Posted on 03/21/2003 8:50:08 AM PST by Hank Kerchief
A long time ago, one of my very young sons was attempting to dissuade some of his friends from launching some stupid project bound to end in disaster. Try as he might, with his limited reasoning and persuasive power, he was unable to convince any of them of their folly. Finally, in exasperation, he threw up his hands and declared, "I'm surrounded by idiots!"
I am convinced this is the true picture of the world, a world so absurd, if it is not populated by idiots, than it is populated by the insane. I am convinced of this both because even a cursory examination of history demonstrates it and because no one seems to notice.
War and Madness
Consider the historians, especially those historians who delight in studying the history of war and the military. These are very serious folk who will spare no effort to prove it to you. They can tell you every detail of the strategy used in every battle in history, they can tell you the names of all the generals, they can tell you with precision the logistical problems they had to solve, and how they did or did not solve them, and if you are not careful, they will tell you.1
|
What they will not tell you is what war really is. It is two gangs of people engaged in killing each other and destroying each other's property. It is always a huge enterprise demanding more resources, time, and energy than any other human endeavor, and its results are always negative. The effectiveness of war is measured by the number of dead and the extent to which those who remain have been impoverished. There is nothing positive to measure.
Death and destruction is the only purpose of war. Yet war is studied, contemplated, planned for, enjoyed in retrospect, by most, and in anticipation, by many. Millions proudly join military forces and are praised by millions more for their bravery and honor.
Someone is bound to ask, so we must answer. No, this is not pacifism.2 This is not about defending oneself against aggression, it is about why there is any aggression in the first place. Why do some people, or any people, choose killing hundreds, or thousands, or millions of other human beings as a means to or solution for anything?
War is never an accident. Wars have to be prepared for. Nations spend as much of their resources as they possibly can on arms and materials which have no other purpose or use except killing people and destroying property. Any child understands if those same resources were kept by the people they are confiscated from, (and they are always confiscated), the prosperity of those people would be many times what it is, yet every nation would rather impoverish its own people than suspend war preparation.
"Ah, you do not understand the reality of this world. Every nation must arm itself to protect itself against other armed nations," we are scolded.
Exactly! We live in a world where everyone is convinced they must arm themselves to the teeth because everyone else arms themselves to the teeth, and will eagerly use those arms to kill anyone who is not armed to the teeth. No doubt, this is true, and proof that the world is populated by madmen. From nations to individuals, we must be armed and ready to defend ourselves and our nations at all times. The reason for this, however, is certainly not because reason and sanity prevail.
War, properly called organized wholesale murder, is not a direct result of human nature, or a requirement of it. Those who have managed to live their lives with no direct involvement in war, live very successsful, satisfying, and usually, long lives. While war is forced on some by others, war is not forced on humanity as a necessity of their nature or existence. War is by choice, at least by those who initiate it, and always a wrong choice, and always a disastrous one. It is a collective choice made by all those who engage in it. Nothing but mass insanity can explain how the collective choice of so many can result, over and over, throughout all of history, in this vicious destruction, violence, and bloodshed.
Insanity Prevails
If history does not convince you we are, "surrounded by idiots," just look around you. Does the idea of flying a plane into a skyscraper full of people, knowing it will kill you, the passengers in the plane and the people in the skyscraper sound like a good, sound, rational, choice? Could anyone but an insane person make such a choice? What if four made such a choice? What if twenty should make such a choice?
Do you say it is only twenty and what is twenty out of billions of people? (I know only 19 showed up.) Well, I know they were idiots, and maybe you do, but everyone else is asking, "why did they do it?" as though there were some logical reason to be discovered for the behavior of the insane. In case you have not noticed it, there are thousands of candidates eagerly waiting for their opportunity to demonstrate their own brand of this insanity, and many do, every day, strapping explosives to their bodies to blow themselves, and as many others as they can, to kingdom come.
Stupid? Well sure, but even more stupid are all the pseudo-intellectual pundits and academic types pushing and shoving each other to prove they are the experts that can explain it all. But, what's to explain? They're crazy, and if these experts think there is anything more to explain, they're crazy too!
When men knew very little, before the discoveries of science and medicine, many of the practices of mankind could be attributed to ignorance. But mankind is not ignorant any longer. If sanity prevailed, we would expect knowledge to lead to sane behavior. The opposite is true. Having discovered how to eradicate such terrible diseases as smallpox with vaccines, what does mankind do with this knowledge? They develop "weaponized" versions of these diseases in order to inflict them on as many people as possible. Having discovered how to produce clean and inexpensive power by the manipulation of atoms, what does mankind do with this knowledge? They develop the most powerful, destructive, and deadly bombs history has ever known, and they produce enough of them to destroy all life and everything of value that mankind has ever created, not once, but many times over.
We are not only surrounded by idiots, but very deadly ones. How can this be? What is nature of the disease that has driven the world mad?
Food and Philosophy
In her book, Philosophy, Who Needs It? Ayn Rand makes the point that everyone needs philosophy. Most people, however, have little or no interest in philosophy. They regard philosophy as something for academic types to waste their time on, something impractical and more than a little absurd. To a very great extent, this attitude has been fostered by philosophers and intellectuals, to their shame, and most of what goes by the name philosophy is impossible to read, mostly nonsense, and generally useless.
If those who are in the business of supplying us with food did as poor a job as those who are in the business of supplying us philosophy, food poisoning and famine would prevail.
But, those in the food providing business have been a complete success. Where science and technology prevail, food poisoning and famine are rare, but being healthy and well fed does not guarantee sanity. The irony is, the biggest wars in history have been carried out by the very nations with the greatest scientific and technological achievements. If you have ever wondered about the cause of this apparent paradox, it is because there is another famine in the world, a famine of knowledge, a special kind of knowledge, called philosophy, and what little philosophy the world has been fed is mostly toxic.
Knowledge, for humans, is as much a requirement of life as food. We share the requirement for food with many creatures; it is a physiological necessity. Our requirement for knowledge, however, is unique; it is a psychological necessity.
The requirements of life for every creature are determined by its nature. It is the cow's nature that requires her to eat grass and the fox's nature that requires him to eat meat. These requirements are biological. The aspect of human nature that requires knowledge is the unique human consciousness, the rational-volitional mind, that is, the necessity and ability to consciously think and choose.
The Nature of Choice
It is the rational-volitional nature of man that requires everything we do as human beings to be done by conscious choice. Even to do nothing requires a choice.3
Knowledge, the Fuel of Choice
What is it we actually do when we make a choice? If we examine the process of choosing we discover the following:
We must have knowledge. There are three things we must know before we can make a choice. Obviously, the first thing we must know is what choices are available. What can we do? We also need to know what the consequences of a chosen action or inaction might be. What happens if I do or don't do this? We also need to know what consequences are preferable. What should I do?
We must reason or think. The process of choosing, itself, is thinking, or reasoning. We identify the possible choices, consider the possible consequences of each, and evaluate those consequences according to some criteria by which we judge which consequences are preferable.
We must act. A choice is made when one of the possible choices is acted on. The action may be an overt physical one or only a mental ascent to something. Until we act, however, a choice has not been made.
So choosing is an action arrived at through a process of reason. Since reasoning itself is something we do, and everything human beings do is done by choice, the reasoning process itself is a matter of choice. To think, we must choose to think and each step in the process of thinking must be made by choice, and the direction our thinking will take, must be made by choice. It is because to choose we must think (reason), and to reason we must choose (volition) our natures are properly called rational-volitional. Reason and volition, thinking and choice, are interdependent functions of human consciousness and neither is possible without the other.
Notice, the one essential thing in this process of choosing is knowledge. Just a our bodies need the nutrients provided by our food as fuel for carrying out our biological processes, our minds need knowledge as the fuel by which it carries out the psychological processes of thinking and choosing. Without knowledge, there would be nothing to think about and nothing to think with and no means of making any choices at all.
Mental Food or Mental Poison
Just as ignorance about the difference between food and poison can harm our bodies, ignorance about the difference between correct and incorrect ideas (concepts) can harm our minds. If we want to be sure we are not poisoning our bodies we need knowledge about the nature of substances (chemistry) and our bodies (biology). Chemistry and biology are branches of science. If we want to be sure we are not poisoning our minds we need knowledge about how to think correctly (logic) and what knowledge is (epistemology). Logic and epistemology are branches of philosophy.
To make choices about living in this world, we need knowledge about the world, the nature of the objects and events that comprise it and the relationships between them; we need to know how things work, what is good for us and what is bad, and how to learn more about them.
To make choices about thinking we need knowledge about the nature of our consciousness, the mental constituents of our minds and the relationships between them, we need to know how they work, what is good for our minds and what is bad, and how to learn more about them.
We need to understand the relationship of our consciousness, that is our minds, to that which we are conscious of, that is, the material world. Taken in the broadest sense, the subjects that teach us about the world and its nature are history and the sciences. The subject that teaches us about the mind, its nature, and its relationship to the world is philosophy.
Philosophy is to all other knowledge what the essential vitamins, minerals, and proteins are to food. To make use of food, one's diet must include these essential ingredients, without which, no matter how much food one consumes, the body will not be able use the nutrients correctly. To make use of knowledge, one's understanding must include those essential philosophical concepts without which, no matter how much "knowledge" one has, the mind will not be able to use that "knowledge" to reason and understand correctly.
Philosophy is the most important of all knowledge. It is the knowledge required to make correct use of all other knowledge, and without which, all knowledge becomes a meaningless collection of trivia, without relationship or meaning.
We must ask, then, if there is a famine of philosophy in the world, if most people do not have philosophy, how is it they survive?
Philosophically Malnourished
In our day and in our country, very few people suffer any of the diseases that were common everywhere before the nature of the essential vitamins and other nutrients were well understood. Where this ignorance, or the means of acquiring these nutrients, still exists today, people continue to suffer such diseases as rickets and scurvy.6
People can survive without being well nourished and deprived of vitamins and minerals. If they are so deprived, however, they are not healthy, they have physical problems, they do not develop properly, are not be able to function well, and have limited life expectancy.
People deprived of philosophy suffer in a similar way. They are not (mentally) healthy, they have psychological problems, they do not develop emotionally, they cannot function socially, and have limited successs in life. Just as those who are undernourished can survive, because their poor diets contains some vitamins, minerals and essential proteins, those without any explicit philosophy have some kind of philosophy implied by every choice they make, but it is not an explicit philosophy, it is one by default.
Except for those few people who have intentionally pursued an explicit philosophy, the "philosophy" implicitly embraced by most people consists of a random collection of slogans, aphorism, syrupy platitudes, vague impression and disconnected ideas "picked up," along the way from parents, peers, teachers, their society or culture, and the media.
Just as all food is important, but vitamins are essential, all knowledge is useful, but philosophy is essential because everything one does is ultimately determined by the philosophical concepts they have embraced. If those concepts are wrong, every choice one makes and all that one lives for will be doomed to failure and disappointment; one's purpose in life, all one's relationships, and all one's aspirations are certain to be flawed. It seems incredible that people so careful about their diet, knowing what they eat or fail to eat determines the health of their bodies, will nevertheless uncritically embrace any random concept, perverse irrationality, or crackpot idea and expect their minds to remain healthy.
To be certain one is eating properly, one must learn what food is good, and how to ensure they are getting the essential vitamins, minerals, and proteins they need. To be certain one is feeding their minds with those philosophical concepts necessary to think and choose correctly, one must learn what those essential concepts are. They must discover what philosophy is, and how to acquire (learn) it.
Philosophy Defined
What is philosophy, anyway? There are formal definitions of philosophy such as this one: A formal definition of philosophy, from the online version of The Oxford Companion to Philosophy from Oxford University Press, or this brief definition, form A Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names, which we quote:
These definitions, while accurate enough, are not very useful to those unfamiliar with philosophy as a formal discipline. To fully understand the nature of philosophy it is necessary to understand something of these philosophical categories, but we can get a general idea of what philosophy is, and how it is different form other kinds of knowledge, in a less formal way.
All of our choices are ultimately determine by philosophical concepts, even when one is unaware of holding any specific philosophical concepts. Many of the choices we make do not seem very philosophical in nature. It is not obvious how philosophy is involved in our decisions about what to have for breakfast or what to wear to work or whether we should mow the lawn or put it off until tomorrow so we can watch the big game on TV.
Other choices we make obviously require philosophical principles. The young man trying to decide whether he should join the service or continue his education when his country is at war is making a choice which involves both ethics ("What is morally right for me to do?") and politics ("Does my country's government's action place obligations on me, do I have to support my government even if what it does is wrong, and how do I know if what my government does is right or wrong?").
Even such mundane choices as what to eat imply philosophical principles, however. The fact that we make such choices assumes we know what is good to eat. It assumes therefore, that we have knowledge. It assumes we have answered the question of epistemology, "what is knowledge and how do we acquire it?"
These answers are assumed, because, most people never do have an answers to such questions. They simply avoid them. Their entire epistemology amounts to, "everyone knows we have knowledge but no one can know anything for certain." Such a view might not interfere with one's breakfast decisions, but in all important decisions of ones life, this vague view of knowledge is disastrous.
Every choice, then, no matter how mundane it seems, is a philosophical one. Even when deciding what to wear or what to read, one's implicit philosophy will determine one's taste (aesthetics) and sense of propriety (ethics) in their choice of clothing as well as one's view of reality (metaphysics), and purpose, (ethics) and therefore the kind of literature they will enjoy.
The Structure of Philosophy
Like all knowledge, the discipline of philosophy is structured on the basis of its content and the logical relationships between the elements of that content. The following outline illustrates the hierarchical structure of philosophy.
Philosophy is about all that we can be conscious of and nothing more, and all that we can be conscious of is what we mean by reality. It is the nature of that reality, in an ultimate sense, that philosophy idnetifies. Much of the trouble that philosophers get into is the result of forgetting that however remote our abstractions become, however far our logical progressions are removed from the observable, they must all finally be about the observable or they are about nothing at all.
What we are conscious of includes not only the material world we perceive with our senses, that is, objects, like rocks, rivers, trees, animals, people, and the things they make like buildings, roads, and bridges, as well as substances, like water, air, and gold, but also our own internal feelings and perceptions, our thoughts, our pleasures and our pains.
Metaphysics
Metaphysics describes the ultimate nature of existence. It begins with the meaning of reality and proceeds to define what constitutes reality and makes it possible to identify what is real and what is not. There are two subcategories to Metaphysics, Ontology and Viology.
Ontology
Ontology describes the ultimate nature of material existence. It is a subcategory of Metaphysics because reality includes not only material existence, but our consciousness of it, our imagination, created fictions, the past, the future, and many other things in addition to matter itself.
Ontology does not attempt to describe the nature of material existence in the scientific sense, that is the business of science, after all. It defines the essential nature of material existence in terms of what is and is not possible to science, and how science must correctly understand the nature of material existence, and most importantly, the nature of material existence that makes it possible for us to be conscious of it, and how it relates to our conscious perception of it.
Viology
Viology describes the ultimate nature of life as a quality of living organisms and identifies that which differentiates living organisms from all other entities. It defines the essential nature of consciousness, including sentience, and perception.
This aspect of philosophy is generally overlooked as a discipline and the principles it defines are simply assumed, often incorrectly, thus leading some higher branches of philosophy, such as ethics, astray. Without a clear understanding of what life is, how it differentiates an organism from a non-living entity, and how the behavior of an organism is fundamentally different from the behavior of all non-living phenomena, no other aspect of philosophy dealing with living things can be fully comprehended.
Epistemology
Epistemology answers the questions, "what is knowledge and how do we acquire it?" This is the most important branch of philosophy, and is actually the heart of it. Epistemology provides the principles by which all knowledge, including all philosophical knowledge is integrated.
Epistemology defines the nature of concepts, the product of the conceptual level of human rational-volitional consciousness, and that of which all knowledge consists. It describes the relationships between that we are directly conscious perceive and the process by which that perceived reality is identified by means of concepts.
Epistemology delineates the role of language, the purpose of definitions, and the relationship between words and concepts. It also defines the principles by which conceptual knowledge is integrated into a non-contradictory hierarchy providing a comprehensive view of reality.
Epistemology has two subcategories, Philosophical Psychology and Logic.
Philosophical Psychology
Philosophical Psychology describes the rational/volitional nature of human consciousness, and identifies the elements of human consciousness and their function. It provides the principles by which human nature, as unique and distinct from all other animal life, can be understood, and what the essential requirements of that nature are.
Philosophical Psychology deals with all aspects of the human mind (consciousness), including perception, both of the external world and introspective one (subjective experience), as well as cognition (knowledge and comprehension), rationality (reason or thinking), volition (choosing or decision making), memory, imagination, habituation, and emotions. It discovers and describes the relationships and interactions between all these aspects of human consciousness.
Logic
Logic describes the nature of reasoning process, identifies its proper function, and formalizes the principles of correct reason.
Ethics
Ethics defines the values appropriate to rational/volitional beings (as described by epistemology) living in the real world (as described by metaphysics). It describes the principles by which moral beings must determine their chosen behavior to live successsfully.
It builds especially on the principles of epistemology and the nature of human beings, defining the details of their nature (cognitive/creative intellect) and the principles of behavior appropriate to beings with that nature.
Ethics is the science of values. It defines the principles of what is good and what is bad for individuals and describes how those principles must be applied to actual choices in both thought and action in determining one's behavior.
Ethics is the zenith of philosophy, the ultimate purpose toward which all philosophical enquiry is aimed, to define the purpose of human life and to discover what makes life worth living. It shows why the purpose of each individual's life is their enjoyment of it.
Aesthetics
Aesthetics defines the nature of beauty, its meaning and purpose, and how that knowledge must be applied in the creative process and in the arts. Aesthetics also defines the relationship of aesthetic values to reality (metaphysics), knowledge (epistemology) and moral values (ethics), particularly as it relates to and is required for human happiness.
Politics7
Politics defines the proper moral relationship between rational-volitional beings and is the application of ethics in a social context. It describes the principles individuals must apply when choosing what to do when dealing with others.
Politics defines as an ideal, what a truly benevolent and moral society is, to what extent an individual can and ought to contribute to the realization of such a society, and how a moral individual relates to a society that is not ideal, that is, not moral and not benevolent.
But This Is So Hard
Philosophy, as this briefest of overviews shows, is not an easy discipline. It is one of the most difficult, because it is the very foundation on which all other knowledge depends, and because it is very broad in scope. It requires integrating (identifying and understanding the relationship between) many very diverse concepts. This is quite naturally very discouraging to many. But philosophy is vital to every individual's successs, and, as difficult as it is, there is hardly anything else more worthy of one's effort. Everything of value takes time, attention, and work to acquire, and philosophy is the most valuable of all knowledge. All of one's successs and happiness depend on it.
Must everyone, then, become a philosopher? Is successs only available to those who become doctors of philosophy? Fortunately, no.
Consider another difficult but undeniably valuable discipline, mathematics. Some aspects of mathematics are so difficult that only the very best minds ruthlessly applied are able to master them. The fact that most people are not able to ascend to these realms of the mathematically sublime does not prevent any of us from learning all of the mathematics necessary to meet our own needs. The very highest levels of mathematics are required by almost no one, and even more mundane but difficult math, such as the calculus or algebra, (for example, simultaneous linear equations or quadratics) will never be required by most of us.8
In the same way that anyone can learn enough mathematics to meet the requirements they are likely to meet in their own day-to-day lives, whether that is nothing more than simple multiplication and long division, or even the rudiments of algebra, anyone can learn enough of the basic principles of philosophy to know how to think clearly, make rational choices in their daily lives, and develop a sound comprehensive view of the world and their place in it.
It is not easy, but does not require a college degree to learn the basic principles of philosophy, and no one should ever stop with that. For most of us, the study of philosophy is a lifelong endeavor, as is all learning. We will constantly face new situations, unexpected issues will arise, and our interests will change throughout our lives. All these are opportunities to learn more and further develop our philosophical understanding.
Where Does One Find Philosophy
If we were looking for mathematics resources, there would be an almost inexhaustible supply. There are countless books, self-taught courses, online courses, and most colleges and universities, including local community colleges, offer courses in every possible field of mathematics.
Unfortunately, while there are many books on philosophy, as well as many philosophy courses, they are not books on or courses in philosophy at all. Almost everything taught as philosophy is not philosophy, but overviews of the history of philosophy, or rehashes of some philosophers' "philosophies,"9 or descriptions and discussions of philosophical problems. For genuine sources of philosophy with real philosophical answers and explanations, there is very little such material at all. For the most part, philosophy is a failed academic discipline.
Nevertheless, there is philosophy. While the gardens of philosophy are not and may never be as lush as the gardens of mathematics, the world is not quite a "philosophiless" waste land. Although most of the philosophers throughout history have done more to obfuscate philosophical truth than to elucidate it, there have been a few positive contributions along the way. The first philosopher to make a substantial positive contribution to philosophy was Aristotle (384-322 BC).
For most, reading Aristotle is a chore, making it difficult to appreciate and learn directly from his works. Most books about Aristotle are not much more useful for actually learning about his most important philosophical contributions. Without a fairly good understanding of philosophy, the importance of his contributions might not be appreciated, in any case. Aristotle is both good and important to read, but not at the beginning of one's journey in search of philosophical truth.
After Aristotle, it would be 1300 years before the next major positive contribution to philosophy by John Locke (1632-1704). Locke is much easier to read and enjoy than Aristotle, in spite of the somewhat archaic English, and is very easy to understand, the hallmark of an exceptional intellect. (Most philosophers are incomprehensible and unreadable, the hallmark of confused intellects.) One should definitely read John Locke, but again, only after some basic philosophy is understood.
The next major positive contribution to philosophy, nearly 200 years later, was made not by a philosopher, but by a novelist, Ayn Rand (1905-1982).
Ayn Rand never intended to be a philosopher. She was a novelist and chose to write books with the kind of characters that embodied the ideals that were realized by the American phenomenon. A Russian immigrant, she saw, maybe more clearly than any other, what America was, the place where the human spirit was free to express itself, which it did in creating the most free, prosperous, successsful, and noble people in history, eradicating diseases, famine, poverty, slavery, and ignorance in the space of 150 years.
But, when Ayn Rand sought the explicit philosophy behind this human miracle, she discovered there was no specific philosophy. Before her eyes, and ours, was evidence of what a correct philosophy was capable of, but the explicit philosophy which that noble experiment proved did not exist. Ayn Rand knew, if she were going to write about people who embodied that kind of philosophy, she would have to make it explicit herself, and she did.
Of all the philosophers, she is the most readable. She was a successsful novelist, after all. Some of her best philosophy is actually contained in her novels, by demonstration in the actions of her characters and in the events which comprise the plots of her stories, but explicitly in the speeches of such characters as Howard Roark, Hank Reardon, Francisco D'Anconia, and John Galt.
Ayn Rand called the philosophy she made explicit, Objectivism. She chose that name because objective reason is the only means by which truth can be discovered and understood in any field, and because subjectivism, which Objectivism rejects, in all its forms, from simple emotionalism to full-blown mysticism, is the enemy of all reason and truth. While Objectivism is certainly the greatest advance in philosophy since Locke, it is nevertheless philosophy as understood by one person, and therefore contains both conclusions which advance the body of established philosophy, as well as elements that are either incomplete or mistaken. Even with its mistakes, however, Objectivism is the most nearly complete and correct philosophy in existence today.
Objectivism is the place to begin the study of philosophy. The following are the works that are probably the best place to begin:
Philosophy: Who Needs It
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology(2nd Ed)
The Virtue of Selfishness
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
The Romantic Manifesto
Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand Based on the Ayn Rand approved courses on Objectivism given by Leonard Peikoff, and written by him, this book provides the most comprehensive view of Ayn Rand's philosophy.
We must not equate Objectivism with philosophy. It is undoubtedly the best single source of philosophy available, but it does contain errors and is incomplete. It is a place to begin, and provides a good base for a continued search for philosophical truth.
That search is the responsibility of every individual. The following are some online links to further sources one can investigate.
USABIG - Philosophy
USABIG - Ayn Rand/Objectivism
Things to Think About
Do you know what reality, truth, reason, knowledge, and values are? You use those terms all the time. What about, freedom, crime, politics, and society? Here are a couple of links from the Autonomist that will give you some things to think about:
Introduction to Autonomy A brief overview of autonomy with explicit objective definitions of reality, truth, reason, knowledge, values, and individualism.
The Autonomist's Notebook A semi-satirical collection of aphorisms, epigrams, and comments on politics, philosophy, and religion which will definitely give you something to think about.
Footnotes
1. With apologies to all historians of war and military who provide us with genuine knowledge and insights into this terrible fact of human history, such as the works of R. J. Rummel, for example: Death by Government available here.
The moment the barbarian and uncivilized know you do not intend to defend yourself against them, they will attack with all the ferocity of which they are capable. And here is the greatest absurdity of war. As a compromise with those who believe the way to combat evil is to do nothing, men have made "rules" by which they will fight wars. These "rules" are intended to make war, "humane."
The barbarians and uncivilized are never constrained by such rules. They have no interest in being, "humane." The rules only serve as limits on those who are defending themselves, and the absudity of this is, since they are fighting those who have declared by their aggression, they are not interested in human values and deserve nothing but the most inhumane and vicious defense possible, any "rules" that limit the defenders must work in favor of the aggressors and inhumanity.
There is another kind of behavior that is more or less involuntary, and that is learned and habituated behavior. When we sit in a chair, for example, or drive an automobile, we don't have to think about every motion we make to accomplish it, because we have learned, by practice, how to do it without thinking about it. But even habituated actions are under our conscious control whenever we choose to control them.
scurvy - A disease caused by deficiency of vitamin C, characterized by spongy and bleeding gums, bleeding under the skin, and extreme weakness.
from: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
7. Politics is generally considered much more important in philosophy than is warranted. In one sense, politics would be irrelevant if all individual humans were fully rational and truly ethical. Politics generally attempts to define an appropriate political system, called a government, and is therefore concerned with concepts like law, social justice, and political economy. Governments exist solely because societies are comprised mostly of individuals who are not fully rational or truly ethical, and all governments are ultimately controlled by those same kinds of people. This is generally ignored by all so-called theories of government. No government exists or can exist by virtue the objective application of ethical principles. Governments exist because they are the inevitable consequence of the irrationality of most individuals. The purpose of philosophical politics then, is to understand the nature of governments, as a fact of reality, and how to deal with them. The false idea in philosophy of an "ideal government," is akin to the idea of an "ideal crime". The ultimate idea of a government is to get something for nothing, or at least at a price far less than reality demands.
8. Everyone ought to learn as much mathematics as they possibly can, even if they suspect they will, "not really need it." Mathematics is wonderfully logical, and contains some of the most interesting logical relationships. Anyone who understands the essential principles of the Calculus, for example, has an understanding of the physical world not otherwise possible. There is also a direct relationship between integrals and derivatives to intellectual integration and abstraction, by analogy, a wonderful analogy that is meaningless to anyone who has not grasped the relationship between the Calculus and material phenomena. And how would you explain to someone who had never had analytic geometry what asymptotic means?
9. The very fact that there are different "philosophies," is evidence that there is not yet philosophy. There are no different, "mathematics," or "chemistries," only mathematics and chemistry. While different contributors to these fields are frequently mentioned together with those aspects of chemistry or mathematics which they contributed, the contributions are always advances in the body of those sciences already established. The various so called contributions of philosophers are never additions to an established body of philosophy, because they all cover the same ground and contradict each other. Their only contribution is to the body of confusion which now stands in the way of anyone truly seeking to understand philosophical truth.
One thing that is wrong with all courses in philosophy is the attempt to jump into the middle of the most difficult questions of philosophy. Just as in mathematics, it is necessary to learn basic principles first, it is the basic principles of philosophy, that must be learned first. Everyone who learns mathematics, must begin with the same fundamentals. One cannot learn the calculus and then work backwards to learn long division, or even backward from long division to addition and subtraction. First you must learn to count.
Also note that no more sophisticated form of mathematics ever invalidates the more basic principles of mathematics. In some cases, they may enhance or expand the concepts of mathematics, but these cases add richness and power to the method but never negate the validity of the more essential concepts. In fact, if any of the essential concepts were invalidated, the entire structure of mathematics would fail. Yet, in philosophy this is done all the time, and no one even notices.
---Reginald Firehammer
|
|||
It must have been interesting, anyway, two mystics arguing about whose mysticism, (the agnostic one or the theistic one) is the right one.
Russel's mysticism, it seems to me, consits of the reification of "language," which he more or less worships. Copleston's is a more traditional mysticism, but he does hold some awful Platonic views. For example this quote from the debate:
Why something rather than nothing, that is the question? This is not a question, it is a kind of insanity. Existense (something) cannot be contingent. If it were, it would be contigent on .... But if you name anything it is contingent on, it is something. There cannot be nothing. The question is stupid.
If I had been Russel I would have asked Mr. Copleston, "why does God exist?" If this is not a legitimate question about God, it is not a legitimate question about "existence," (which it is not). The concept of contingent existence is false, and once it is admitted non-contingent existence (of anything, including God) is possible, the concept is denied, and with it, Coplestons's major premise.
(Note: this is about existence, not existents, about which the question "why" is still not legitimate, however, the question, "how," is quite alright.)
I'm sure you will not agree with my opinion here, but it's differences of opinion that are worth discussing. Wouldn't it be rather dull and uninteresting if everyone agreed on everything.
[By the way, I have read Copleston, including his three volume A History of Philosophy which I found "big" but somewhat less than objective.]
Hank
Well it's obvious to me that some "a priori" knowledge exists in the form of instinct. Instinctual knowledge can be readily observed with lower animals.
Man may demonstrate less instinctual knowledge as well as ability than many other animals at birth. But he is a more complex creature, requiring more time to develop.
As far as knowledge of right and wrong, I suppose that the biggest factor making me believe in an innate conscience as opposed to taught values is scripture. Romans 2 (at end of post) clearly states this is the case.
Which of course raises the question, "Why do I believe in scripture?". For the moment, I will simply say that it is a combination of personal experience, logic, the purity of the goal of human conduct that scriptures promotes, and it's ability to change human behavior. I will try to give a more detailed explanation for that belief later.
And it's actually going to get more complicated than that as I believe the conscience is not only internal innate knowledge but at times includes external subconscious communications with God and angels. Such belief also being based in part on scripture.
While I believe that man is born with a knowledge of right and wrong, he is also born with a fallen nature which makes him somewhat rebellious. Thus all men will eventually test the boundaries and do what they know to be wrong.
The rebellious nature is inherited, but the decision to do wrong invariably deals with man's desires. The Garden of Eden being a good example, Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because she saw that the fruit was 1) good for food, 2) a delight to the eyes, 3) and would make her wise (more like God by having knowledge of good and evil).
Eve also had a desire to obey God and to not die. The former was overridden by the focus that she had on the benefits of the fruit as well as the serpent planting distrust of God. The latter was overridden by accepting the Serpent's lie that Eve would not die and again the distrust of God.
Had Eve been a logic expert she would have realized that having already corrected the Serpent once, the serpent's information was more likely to be faulty than's God's. But she didn't, and here we are. The moral of the story being "who do you trust?" and "given conflicting information who do you obey?"
All acts of man, whether good or evil are driven thus by man's desires. The values and beliefs that we hold are a subset of those desires. The study of philosophy and values develops a construct where one can rank order or otherwise develop a greater knowledge of those desires and develop value rules or morals. That study and reflection of one's desires allow the desires themselves to change.
Romans2:14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. Which of course is going to raise the question of why I believe in scripture.
First let me say, most of what you had to say was what I would call, "theological," in nature, and needs to be addressed, from my point of view, separately from philosophical issues. One of the historical problems with philosophy for me has been the unfortunate mixture of the theological and philosophical. I know the reasons for it, but that it was a mistake should have been identified long ago.
Philosophy must deal with what can be known about man and nature based only on what one can be directly conscious of, so must include in it's realm only what is directly perceived, that it, material existense, all internal conscious experience, and all that can be deduced from these.
With regard to philosophy, there is no basis for assuming innate or a priori ideas. All knowledge can be deduced from the observable, including all values.
With that as a premise, let me address quickly some of your statements as to whether I agree or disagree:
Well it's obvious to me that some "a priori" knowledge exists in the form of instinct.
I do not agree that human beings have any instinct. Instinct is a pre-programmed pattern of behavior that determines all a creatures behavior, in those that have it. It determines what a creature must do to survive and automatically causes the animal to do those things, like seeking the right food, right environment, and right shelter.
Human bings have no automatic patterns of behavior (a reflex is not an instinct). Everything a human being does must be done by conscious choice. Nothing that a human being must do to survive or enjoy his life is given. It all must be discovered and learned, from what he must eat and how to acquire it to how to make medicine that cures his diseases. The rational/volitional nature excludes the possibility of instinct.
Now we come to a theological part:
While I believe that man is born ... with a fallen nature...
You said that you believe the Bible, but the "fallen nature," "original sin," doctrine was invented by Augustine, (and has been pretty much swallowed by most theologians since. It is not a Scriptural teaching, even though several Scriptures are invoked in support of it.
...the decision to do wrong invariably deals with man's desires. That is correct, both philosophically and Scripturally. Jas 1:14-15 "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death" Here I quote an older post:
First, something about the word "lust." The word means "desire" and nothing more. It is the very same word used in Luke 22:15, "And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer, and could have rightly been translated, "... with lust I have lusted to eat this passover with you...."
With that understanding, we can see James is describing how all men are tempted. It begins with desire, not sinful or evil desire, but perfectly natural God-given desiress like the desire for food, or beauty, or comfort. Now these are the source of temptation, but not always, and even when they are, they are not sin.
The God-given natural desires for food, for beauty, and for knowledge Adam and Eve freely indulged and enjoyed in all the blessings of paradise, nevertheless those same desires became the source of temptation when their object was the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Was there anything evil about the desires? Of course not. Then how could indulging them be sin? Because indulging them required disobedience. The temptation consisted entirely of this, there was a desired object, there was the knowledge that the object was forbidden (and therefore it would be wrong to fulfill that desire), and they had the ability to choose. It was temptation because to not sin they had to choose what they knew was right against what they desired and wanted.
Back to you:
The rebellious nature is inherited...
If it is, Jesus inherited the same nature. You do not believe that, but examine the Scriptures. Jesus had exactly the same nature we have, or he was not a man.
Again I quote my old post:
Heb 2:10-18 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Consider:
"For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one..." All one what? Why, one nature, of course, as is explained.
"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." The same what? Why, the same flesh and blood with the same nature, because if it had a different nature, it would not be the same flesh and blood.
"he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. See, he's talking about nature here and plainly states that nature is the nature inherited from the SEED OF ABRAHAM. (Oh, yeah, almost forgot, you believe that seed is corrupt, I mean, sinfully. Can't be, else Jesus would not have inherited it.
"in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren." That's in ALL things, including their nature. Of course if it did not include their nature, He would only have made like his brethren in "some" things.
Rom. 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh
Phil. 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.
Here are two very interesting verses. They say Jesus was made "in the likeness of sinful flesh," and "in the likeness of men." Now you might want to get out of admitting the Bible teaches Jesus had the same kind of "sinful flesh" all other men have by claiming it says Jesus flesh was only "like" sinful flesh, but not really sinful flesh because is says "in the likeness of." If you do that, however, you are also going to have to say Jesus was only "like" a man, but not really a man because it says, "in the likeness of men." But of course you won't do that, because you know Jesus was a man and had exactly the same kind of nature all men have.
Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Finally we must examine this verse:
Rom. 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.
I usually refrain from saying this, because it is so painfully obvious, I am embarrased to have to point it out. But, I think it is needed here.
This passage is frequently used to show that man has a sinful nature based on the idea that death is the result of sin, and since death is the result of Adam's sin, and death has passed on to all men (we are mortal), than sin must have passed on to all men as well, in what is called the "sinful nature."
On the basis of this view, every human death is proof of the sinful nature that man was born with. (I have actually seen this statement made.) Now, the obvious and absolute refutation of this is the fact that JESUS DIED.
To die, Jesus, had to have the same kind of nature we have, that is, not sinful, but mortal.
I think that should give you something to chew on.
(This is only one aspect of the "sunful nature" heresy that is easy to refute from Scripture. All men have sinned, not because of something the inherited, but by choice, just like Adam and Eve.)
Hank
Then why wouldn't Philosophy include Theology? I maintain that my beliefs in scripture are the result of things that I have directly perceived, whether answered prayer, the sensation of God's presence, fulfilled prophecy, testimonies of those who witnessed miracles, etc. All are evidences in support of the existence of God and in the inspiration of scripture.
I will admit, however, that it being my experience is difficult to prove or reproduce for peer review. I once read Hans Kung's 750 page book on "Does God Exist?". Argument after argument was thrown out in God's favor, only to see him produce a counter argument. Not any that disproved the existence of God, but merely a competing theory or a logic flaw in the original argument. Kung's conclusion after 750 pages, was that you could not prove that God existed. Only God himself could prove to you that he existed.
And I think that is probably by design. There is an argument that says if God manifested Himself in all his glory, would you really have any choice but to worship Him? I do not know fully what motivates God to reveal Himself, obedience and seeking Him with an open heart, seem to be the keys. However, I think He tries to convict all of their need for Him. Jesus's comment that the man in Hell's brothers wouldn't believe even if the man came back from the dead, seems to indicate that everything that can be done has been done.
I think the evidences are there for one willing to see, but one must look at the totality of evidences with an open and unbiased mind. There is not a simple proof that allows me to say "look here is God", that will convince a sceptic.
Instinct is a pre-programmed pattern of behavior that determines all a creatures behavior,
If I understand your position correctly, you view all animals as having either instinct or reason but not both. I think that is a rather dogmatic view. Several animals, (chimps, dolphins, orangutans, dogs, etc.) have been shown to have some reasoning ability. And if instinctual animals possess some reason, might it be possible that reasoning animals might possess some instinct? I don't think I can prove that man has a conscience, but neither can you disprove it.
When I speak of the fallen nature of man, I do not mean "Original Sin" as in the Catholic doctrine.
The difference is that until a child reaches the age of accountability he is considered "innocent". God clearly said in the Old Testament that He would hold us each accountable for our own sin, not our father's.
But I do mean a tendancy toward sin. That tendancy is not something that we have to give into, otherwise we could not be held accountable for sin, but unfortunately we all have given in at one time or another.
Jesus was fully man, but he didn't inherit that rebellious nature. That is why the virgin birth was so important. Jesus was the son of Mary and had prostitutes and canaanites in his earthly ancestry. He was flesh and bone the same as every man, capable of being tempted, mortal. Yet, He was also the Son of God, inheriting the very spirit of God which would not sin.
Adam and Eve did not have a rebellious nature until they ate of the tree, but they did have free will from the beginning.
Luke1:35 And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.
Anyway, I will agree with you the important point is that we choose to sin, whether or not there is something fallen about our nature.
And perhaps the most important point of the whole post, is that Jesus's death did not indicate that Jesus had sinned. Rather, it was that our sin was imputed to Jesus. He was made sin for us. His death was substituted for ours.
I would be interested in your personal opinion about what major positive contribution to philosophy were made and by whom between Aristotle and Locke. It does not say no contributions, just no major contributions. I do not necessarily you to name anyone I would agree with, since I am asking for your personal opinion.
Personally, I think there were lot's of contributions, but I do not think any of them actually advanced the field of philosophy, and some of them were genuine retrogressions. That is my personal opinion, so naturally I do not consider those philosophers who taught what I disagree with to have made positive contributions.
Hank
Then why wouldn't Philosophy include Theology? I maintain that my beliefs in scripture are the result of things that I have directly perceived, whether answered prayer, the sensation of God's presence, fulfilled prophecy, testimonies of those who witnessed miracles, etc. All are evidences in support of the existence of God and in the inspiration of scripture.
My immediate answer would be that these are all evidence to you, because you already believe in God, prayer, and the validity of God's Word. For those who do not believe in any of these, the events you undrstand are an answers to prayer they would see as a perfectly natural events, which they would be (unless ithey were genuine miracles). As for the testimonies of those who witnessed miracles, they would be no more convinced by those than the testimony of those who have been abducted by UFOs. I admit that fulfilled prophecy ought to give even the most hardened skeptic pause, but, from their point of view, since both the prophecies and the fullfillments, for the most part, are recorded in the same Book, which they do not regard has having any more authority than any other book, the fullfillments are not very convincing.
Now this is just what we ought to expect, if the Scriptures are true. It plainly says, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor. 2:14) We should not expect the unregenerate to see evidence of God or the supernatural (eternal) in natural events.
(I will get back to one other point you alluded to about feeling God's presence in a moment.)
First, I want to make clear what I mean about my view on the separation of Philosophy and Theology. I regard philosophy a genuine intellectual discipline, like any of the sciences, or history. The subject matter of philosophy can be very well defined (as I believe the original article in this post accomplished), and the pursuit of genuine knowledge in all those areas must be purely objective, just as it must in the sciences.
Now this is the most important point I have to make. There can be no disagreement between a correct philosophy and a correct theology, just as there can be no disagreement between a correct chemistry and a correct theology, or a correct astronomy and a correct theology. There can be no dissagreements in truth, no contradictions, and no paradoxes.
Philosophy deals with the "natural" perceived world, Theology deals with that which philosophy cannot deal with, that is the "revealed" world of the supernatural. Now there is a natural interface between philosophy and theology at both ends of philosophy, that is, at the metaphysical end, in ontology, which ultimately must describe existense in terms of the most simple or essential of qualities. The question is, what do the simplest or most essential qualities qualify? Philosophy cannot answer that question.
At the other end is human rational/volitional consciousness, which, while conscious of material existense, cannot itself be material existense, and, being rational/volitional, is not constrained by any of the qualities which describe natural (spatial/temporal/determinate) material existense.
(Interestingly, the atheistic philosopher/writer, Ayn Rand, was aware of both these problems and frankly stated, not as a wish, but to point out the nature of the problem, she could almost wish there were a God, because that would solve the problems. The exact statement is recorded, but is not in any of her regularly published works.)
Now, I have written too much but want to mention this idea of "feeling" God. I do not want to discourage you, and first want to assure you there are genuine feelings we ought to experience in our relationships with God. But, I must point out that God is not palpable, and the whole idea of basing anything on our feelings (which are always and only reactions or responses, and never cognitive or revelatory) can be very dangerous.
If God could be "felt" everyone would be able to feel Him, as Luke points out (recording Paul's address at Mar's hill):
Ac 17:26-28 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being....
...because He is not closer to us than anyone else, because we all "live, and move, and have our being," in Him.
The problem with relying on feeling for any view, choice, or conviction, is in themselves, feelings provide no information, such as, about their cause, or even their significance or importance. There is no way from feelings along to determine whether they are being cause by indigestion, the devil, or by our spiritual relatioship with God.
Enough!
Hank
It's too bad Nietzsche did not write it. It would have been one thing he wrote I could agree with. Though I am a radical individualist, despise altruism as both unScriptural and anti-human, and am ethically an egoist (It was after all, our "selves" that Christ came to save,) I despise Nietzsche, mostly for confusing egoism with subjectivism. Those who have never even heard of Nietzsche suffer from that confusion to this day.
(If you're interested in that "it is our 'selves' that Christ came to save" statement, you might compare, Mark 8:36 and Luke 9:25 and notice what is the most important thing for a person not to lose.)
Hank
Psychological analysis is hardly philosophy. Are you saying that such a question is meaningless? Why?
Existense (something) cannot be contingent.
I find this statement quite opaque. I am something. If I existed absolutely, then I would be utterly self-sufficient; I would be my own cause. Yet, as my parents can attest, I am certainly not my own cause. Therefore, I am contingent upon my parents, at least.
[By the way, I have read Copleston, including his three volume A History of Philosophy which I found "big" but somewhat less than objective.]
Copleston's history is a bit more than three volumes. Nine or ten, I think. It's no substitute for the primary texts and a wise friend, but I have found it quite helpful.
Ok, then for the sake of the skeptics and the unbelievers who won't accept the evidences I would offer nor obtain their own by seeking Him, I'll agree that perhaps Philosophy should be viewed as separated from Theology.
But then that brings us back to the question of "Philosophy what is it?". We've just removed from philosophy most of what I would identify as the most important information. That of who we are, what our purpose is, what kind of people we ought to be, who we answer to, the very meaning of life.
The word "foundationless" comes to mind. "Adrift", also. Can I trust anything that philosophy might conclude? Frankly, I'm not sure. It would seem to me, that the conclusions that one could reach with such a philosophy might be very limited.
Or worse, philosophy might be totally self centered. It seems like so called "rational" philosophy would invariably seek out self centeredness.
Perhaps that's what you mean when you say: The question is, what do the simplest or most essential qualities qualify? Philosophy cannot answer that question.
Finally, If God could be "felt" everyone would be able to feel Him, as Luke points out (recording Paul's address at Mar's hill):
Feeling or sensing the presense of God is not unlike "hearing" Him. One doesn't normally audibly hear God, yet the sensation is very much like hearing. In John 10 Jesus effectively said that his sheep know His voice. So it's not that everyone doesn't hear Him or feel Him, they do. They don't recognize him.
But for me, both feeling and hearing Him are among the many evidences. Not a feeling in the sense of an emotion, but a sensation like one of the five senses. That is an evidence as far as I'm concerned, but not one I can submit to peer review.
I don't know what prompted your suspicions, but I wonder, could you finish a course Greek and get away it?
ti, dia ti, and ";" not to mention "aitia"
Then you said: If I existed absolutely, then I would be utterly self-sufficient; I would be my own cause. Yet, as my parents can attest, I am certainly not my own cause. Therefore, I am contingent upon my parents, at least.
But, you are an existent not existence. The fact of existence (there is something) cannot itself be contingent, because whatever is named is that upon which it is contingent, must exist, and if anything exists, there is existence.
The concept existence does not require any particular existense, only some existense. A concept is materially valid if there is at least one actual particular of that concept. (e.g. The concept phoenix is considered mythical, but would become materially valid if even one actual phoenix were discovered.)
With regard to my statement, "Why something rather than nothing, that is the question? This is not a question, it is a kind of insanity," I admit it is more rhetorical than philosophical, but I believe it is good rhetoric. I suspect anyone who comes to the question, "Why something rather than nothing," all on their own, may be exhibiting a psychological pathology; but, for those who are introduced to this question by someone else, as is usually the case, "insanity" is not neceswsarily indicated in considering the question, unless one takes it seriously, and dwells on it long enough, in which case, their sanity becomes questionable.
Hank
The concept existence does not require any particular existense, only some existense.
This sentence throws me for another loop. Do you mean that existence as such--in some Platonic form--is impossible, for existence is always instantiated in a thing? As I understand Copleston, he would agree with this.
A concept is materially valid if there is at least one actual particular of that concept.(e.g. The concept phoenix is considered mythical, but would become materially valid if even one actual phoenix were discovered.)
Straightforward enough. A Phoenix is a potential creature, not yet instantiated in reality. So how does this relate to existence?
With regard to my statement, "Why something rather than nothing, that is the question? This is not a question, it is a kind of insanity," I admit it is more rhetorical than philosophical, but I believe it is good rhetoric.
Better rhetoric demonstrates.
My point is about that validation of concepts. The illustration (of Phoenix) you understood, but did not apply it to the concept existence. I meant, if there is even one existent, no matter what it is, existence, as a concept, is established materially.
I could have used a better example, because "Phoenix" is a concept of an "entity" (in this case an imaginary one), but "existence" is actually a concept of a quality, like "red" or "round." In the case of qualities, so long as even one thing has that quality, the concept for that quality is valid.
The odd thing about the quality "existence" is, everything has it. That is why it is both universal and axiomatic. (I do not use the word "universal," as in epistemology, but to mean, always to all things true.) It is also why we talk about "existence" as though it were a thing, because, unlike other qualities, such as "red," which require there to be some existent things they are qualities of, the quality, "existence," for anything that has it, means that it is. That is why we can wave our arm, indicating the entire world, the universe, and heaven, too, and say, "everything is existence," which is to say, "everything that is, is." If everything had the quality red we could say everything is red, but we cannot say that about redness, but we can and must say it about existence.
Now, the question, "why is there something rather than nothing," supposes, "nothing," is a possible metaphysical universal fact. While the answer to the question, "what is in the box," can be "nothing," the answer to the question, "what is there," can never (logically, not temporally) be "nothing," for two reasons:
We have agreed that a concept is validated by at least one actual particular, but so long as not even one actual referrant can be discovered, the concept remains purely conceptual without material verity. The concept "nothingness" or "non-existense" (as metaphysically universal) is a concept which cannot have a referrent, by definition.
Hank
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.