{My attempt to think through and make some sense of Aquinas' argument from motion.}
A green leaf isn't orange. But a green leaf is potentially orange, and it becomes orange when this potential is actualized.
We all learned about photosynthesis in grade school.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
What I'm Justified In Ignoring
{re-dated}
Inquiry is a quest; it's either an adventure or it's nothing.
Philosophy and science are modes of inquiry; they are human adventures.
If your philosophy or science renders the very notion of a quest or an adventure unintelligible, I'm justified in paying it no mind.
You're either being dull or hypocritical.
Inquiry is a quest; it's either an adventure or it's nothing.
Philosophy and science are modes of inquiry; they are human adventures.
If your philosophy or science renders the very notion of a quest or an adventure unintelligible, I'm justified in paying it no mind.
You're either being dull or hypocritical.
Monday, March 1, 2010
In Search of a Way, Looking for a Revelation (V)
{a series in progress}
A dilemma:
(A) On the one hand, if you want to be a good person, then you can't rightly submit yourself to live by an immoral text. And so you need to evaluate the text before you submit to it. Otherwise you might be led down a wicked way.
(B) On the other hand, if you're really going to submit yourself to live by a text, then your moral judgements themselves must be guided by this text. So the decision to evaluate the text by your own standards/sensibilities is the decision to NOT submit yourself to it.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
The Moral Argument For God In Mere Christianity?
{Re-dated}
Here's what I find C.S. Lewis doing in the first three chapters of Mere Christianity:
Here's what I find C.S. Lewis doing in the first three chapters of Mere Christianity:
(i) He observes that we all take certain moral judgements about human conduct for granted. We can try to deny these moral judgments if we want to, but, in the end, we always return to them. This is what used to be called the 'Natural Law'.
The Moral Argument For God In Mere Christianity? (Part II)
{Re-dated}
I re-read the first section of Mere Christianity last night.
I see now that Lewis explicitly invites the reader to consider the source of moral obligation. He thinks it must be more like a mind than an mindless material object.
Evolutionary psychologists will almost certainly misunderstand Lewis here. They'll say we can tell an entirely natural story about why we prize altruism: it arose arose by natural selection.
I re-read the first section of Mere Christianity last night.
I see now that Lewis explicitly invites the reader to consider the source of moral obligation. He thinks it must be more like a mind than an mindless material object.
Evolutionary psychologists will almost certainly misunderstand Lewis here. They'll say we can tell an entirely natural story about why we prize altruism: it arose arose by natural selection.
More on the Subjectivity of Morality
Desire independent reasons for action, based on facts which have a subjective ontology, are a significant aspect of morality.
Consider my pencil. It's mine. But it's being mine is only true to us. On the other hand, it's being composed (in part) of wood is true, whatever we think about it.
It's being mine gives me certain rights. You ought not take it without asking. It would be wrong to steal it.
Why?
Not because it's in your rational self-interest to abide by a rule against thievery. (Though perhaps it is.)
Not because not stealing it will leave everyone effected by the decision happier overal. (Though perhaps that happens to be true in this case too.)
It's wrong because it's an epistemically objective fact that this pencil counts as mine to us. And, as mine, I have certain rights with respect to it.
Since it's an epistemically objective fact that this pencil is mine, if you think it's not, then you're wrong.
Still, we can argue over whether or not it truly counts as mine. There are rules of thumb about how we can rightly gain ownership of things. (For example, if you find it abandoned in a parking lot, then the rule of thumb, "finders keepers," holds.)
Consider my pencil. It's mine. But it's being mine is only true to us. On the other hand, it's being composed (in part) of wood is true, whatever we think about it.
It's being mine gives me certain rights. You ought not take it without asking. It would be wrong to steal it.
Why?
Not because it's in your rational self-interest to abide by a rule against thievery. (Though perhaps it is.)
Not because not stealing it will leave everyone effected by the decision happier overal. (Though perhaps that happens to be true in this case too.)
It's wrong because it's an epistemically objective fact that this pencil counts as mine to us. And, as mine, I have certain rights with respect to it.
Since it's an epistemically objective fact that this pencil is mine, if you think it's not, then you're wrong.
Still, we can argue over whether or not it truly counts as mine. There are rules of thumb about how we can rightly gain ownership of things. (For example, if you find it abandoned in a parking lot, then the rule of thumb, "finders keepers," holds.)
Communication is Always Messy and Ambiguous
You ask me a question.
I ponder my answer.
If I give a short and manageable answer to your question, you'll almost certainly misunderstand me in some way.
It'll be impossible for me to clarify everything I don't mean by it. And there's no unambiguous way of sorting out what to say first.
My decision to say first what I do end up saying first can be misinterpreted.
Which turns of phrase will I use? Which terms will I use?
All of these subtle details will be clues that my audience will rely upon to sniff out my affiliations with various groups and my personal stances on various issues.
Whether or not my audience deliberately and consciously relies on these subtle cues as clues, it will doubtlessly happen in hidden ways.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Knowledge
Knowing is that risky activity whereby we reach out and make contact with reality.
Every living thing — even the tiniest single-cell organism — knows, at least in some (admittedly) extended sense. Tiny amebas reach out from themselves and into the world, in one of the many directions available to them. (Think of them dancing around in a petrie dish.) Some of these ‘reachings-out’ work out well for them. Others don’t.
Yes, of course, amebas are not conscious. But, in a sense, whenever they reach out, they trust themselves to the path chosen and commit themselves to it. This ‘reaching-out-and-trusting’ is a kind of ‘proto-faith’ that’s exhibited by all living things — and only by living things.
We can see this much more vividly in higher creatures like dogs. We see quite clearly how they invest themselves in their ‘reachings-out’ and exercise this proto-faith. Think of your dog sniffing around in search of a bone. He passionately reaches out to the world by trusting his nose. He knows where the bone is by reaching out to it and making contact with it by smell.
We can engage in spiritual and intellectual inquiries which tower over those of dogs. But these higher and distinctly human ‘reachings-out’ will still be rooted in faith. That’s simply how knowledge works, whether we like it or not.
Knowledge is matter of passionately reaching out and making contact with the world.
Faith in God is a kind of passionate reaching out to God.
Once we understand the role faith plays in all knowing, faith in God takes on a different light.
The same intellectual passions which drive our ordinary ‘reachings-out’ to the world also raise our gaze to God. We can make contact with God by so reaching out.
Making contact with God is not like making contact with merely one more object that happens to populate the world. God is not merely one more thing we might collect with all the rest in a giant bowl labeled ‘absolutely everything that exists.’ To make contact with God is to make contact with the source of all things — that in which all things hold together — not merely one more thing.
Every living thing — even the tiniest single-cell organism — knows, at least in some (admittedly) extended sense. Tiny amebas reach out from themselves and into the world, in one of the many directions available to them. (Think of them dancing around in a petrie dish.) Some of these ‘reachings-out’ work out well for them. Others don’t.
Yes, of course, amebas are not conscious. But, in a sense, whenever they reach out, they trust themselves to the path chosen and commit themselves to it. This ‘reaching-out-and-trusting’ is a kind of ‘proto-faith’ that’s exhibited by all living things — and only by living things.
We can see this much more vividly in higher creatures like dogs. We see quite clearly how they invest themselves in their ‘reachings-out’ and exercise this proto-faith. Think of your dog sniffing around in search of a bone. He passionately reaches out to the world by trusting his nose. He knows where the bone is by reaching out to it and making contact with it by smell.
We can engage in spiritual and intellectual inquiries which tower over those of dogs. But these higher and distinctly human ‘reachings-out’ will still be rooted in faith. That’s simply how knowledge works, whether we like it or not.
Knowledge is matter of passionately reaching out and making contact with the world.
Faith in God is a kind of passionate reaching out to God.
Once we understand the role faith plays in all knowing, faith in God takes on a different light.
The same intellectual passions which drive our ordinary ‘reachings-out’ to the world also raise our gaze to God. We can make contact with God by so reaching out.
Making contact with God is not like making contact with merely one more object that happens to populate the world. God is not merely one more thing we might collect with all the rest in a giant bowl labeled ‘absolutely everything that exists.’ To make contact with God is to make contact with the source of all things — that in which all things hold together — not merely one more thing.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Entering Most Intimately Into Awareness, Now
Go look at the tree in your backyard. You are aware of it.
And now you are aware of your awareness of it.
And now you are aware of your awareness of being aware of it.
(You can keep going and going until the chain of awareness dissolves. I get about 3 steps and then I lose track. I hear that, with training, you can go farther.)
In order to enter most intimately into a living awareness of the world, you need to stop your mind from wandering off on rabbit trails of awareness of awareness. These rabbit trails are a retreat from a living awareness of the world.
Are you really aware of the tree, or does it only seem you are aware of it?
To ask this question is to head off on a rabbit trail. But by objectifying your awareness experiences in this way, you sometimes find that what you thought was an awareness of a tree was an hallucination.
On occasions like this, you seem to move beyond appearance to reality. There appeared to be a tree, but there really wasn't.
But in fact you haven't really moved beyond appearance to reality. In reality, you've simply found that one appearance experience now seems more reliable than another. It now appears there is no tree.
Sure, in a sense, that's how you move from appearance to reality. But you don't thereby move beyond all appearance.
Sometimes we need to "pull out" from appearances, and take a look at how these appearances appear.
But there are other times when we need to enter most intimately into awareness.
There are very strong social forces at play interested in making sure we never find the time for this.
We have been spiritually formed to instinctually retreat. And we find ourselves with an insatiable passion to rend our living awareness to pieces.
I'm doing it right now.
Or am I?
Or am I?
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Is time travel possible? Which time is the REAL time?
Suppose that next Monday I travel back in time to 1955. I build a miniature log cabin out of twigs.
Finally, I travel to 1935. I build a sandcastle.
After this, I travel to 1945. I build a miniature igloo.
Finally, I travel to 1935. I build a sandcastle.
In what order did I build these three miniatures?
(a) According to our ordinary calendar system the sandcastle came first (1935), followed by the ingloo (1945) and the cabin (1955).
(b) But in terms of my personal timeline the cabin came first, followed by the igloo and the sandcastle.
Whether or not time travel is possible in the (a) sense, it seems that time travel in the (b) sense isn't, right?
Does this display that the so-called "time" that physicists and cosmologists deal with isn't the REAL time with which we're personally concerned?
Does this display that the so-called "time" that physicists and cosmologists deal with isn't the REAL time with which we're personally concerned?
Friday, February 19, 2010
Crazy Madness About Perception (re-dated)
When you see something like a tree, you reach out and make contact with it.
Nearly no one believes that this happens, but it does. As proof that it can’t happen, we tell the standard scientific story of how sight works. But the standard scientific story actually supports my view.
Consider the standard scientific story of how you see a tree:
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Objective Teleology. A Few More Thoughts.
{An update to this. (i.e. the post immediately bellow.)}
I should say that it is an ontologically objective fact that we are teleologically ordered towards certain ends. And, yes, this teleological ordering is natural. (And Divine too, for that matter.)
Contrary to what you've probably heard, we don't need to know whether God exists before we can know whether we're teleologically ordered towards certain ends.
Our being teleologically ordered is obvious and manifestly true. That it's now taken to be obviously and manifestly untrue just shows how confused we are about what it is to be teleologically ordered and what it is to be natural.
In a sense, natural morality is built upon, or (at least in part) out of, our natural teleological ordering. Still, natural morality is in motion, and the Christian revolution profoundly reshaped the very fabric of natural morality -- it changed the very structure of social/institutional reality.
Humanism, taken even in its most starkly atheist sense, is ineliminably post-Christian. (And, BTW, why should we take 'humanism' in that way?)
Even if the Church's metaphysics has been banished, this doesn't mean that our morality will instantly change. It's just false to think that we churn out a morality by turning the crank of our metaphysics. That's not how the Christian revolution changed our morality in the first place.
The Christian revolution of morality was enacted liturgically.
What liturgies are reshaping us now?
I should say that it is an ontologically objective fact that we are teleologically ordered towards certain ends. And, yes, this teleological ordering is natural. (And Divine too, for that matter.)
Contrary to what you've probably heard, we don't need to know whether God exists before we can know whether we're teleologically ordered towards certain ends.
Our being teleologically ordered is obvious and manifestly true. That it's now taken to be obviously and manifestly untrue just shows how confused we are about what it is to be teleologically ordered and what it is to be natural.
In a sense, natural morality is built upon, or (at least in part) out of, our natural teleological ordering. Still, natural morality is in motion, and the Christian revolution profoundly reshaped the very fabric of natural morality -- it changed the very structure of social/institutional reality.
Humanism, taken even in its most starkly atheist sense, is ineliminably post-Christian. (And, BTW, why should we take 'humanism' in that way?)
Even if the Church's metaphysics has been banished, this doesn't mean that our morality will instantly change. It's just false to think that we churn out a morality by turning the crank of our metaphysics. That's not how the Christian revolution changed our morality in the first place.
The Christian revolution of morality was enacted liturgically.
What liturgies are reshaping us now?
Morality is Subjective? Some Ruminations.
We recognise human rights -- above all, the right to not be murdered, right? Simply because of our status as humans, we've certain rights and responsibilities, no?
Suppose a serial killer says,
"Hey, maybe you people recognize a status in each other, but I don't! So cut it out with this "we" business. You can't morally reason with me. Morality doesn't enter into it for me. Morality is subjective!"
Is morality subjective?
Well, yes, morality is subjective in the sense that moral facts have a subjective ontology. Moral facts only exist to human subjects: no human subjects, no moral facts. In this way, moral facts are importantly different from facts which have an objective ontology (eg. the height of trees and weight of rocks).
But this doesn't mean that morality is epistemically subjective, in the sense that there's no fact of the matter about statuses and rights and such. Whatever you think about it, we recognize a status in each other with certain rights and responsibilities. It's an objective fact that we recognize this.
I suspect the serial killer already is a part of the we, and it's probably impossible (or very difficult) to opt out of the we. But if he did opt out of the we, we could "declare war" on him, no?
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Cup Cakes and the Church: a thought experiment?
If you want to, you can go ahead and use the Church's Holy Scriptures to construct a cupcake recipe. I'm not sure how well that'll go for you but, hey, knock yourself out.
The Church has no authority to coercively stop people from doing this. There's a sense in which anyone can do whatever they want with the Church's Holy Scriptures.
BUT...
...the Church is entitled to say that anyone who embarks on this sort of project doesn't speak for the Church; they do not represent the Church's way, her proclamation.
...the Church is entitled to bar this use of the Holy Scriptures from her pulpits.
...the Church's teachers are entitled to teach the Church to not use the Holy Scriptures in this way.
...the Church is entitled to let people know that, if this is how they use the Holy Scriptures, then, insofar as this is the case, this constitutes their non-membership in the Church.
I wonder what would happen if I substituted "an Emergent re-visioning of the Christian way and proclamation" in place of "a cupcake recipe"?
Is our ecclesiology so very "low" that this line of thought is laughable? Who cares about non-membership in the Church catholic? (Note the small 'c'.) BTW, yes, no one has to be small 'c' catholic. The Church has no authority to force anyone to be small 'c' catholic.
I suspect we underestimate the differences between those who are and aren't desirous to be small 'c' catholic.
The lines will be drawn, not between Protestants and Catholics, but between the revivalists and the rest?
The Church has no authority to coercively stop people from doing this. There's a sense in which anyone can do whatever they want with the Church's Holy Scriptures.
BUT...
...the Church is entitled to say that anyone who embarks on this sort of project doesn't speak for the Church; they do not represent the Church's way, her proclamation.
...the Church is entitled to bar this use of the Holy Scriptures from her pulpits.
...the Church's teachers are entitled to teach the Church to not use the Holy Scriptures in this way.
...the Church is entitled to let people know that, if this is how they use the Holy Scriptures, then, insofar as this is the case, this constitutes their non-membership in the Church.
I wonder what would happen if I substituted "an Emergent re-visioning of the Christian way and proclamation" in place of "a cupcake recipe"?
Is our ecclesiology so very "low" that this line of thought is laughable? Who cares about non-membership in the Church catholic? (Note the small 'c'.) BTW, yes, no one has to be small 'c' catholic. The Church has no authority to force anyone to be small 'c' catholic.
I suspect we underestimate the differences between those who are and aren't desirous to be small 'c' catholic.
The lines will be drawn, not between Protestants and Catholics, but between the revivalists and the rest?
Monday, February 15, 2010
In Search of a Way, Looking for a Revelation (IV)
{a series in progress}
Despite what you've heard, the Church is not a faith-community and Christianity is not a faith-tradition. Concepts like "faith-community" and "faith-tradition" belong to habits of mind which fundamentally misconstrue both faith and knowledge. The Church is a community of knowing and Christian theology is a knowledge-tradition.
If you're struggling for freedom from all authority and hoping for the establishment of peace by a regime of technocratic management guided by "science" and "reason" alone, then you're already on a way and living by a proclamation.
If you're a consumer of pop-culture and having your affections ordered towards ever increasing participation in the economy by the stirring up of base desire [for sugar, sex, salt and power] and dissatisfaction [with your current portion], then you're already on a way and living by a proclamation.
Watch for the people who claim they aren't on a way or living by a proclamation. Examine yourself. Which way are you on? What proclamation do you live by? You might be surprised.
Remember, the first step is to confess the way you find yourself on and the proclamation you find yourself living by. The next step is to inquire into this way, this proclamation. Is it a good way? Is it a true proclamation?
Is the way of the Church a good way? Is her proclamation true? Which way is the Christian way? Who speaks for the Church?
Despite what you've heard, the Church is not a faith-community and Christianity is not a faith-tradition. Concepts like "faith-community" and "faith-tradition" belong to habits of mind which fundamentally misconstrue both faith and knowledge. The Church is a community of knowing and Christian theology is a knowledge-tradition.
If you're struggling for freedom from all authority and hoping for the establishment of peace by a regime of technocratic management guided by "science" and "reason" alone, then you're already on a way and living by a proclamation.
If you're a consumer of pop-culture and having your affections ordered towards ever increasing participation in the economy by the stirring up of base desire [for sugar, sex, salt and power] and dissatisfaction [with your current portion], then you're already on a way and living by a proclamation.
Watch for the people who claim they aren't on a way or living by a proclamation. Examine yourself. Which way are you on? What proclamation do you live by? You might be surprised.
Remember, the first step is to confess the way you find yourself on and the proclamation you find yourself living by. The next step is to inquire into this way, this proclamation. Is it a good way? Is it a true proclamation?
Is the way of the Church a good way? Is her proclamation true? Which way is the Christian way? Who speaks for the Church?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)