of view), you are like a tenured university professor talking to pupils in the 6th grade. For me to continue, I would need the following:
1) Simple words. If the words are technical, explain them.
2) Short paragraphs and no more than three paragraphs.
3) Use of analogies so I can relate the philosophy to my own life.
4) No reference to any text books.

If I am in the wrong place and others would prefer the discussions to be more technical, so be it. Like Cathy, I would like some "deep thinking" and the "privilege of picking other people's brain."

Robby

Cathy and Robby, when it comes to Plato, I know nothing more than you do. I think it is interesting how Plato (in the words of Socrates) climbs from the practical things of their time to the highly abstract ideas in an argumentative way. These ideas, like goodness and beauty, apply to all times. What do you make of that?

I would prefer not to be "highly" abstract.

Robby

Robert, do you agree that Beauty and Goodness are general and therefore abstract ideas? Or are these 'things' not in your vocabulary; in short, how do you avoid them?

Ron: I have to leave for work now but will pick this up at a later time.

Robby

I hope you folks don't end the stream right here and now -- I have been "wading through" Philebus in (very) small chunks so I can get in on the discussion. Since I haven't finished it yet, I can't really join the discussion as a "voting member", but my preference would be for the non-technical approach also. The only Plato I have read in the last thirty years has been the Apology, which I think is terrific -- perhaps because it is so straightforward and easy to understand.

I suppose Plato would advise me to finish reading Philebus for its own sake and not for the discussion. Guess I will, but having the opportunity to see what others make of it would be a plus...

Cathy, Shasta, Floyd, when you are still interested, the discussion of The Creative Mind has started http://www.seniornet.org:8080/cgi-bin/WebX?13@@.ee7d1a2/4">here .