Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

Theoretical Philosophy » Rational intellect question » 4/01/2017 12:34 pm

Proclus
Replies: 6

Go to post

I forget the details of the study but I'm sure you could dig it up.  Some Japanese (I think) scientists recently did a study with chimpanzees to try to teach them to associate quantities of objects with numerical symbols.  After many many lessons and reinforcements, the chimpanzees were able to consistently make the association.  The interesting thing is that they needed the same number of lessons for each new symbol.  When the same experiment is attempted with human children they need roughly the same number of lessons for the first few numbers, but then are able to associate the further numbers with only a few lessons.  The natural inference is that human children have an ability to step back from the particular case and "get what's going on here."  They are able to say, "Ah these symbols represent numbers, and since the last one was seven and the one before it six, the next will be eight and so on."  This is precisely the kind of higher-order abstraction that is required for rational inference and all the evidence suggests that humans are the only organisms to have it.

As a side note, I'm not so sure how central it is to a classical worldview that humans be the only rational animals.  How much would it really change our picture of the world if we discovered some non-human persons?  Most theists already believe in angels.

Practical Philosophy » Goal of studying theoretical philosophy » 3/26/2017 8:44 am

Proclus
Replies: 9

Go to post

Ultimately, there is just one thing (or better, person) I want to know: the Λόγος of God.  Along the way, however, I am, of course, constrained by various practical principles that guide my study.  I am an integral part of a committed community.  I must ask myself what the immediate needs of the community are and labor to benefit the people to whom God has given me in preaching and teaching.  I might have a long term fundamental question that needs answering, but realize that I need to answer preliminary questions along the way.  With any luck I will earn my PhD in a few weeks, so my research has been constrained by the practical requirements of a successful dissertation (and sometimes the whims of my committee).  For a few weeks here and there I find a certain topic fascinating, so I read a few books about it.  Behind all these more immediate and practical constraints I have been praying that God would guide what I read and think about, so I trust that the Spirit is able to infiltrate all these influences---and others that I can scarcely guess---to bring me to the destination of knowing Jesus more and having the ability to transmit some part of that knowledge to his body the Church.

Practical Philosophy » Goal of studying theoretical philosophy » 3/25/2017 3:35 pm

Proclus
Replies: 9

Go to post

Here is a fun rearrangement of letters:  Pilate asked "Quid est veritas?"  The tacit answer staring him in the face is "est vir qui adest."

A true sentence is one in which the contents correspond with reality.  Specifically, the relation between the subject and the predicate of the sentence bears an analogical relation to the relation between an object in the world and a some real feature of that object.  Or paraphrasing Aristotle, speaking true sentences happens when we say about what is that it is or about what is not that it is not, and speaking false sentences happens when we say about what is that it is not or about what is not that it is (Metaphysics 1011b).

Truth is to "true" what Beauty is to "beautiful," in other words, the Truth is that in virtue of which true things are true.  Ultimately, I think that this is Jesus Christ the λόγος of God, in virtue of whom (1) there is a world at all, (2) the structure of that world is intelligible, and (3) a correspondence can exist between our thought and the intelligible structure of that world.  (Incidentally, Νοῦς plays something like this role in Plato and Aristotle.)  At a lower level of analysis, knowing the truth can mean latching onto even a corner of his robe, i.e. achieving even a partial coincidence between our thought and the intelligibility of the world.  And at a still lower level, a correspondence between what we say about the world and the way the world is.

Practical Philosophy » Goal of studying theoretical philosophy » 3/25/2017 11:13 am

Proclus
Replies: 9

Go to post

Greg wrote:

Another option, which I suppose is not too common among members of this forum, is quietism, of the sort defended (advocated?) by Wittgenstein and McDowell: The point of philosophy is to convince yourself that there are no true philosophical problems. Such philosophy is also called therapeutic.

Naturally this blurs theoretical and practical philosophy.

I think one could have a "therapeutic" motivation for pursuing theoretical philosophy without going to this extreme (e.g. Epictetus).  One might recognize that the disorder of one's mind is pathological and consider the rigorous pursuit of truth through disciplined dialectic the best (or at least a pretty good) antidote for this disorder.  It doesn't follow from this that the problems thus pursued are not real problems.  (Although one intellectual pathology certainly is incessant anxiety over pseudoproblems that only arise within a post-enlightenment frame of reference, and perhaps Wittgenstein and McDowell serve a helpful purpose for such a person.)

For my part, I pursue theoretical philosophy as an act of obedience to the particular call of God upon my life.  I see myself as one organ within the total body of Christ, part of whose function it is to pursue the truth in as disciplined a fashion as possible and transmit the truth thus learned together with its justification to the rest of the body.  I also find it fun, but I see this as merely one signal among others that this is indeed the call of God, i.e. a sign that he made me for this in the way that the racehorse's love for the race is a sign that he was bred for this activity.

Theoretical Philosophy » A Question on Molinist Categories and Reformed Critiques of Molinism » 3/19/2017 3:04 pm

Proclus
Replies: 3

Go to post

I think it is true that Molinists must hold that there are some logically possible states of affairs that God cannot bring about (because such states of affairs would entail that one or more true CCFs are false).  In general, I think most Molinists would also extend this to the issue of salvation, but I think it is worth noticing that they are not logically forced to accept this further conclusion.  They might think of God's call as a special case that cannot be resisted and does not involve creaturely freedom.  Molinism only requires that some of our actions are the result of creaturely freedom (which they gloss as: we do them because the antecedent of a true CCF was satisfied).

If you ask me, the real problem with Molinism is the truthmaker objection: What makes the true CCFs true, and the false ones false?  It can't be creatures because they don't even exist yet (and would collapse middle knowledge with your (3) above).  It can't be God because that would collapse middle knowledge to your (1) above (and would make God the author of evil).  In my view when we think about God's providence and creative act we need to face head on the difference between views that say God is the absolute cause of every aspect of the way things are (including evil) and those that deny this (usually because of evil).  It seems to me that Molinism attempts to avoid this fork by pushing the question off to the realm of the CCFs, but I don't see how this helps things.

Theoretical Philosophy » A Question on Molinist Categories and Reformed Critiques of Molinism » 3/16/2017 6:02 pm

Proclus
Replies: 3

Go to post

(1) Not quite.  According the Molinists God's middle knowledge is logically prior to the creative act whereby creatures come into being and receive their natures.  As I understand it, God's knowledge of a creature's act and potency would be logically posterior to his creative act (i.e. type 3 above).
(2) I think this is really two questions in one.  I'm not sure which reformed objectors you have in mind.  Many of the proponents of Molinism (e.g. Plantinga) consider themselves reformed.  To the second question: Yes, there are other proposals.  Do you have in mind God's knowledge of counterfactuals generally (e.g. "This oak tree could have been 50 feet tall, even though it's actually 40 feet tall") or do you have in mind specifically God's knowledge of CCFs (counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, e.g. "John could have refrained from murdering Tom, even though he did, in fact, murder him")?

Theoretical Philosophy » Newbie's question » 3/16/2017 5:52 pm

Proclus
Replies: 2

Go to post

I'm not sure which of Davies's books you have in mind, but many books in philosophy are what the author Alan Jacobs calls "guild books," that is, books that are written by scholars with other scholars in their own relatively small field as the primary audience.  In other words, many philosophers are not even trying to make their books intelligible to a beginner.  Instead, they presume that by the time you are reading their specialized work you have already learned the language.  I think the best way to proceed is to start with many of the excellent books (sometimes by the same authors) that are specifically intended for a wider audience.  The more argument-driven books of C. S. Lewis are a good place to start (e.g. Mere Christianity, Problem of Pain, Abolition of Man).  Peter Kreeft also comes to mind.

I would also recommend perseverance.  The only way to really gain fluency in a foreign language is to persevere through many many difficult hours at a low level of comprehension, simply letting the rhythms and word patterns sink in.  Philosophy has its own language, and some subdisciplines even have such specialized dialects that they are practically unintelligible to other philosophers (try going to a Heidegger conference).

Theoretical Philosophy » Immateriality of Mind » 3/15/2017 1:33 pm

Proclus
Replies: 6

Go to post

Good point.  Let's put a few of those people in a sealed box and see if we can observe a rise in heat 

Theoretical Philosophy » Immateriality of Mind » 3/14/2017 9:01 pm

Proclus
Replies: 6

Go to post

Fair enough.

I only meant that to my knowledge no positive data have been gathered to date that point to this.  It would be cool if someone could cite some.

Theoretical Philosophy » Modal Knowledge of entities and propositions » 3/13/2017 10:45 pm

Proclus
Replies: 20

Go to post

Hi Dennis, I thought I would take the conversation in a slightly different direction if I may.

I think that you are right to reject conceivability or facts about possible worlds (unless you want to go down the David Lewis rabbit hole) as the truthmakers for modal truths.  I think Aristotelian metaphysics has the answers here (although I'm not usually an all-out Aristotle partisan).

The actuality and the potentiality of an object are both real features of an object and I think they are the truthmakers for all modal claims about the object.  Sometimes the way that the concept of potentiality is taught it is defined in terms of counterfactual modal claims, but I think the relationship should be the reverse, counterfactual modal claims should be defined with reference to potentiality and potentiality should be understood with reference the something's nature in conjunction with other facts about the world around it.

Let's take your first sentence: "Denis could have not existed."  This is true because your nature is such that it does not entail your existence (only God's does).  Hence you—right now, in reality—have the potentiality of not existing.  Your parents by nature have (or had) the potentiality to reproduce themselves.  This is simply a fact about organic beings.  They also have (or had) the potentiality of refraining from exercising their reproductive capacity.  I think these real features of your parents in the actual world are what ground the truth of the claim "Denis could not have existed."

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum