| Religion » A religious urge » 11/23/2018 9:44 pm |
- John West
- Replies: 17
-
I don't really have anything interesting to say in reply, Joe. They're philosophical questions, and I grapple with them in the way philosophers usually do.
| Religion » A religious urge » 11/23/2018 7:45 pm |
- John West
- Replies: 17
-
RomanJoe wrote:Do you find yourself in the latter group, someone who can't force his will to act prior to his intellect?
I'm not sure I want to sign up to all that, but I'm most certainly someone for who questions just well up. I don't consider this a bad thing.
| Religion » A religious urge » 11/23/2018 7:16 pm |
- John West
- Replies: 17
-
RomanJoe wrote:
Yes, but in Christianity, for instance, there is divine revelation. The inner workings of the faith are guaranteed to be true if one accepts the initial premise of divine revelation.
But then the inner workings of the faith rest on the strength of the initial premise of divine revelation. Why accept the initial premise?
Some philosophers have thought that, at the end of the day, we simply have to take a leap of faith, even if we're naturalists, and choose what to believe and how to live. I think that is fine. I think it may even be right. Others have suggested that we should sort of cudgel our intellects into submission and simply believe. I guess I think that is fine too. But some of us can't. For some of us the questions just well up.
| Religion » A religious urge » 11/23/2018 7:03 pm |
- John West
- Replies: 17
-
RomanJoe wrote:
The consolation of religion is that it purports to be the Truth, it saves one from dilly-dallying in metaphysical struggles to understand the world. It gives one a cosmic narrative to inhabit.
Well, sure, but you could say the same about any philosophical system. They all purport to be the truth.
| Theoretical Philosophy » How Do I Refute This Utilitarian Argument? » 11/23/2018 8:54 am |
- John West
- Replies: 15
-
Calhoun wrote:
But my discussion seem to be getting a little off topic here. I should discontinue it.
The new forum has a function that lets us split threads in such situations.
| Theoretical Philosophy » God is a quark? How do you arrive at God from per se causality, etc? » 11/23/2018 8:51 am |
- John West
- Replies: 16
-
This belongs in Athens, not Jerusalem. I've moved it.
I haven't read Aquinas in a long time now, but I'm pretty sure Ed answers this question in his discussion of actualizing existence towards the end of his section on the First Way. You (and Cosmyk) might also find the discussion of per se and per accidens causal series starting at around fifteen minutes here helpful.
| Theoretical Philosophy » How Do I Refute This Utilitarian Argument? » 11/21/2018 7:13 am |
- John West
- Replies: 15
-
One thing that strikes me is that skeptical theism has a similar form to mysterian replies. In other words, it argues from the possibility that there is a solution to x problem (the problem of evil, in this case) that we simply can't see because of our cognitive limitations. It's perfectly reasonable that there are things we can't see because of our cognitive limitations. The trouble is that once you allow these kinds of replies, it seems you have to allow others to make them as well, e.g. the naturalist can say there are naturalist solutions to PSR-related problems or problems in philosophy of mind that are (or might be) simply beyond our cognitive abilities to grasp.
Or maybe it has been too long since I looked at literature on the problem of evil. (Well, there are so many good replies to it and so many other things to look into.)
| Religion » A religious urge » 11/20/2018 10:36 am |
- John West
- Replies: 17
-
nojoum wrote:
It also another reason why I no longer pursue philosophy; even if you have the truth, it would not enable you to live a moral life. People do not live an immoral life because they do not know good or evil, they live a immoral life because they do not know themselves enough to change their ways.
Change their ways to what?
I think it's perfectly possible that, for instance, some brutal consequentialist could be doing evil, thinking he's doing good, because he doesn't know what is truly good or evil. As Sextus points out (and the history books bear witness to), people through time and space have earnestly acted on contradictory beliefs about right and wrong.
In the Euthydemus, Socrates argues that since we require knowledge of how to live the good life (wisdom) to know how to use all the other purported goods and all those other goods can be evils depending on how they're used, wisdom is the only good in itself. Hence, that the study of how to live the good life is at the very least an essential part of living the good life. (cf. 278c–282d.)
(Sorry for the digression, Joe. Farzad: If you want to discuss the argument (which I've just fixed my summary of and reposted, sorry), drop me a PM and I'll start a thread. I'm not sure how much time I'll have to contribute to it, but I know that it's a subject that interests a lot of other people on here who do have time. It might be worth starting a thread on it even if you don't PM me.)
| Theoretical Philosophy » How Do I Refute This Utilitarian Argument? » 11/20/2018 5:47 am |
- John West
- Replies: 15
-
I'm not sure utilitarianism is a humanly workable ethic. It could, for all we know, be that at some even further point beyond you or the computer's capacity to calculate freezing your interlocutor will turn out to lead to a great increase in evil. But if we can't live some way, then we shouldn't live that way (viz. the contrapositive of should implies can).
I'm not even sure it's an in principle workable ethic. It could, for instance, be that the various goods are incommensurable and can't even in principle be added together to maximize good and minimize evil. It could be that the consequentialist calculation is impossible both to start and Finnis.
| Religion » A religious urge » 11/20/2018 5:25 am |
- John West
- Replies: 17
-
I have a lot of sympathy for you. Philosophy demands inquiry; Christianity demands child-like obedience. Philosophy teaches that we can't have truth in this life (or, at least, that we're rather unlikely to); Christianity that we have it revealed to us in Christ Jesus. To live as both homo philosophicus and homo religiosus is, I think, to live inside a contradiction.
The purely philosophical man will tell you that you should subject everything to the harsh light of reason. He will say that we have no way of knowing whether the “certainty” of faith is anything more than a subjective certainty.
The purely religious man will tell you to subordinate philosophy to religion. He will say that you should start from the truths of religion and reject any conclusions that contradict them. He will make philosophy into religion's handmaid. Philosophy is the search for truth; Christianity requires the cessation of that search. This is why most Christians see philosophy as a tool to clarify and understand the truths they already have (and, perhaps, to turn others towards those truths).
I confess that I come down on the side of the philosopher. I want religion. I want demanding religion. I have the “religious urge”. But I'm a philosopher and I can't imagine living my life any other way. I can't help but subject everything to the lumen siccum.
Anyway, like I said, I have a lot of sympathy.