Replies

...Copleston...had a great debate with Russell about the existence of God.

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

I thought 'contingent existence' was more of an Aristotelian notion than Platonic. Regardless, it is tautological as you point out (or maybe as you seem to imply; I hold it as tautological.)
Your analysis of Russell is right on. Reminds me of a book I read last year, Wittgenstein's Poker, a story about a 10-minute argument between Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper, both brought together by Russell. The story compares and contrasts both of their backgrounds, beliefs, styles and ultimately, their view of what happened during the 10 minutes. Decent little read.
By the end, Popper appealed because of his seeming pragmatism, at least within the confines of this book. I've been meaning to go back and reread some more of his work.

I seldom muck with Theological Philosophy (Existence of God, etc.) anymore. Kind of fruitless. This is not to say that I shy away from 'spiritual' philosophers (reread The Sickness Unto Death last year which I consider a fantastic spiritual/philosophical work.)
And, beyond that, I've also been reading/rereading Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche and Brainstorms by Daniel C. Dennett. I've come to some rather interesting notions on the structure of 'self' and further, structures of knowledge. Nothing earth shattering, mind you, but some interesting views on cognitive structure and self definition. This has been where I've been focusing lately.
BTW I did go to a Catholic university, hence Copleston. I would agree that Copleston seems to have an ax to grind. He also was constrained by his surroundings, especially as a Jesuit.
Finally, an interesting point that I noticed studying Attic Greek in college. It seems like the ancients do not have a word for 'Why'. Curious that they gave birth to Philosophy in spite of this (or as Nietzsche might write, 'because of this'.)

Why something rather than nothing, that is the question? This is not a question, it is a kind of insanity.

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.