A random thought just occurred to me.
Optimism is seeing the world as better as it is, right? And pessimism is seeing the world as worse than it is.
Thus, someone saying 'I am an optimist' or 'I am a pessimist' is contradicting himself.
See, if he is saying he is an optimist, this means that he believes that he sees the world as better than it is. But that would mean he thinks the world is worse than he claims to see it, and he doesn't really believe the world is that good. The only consistent belief for an optimist or pessimist to hold is that they are a realist.
Meh. It's late and my plane leaves in the morning. So sue me.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
On Religion
The history of Philosophy has often been coloured (some might say contaminated) by the subject of Religion. Most of the great thinkers in Europe in the centuries past have been Christians, and have directed at least some of their Philosophy accordingly. Can Religion be 'proved' or even argued for, or is it simply a matter of personal faith, devoid of reason? Let us examine the arguments for Religion, Christianity in particular.
The three main arguments for the existance of God are as follows:
i) The Teleological
ii) The Cosmological argument
iii) The Ontological argument
The Teleological argument, also known as the argument from design, states that the universe contains such complexity that it must have a designer, and based on the goodness and order of the world, this creater must be infinitely good and wise. This is known as the watchmaker argument, based on the analogy that if you find a watch in the desert, you can only assume that someone made it, and the watch did not just 'come to be'.
The Teleological argument has come under heavy fire recently, with evolution showing that complexity can exist from nature. David Hume argued that even if the watchmaker did exist, it is a fallacy to assume he is infinitely perfect. He argued that we can only infer the properties of the Cause from what we know of the Effect, and the universe is neither infinitely good nor infinitely perfect. He proceeds to ask how the conception of a perfect God and the teleological argument sits with the existence of evil. Of course, fundamentalists will feel we brought this on ourselves, Garden of Eden etc, but there are some problems with this 'free will' argument. For example, do angels have free will? If they did not, Lucifer would have to be commanded by God to rebel, thus contradicting the view of a perfect God. If they do, then there are obviously angels who have not fallen, and thus free will is not incompatible with sinning, and thus God could have given us free will and still kept us from falling. (Ex-Christian rant over)
The Cosmological argument basically argues that everything natural, or 'worldly' must have a cause, based on the law of Causation (although Hume might beg to differ). Thus if we follow the chain of causation all the way to the very begining, there must be a 'first cause', which was itself not caused by anything. The argument then proceeds to argue that this 'first cause' (or Unmoved Mover according to Aristotle) must be God, since God self-sufficient in that sense.
This argument assumes that the 'first cause' must be infinitely perfect and provident, but it is clear that this does not have to be the case. There could be a supernatural first cause who created the universe and then left it hung out to dry, as it were.
Personally, I am inclined to believe that an infinite chain of causation could exist. Our limited human minds protest at this because we cannot conceive it, but that does not mean that an infinite regress does not exist. It is plausible that the universe expands until a critical mass, then collapses, leading to another big bang, leading to an expanding universe, and so forth ad infinitum, to name but one possibility.
The Ontological argument states that God is perfect, and existence is a quality of perfection, thus God exists. Anselm asked his listeners to imagine a being than which no greater can be conceived. Now, it would be greater if it existed than if it did not exist, thus it exists.
One response to this is the Kantian dogma that existance is not a predicate, to whit, existence is not a property. Thus a theoretical perfect being would not necessarily exist. To say that X exists is to say nothing more than there is an instance of X. By the Ontological reasoning, I could define a Unicorn as 'a horse with a horn on its head which exists', and thus it would exist.
Also, there is a vital case of referential failure here. In Anselm's version, in the statement that 'it would be greater if it existed', there is no 'it' to refer to here. The argument assumes in its premise that the being than which no greater can be conceived already exists!
Myself, I believe that 'rationalising' religion is self-defeating. If God is provable, what place would faith have? As an agnostic with atheist tendencies, I think that the whole endeavor is misplaced from the start.
The three main arguments for the existance of God are as follows:
i) The Teleological
ii) The Cosmological argument
iii) The Ontological argument
The Teleological argument, also known as the argument from design, states that the universe contains such complexity that it must have a designer, and based on the goodness and order of the world, this creater must be infinitely good and wise. This is known as the watchmaker argument, based on the analogy that if you find a watch in the desert, you can only assume that someone made it, and the watch did not just 'come to be'.
The Teleological argument has come under heavy fire recently, with evolution showing that complexity can exist from nature. David Hume argued that even if the watchmaker did exist, it is a fallacy to assume he is infinitely perfect. He argued that we can only infer the properties of the Cause from what we know of the Effect, and the universe is neither infinitely good nor infinitely perfect. He proceeds to ask how the conception of a perfect God and the teleological argument sits with the existence of evil. Of course, fundamentalists will feel we brought this on ourselves, Garden of Eden etc, but there are some problems with this 'free will' argument. For example, do angels have free will? If they did not, Lucifer would have to be commanded by God to rebel, thus contradicting the view of a perfect God. If they do, then there are obviously angels who have not fallen, and thus free will is not incompatible with sinning, and thus God could have given us free will and still kept us from falling. (Ex-Christian rant over)
The Cosmological argument basically argues that everything natural, or 'worldly' must have a cause, based on the law of Causation (although Hume might beg to differ). Thus if we follow the chain of causation all the way to the very begining, there must be a 'first cause', which was itself not caused by anything. The argument then proceeds to argue that this 'first cause' (or Unmoved Mover according to Aristotle) must be God, since God self-sufficient in that sense.
This argument assumes that the 'first cause' must be infinitely perfect and provident, but it is clear that this does not have to be the case. There could be a supernatural first cause who created the universe and then left it hung out to dry, as it were.
Personally, I am inclined to believe that an infinite chain of causation could exist. Our limited human minds protest at this because we cannot conceive it, but that does not mean that an infinite regress does not exist. It is plausible that the universe expands until a critical mass, then collapses, leading to another big bang, leading to an expanding universe, and so forth ad infinitum, to name but one possibility.
The Ontological argument states that God is perfect, and existence is a quality of perfection, thus God exists. Anselm asked his listeners to imagine a being than which no greater can be conceived. Now, it would be greater if it existed than if it did not exist, thus it exists.
One response to this is the Kantian dogma that existance is not a predicate, to whit, existence is not a property. Thus a theoretical perfect being would not necessarily exist. To say that X exists is to say nothing more than there is an instance of X. By the Ontological reasoning, I could define a Unicorn as 'a horse with a horn on its head which exists', and thus it would exist.
Also, there is a vital case of referential failure here. In Anselm's version, in the statement that 'it would be greater if it existed', there is no 'it' to refer to here. The argument assumes in its premise that the being than which no greater can be conceived already exists!
Myself, I believe that 'rationalising' religion is self-defeating. If God is provable, what place would faith have? As an agnostic with atheist tendencies, I think that the whole endeavor is misplaced from the start.
Friday, September 21, 2007
On Suicide
I started reading David Hume's 'On Suicide' last night, a work which was certainly controversial upon its publication for that time. Hume basically argues that if suicide is wrong, it is wrong for one of the following three reasons:
1) It is a transgression of our duty to God
2) It is a transgression of our duty to our fellow man
3) It is a transgression of our duty to ourselves
Hume proceeds to argue that suicide is not a transgression of our duty to God. God created the material laws (like gravity, etc) and of the 'animal worlds' (i.e. our senses, passions, memories, judgements etc), and whatever we do within these laws is not a transgression of our duty, provided we do not violate our duty either to ourselves or our fellow man.
Some would say that taking your own life is interfering directly into God's realm: life is something that is God's to give and God's to take. But Hume says that by this argument, we should not make an effort to save ourselves or others from any dangers from the material laws, say if we were sitting and saw a car coming our way at a high speed, we should not make an effort to dive out of the way, because it was God's will that the car should come, and thus God wills to take our life. Furthermore, the death penalty should certainly be abolished by this principle. Life is not ours to take. We should instead imprison felons until God wills to take their lives. We may speed it up with the poor conditions of our prisons, but God has to take the final reap.
Taking one's on life is manipulating the order of God no more than anything we do in this material world, like building a house. Hume draws an analogy:
Again, Hume says that we are taught to accept the ills of our life through the evils of our enemies as divine Providence, even when they make attempts on my life. Thus taking my own life is as much divine Providence as being assassinated by another, or being mauled by a mountain lion.
In fact, it is blasphemy to think that we, as mere humans, could go against divine Providence, or violate the order of the world! If we attribute everything in our lives to divine Will, we have to do the same to its ending, even by our own hands.
Is suicide then a transgressions of our duty to our fellow man? Hume says that we are not expected to make a small contribution to society at the expense of a large pain to ourselves, and if our suffering be great, then this would outweigh whatever little we could contribute to society. And what more if we are unable to contribute to society! By killing ourselves we would be doing a good thing, by ridding society of its deadweight. Although not so much a problem in Hume's time, overpopulation would certainly spring to mind here.
Is it then a transgression of our duty to ourselves? If we are suffering, certainly not. While progress with a life of misery and pain? In fact, it is our duty to ourselves to alleviate the bane of our life. In his infamous words:
However, I feel the reason that suicide should not be practiced is more an expedient one than a moral one. Hume's second and third arguments, in particular, seem rather shaky. A man may have dependents, such as a wife, or children, in which case taking his life is irresponsible to say the least, whatever his emotional state. Also, through taking his own life, a man may hurt those around him deeply. Hume seems to have in mind a man with absolutely nothing left to live for, a parody of a suicidal man if ever there was one.
Which leads me to my next point. Hume says that no man ever took his life while it was worth living. For such a staunch supporter of empiricist backing and evidence, Hume is certainly proved wrong here. How many cases are there of people who commit suicide over something entirely silly, maybe perhaps because of lost love, when love comes and goes? How many cases are there of people who are saved from taking their own lives and come to see their folly and realise that life is in fact worth living? Yes, people may be mistaken in everything they do, but suicide has a finality about it. If I make a mistake in taking my own life, there's no remedying it, there's no do-overs. That's that.
As aforementioned, Hume's idea of a suicidal person seems very much an extreme. The person would have no loved ones and would be in indelible pain from which there is no respite. Hume's arguments would be more suited towards euthanasia (resulting either from extreme physical or emotional pain) than suicide. The reasons against suicide are, in my opinion, more expedient than moral.
So kids, don't kill yourself, however emo you may be.
1) It is a transgression of our duty to God
2) It is a transgression of our duty to our fellow man
3) It is a transgression of our duty to ourselves
Hume proceeds to argue that suicide is not a transgression of our duty to God. God created the material laws (like gravity, etc) and of the 'animal worlds' (i.e. our senses, passions, memories, judgements etc), and whatever we do within these laws is not a transgression of our duty, provided we do not violate our duty either to ourselves or our fellow man.
Some would say that taking your own life is interfering directly into God's realm: life is something that is God's to give and God's to take. But Hume says that by this argument, we should not make an effort to save ourselves or others from any dangers from the material laws, say if we were sitting and saw a car coming our way at a high speed, we should not make an effort to dive out of the way, because it was God's will that the car should come, and thus God wills to take our life. Furthermore, the death penalty should certainly be abolished by this principle. Life is not ours to take. We should instead imprison felons until God wills to take their lives. We may speed it up with the poor conditions of our prisons, but God has to take the final reap.
Taking one's on life is manipulating the order of God no more than anything we do in this material world, like building a house. Hume draws an analogy:
'It would be no crime in me to divert the Nile or Danube from its course, were I able to affect such purposes. Where then is the crime of turning a few ounces of blood from their natural channels!' (page 5, On Suicide, David Hume)
Again, Hume says that we are taught to accept the ills of our life through the evils of our enemies as divine Providence, even when they make attempts on my life. Thus taking my own life is as much divine Providence as being assassinated by another, or being mauled by a mountain lion.
In fact, it is blasphemy to think that we, as mere humans, could go against divine Providence, or violate the order of the world! If we attribute everything in our lives to divine Will, we have to do the same to its ending, even by our own hands.
Is suicide then a transgressions of our duty to our fellow man? Hume says that we are not expected to make a small contribution to society at the expense of a large pain to ourselves, and if our suffering be great, then this would outweigh whatever little we could contribute to society. And what more if we are unable to contribute to society! By killing ourselves we would be doing a good thing, by ridding society of its deadweight. Although not so much a problem in Hume's time, overpopulation would certainly spring to mind here.
Is it then a transgression of our duty to ourselves? If we are suffering, certainly not. While progress with a life of misery and pain? In fact, it is our duty to ourselves to alleviate the bane of our life. In his infamous words:
'I believe that no man ever threw away life while it was worth keeping.' (page 10, On Suicide, David Hume)Is Hume'e assessment correct? I am inclined to agree with Hume's first argument about Providence. Hume was almost certainly an atheist, and this is quite apparent from the way he takes the doctrine of Providence and points out its inconsistency in banning suicide.
However, I feel the reason that suicide should not be practiced is more an expedient one than a moral one. Hume's second and third arguments, in particular, seem rather shaky. A man may have dependents, such as a wife, or children, in which case taking his life is irresponsible to say the least, whatever his emotional state. Also, through taking his own life, a man may hurt those around him deeply. Hume seems to have in mind a man with absolutely nothing left to live for, a parody of a suicidal man if ever there was one.
Which leads me to my next point. Hume says that no man ever took his life while it was worth living. For such a staunch supporter of empiricist backing and evidence, Hume is certainly proved wrong here. How many cases are there of people who commit suicide over something entirely silly, maybe perhaps because of lost love, when love comes and goes? How many cases are there of people who are saved from taking their own lives and come to see their folly and realise that life is in fact worth living? Yes, people may be mistaken in everything they do, but suicide has a finality about it. If I make a mistake in taking my own life, there's no remedying it, there's no do-overs. That's that.
As aforementioned, Hume's idea of a suicidal person seems very much an extreme. The person would have no loved ones and would be in indelible pain from which there is no respite. Hume's arguments would be more suited towards euthanasia (resulting either from extreme physical or emotional pain) than suicide. The reasons against suicide are, in my opinion, more expedient than moral.
So kids, don't kill yourself, however emo you may be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
