It points to a transcendent reality that people in a post-modern era will find attractive and appealing.
There are new ways to evangelise.
John Paul II was acutely aware of the importance of evangelisation. He wasn't the first Pope who realised that evangelisation had to be recast in the minds of the people, in terms of the modern world. Pope Paul the 6th's Evengeli Imutciandi, the first document that John Paul II based his own off.
What are the characteristics of a new evangelisation?
According to the pope the expression was popularised since Paul 6th's response to the challenges the contemporary world creates for the Church.
JPII was refocusing and redirecting the Church's priorities. "The time has come to focus all of the Church's energies to AD Gentes - no believer in Christ no institution of the Church can avoid this duty to proclaim Christ". The reality is, however, is that a large majority of the Catholic Church are not inclined to evangelisation and some even think that evangelisation is an Anglican or Jehovas witness thing.
JPII points to the fact that it is a grace and vocation, reflecting her deepest identity.
New evangelisation does not mean a new message. It's content cannot be new - it's theme will always be the same basic Christian message that Jesus Christ is the saviour of the world.
What are the features of the new evangelisation?
It is founded in Jesus Christ and his gospel. It is a clear proclamation of Jesus' saving grace. It's not a repetition of doctrine - it is a profound and personal meeting with the Lord and creator.
It's very easy for Catholics to be distracted by all that happens in a Catholic church.
Evangelisation must be Christocentric at all times. People should be coming to the Church for Christ, not for the bells and smells.
The new evangelisation is a call extended to the entire people of God.
The new evangelisation is not just for the foreign missions.
The first situation, Ad Gentes (to the nations), bring the gospels to people, groups and socio-cultural contexts where Christ is not known.
Secondly, there are healthy Christian communities, fervent in faith and have a good sense of the Church and her ability.
Thirdly, within countries there are entire groups of the baptised who have lost a living sense of the faith, or those who don't consider themselves to be part of the Church in any way. In this case they need a re-evangelisation, some need their faith to be renewed or enlightened, some have no basic training in the faith.
Inculturation - the intinmate transformation of intricate cultural values through Christianity and the insertion of Christianity into cultures.
The new evanglisation should lead to a civilisation of love.
It involves a proclamation of the Gospel karygma as the first step. Following that comes catechetical instruction... it is the saving message of Christ that must come first. The evanglisation calls for a missionary mentality. One must be receptive ot god, and docile to God. It is not possible to bear witness to Christ without representing his image, this relies on grace and the holy spirit. (The medium is the message - actions speak louder than words, to a large extent).
If the missionary has interiorised the message he is preaching than he will be impressive.
Personal holiness is an important aspect of all missionaries. All missionaries must be a contemplative (proclaimed in the 1991 - get some document information from Father) Not contemplative like a carmelite nun, but somebody who actually ponders life, and lives a prayer.
The fore runners, the council that didn't go far enough, the post-conciliar era, radical theological movements arise.
Aidan Nichols - the shape of Catholic theology (interesting quote ask Father about it)
Too often modern theology smacks of palagiarism, 'we don't need God, we don't need Christ'.
From the post modernist perspective, disunity is a strenght, the more plurality is the better.
But plurality is a weakness if it obscures the teachings of Christ.
The Church needs to rebuild it's plausability structure.
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Monday, 26 October 2009
Phi202
Natural law and rules of conduct - the principle of double effect
Recall: Natural law theory forbids intentionally committing acts that go against the basic human goods, and also holds that you fully intend, at least typically, the means you have knowingly employed to a given end.
" he who wills the ends wills the means " (that he used to achieve the end)
e.g. if you steal in order to fund a relief effort that saves lives, you can plausibly be held to intend not just the good ends but also the theft, however regretfully you may have performed it and even if you would have chosen some other means had it been available.
You are not, however, typically deemed to intend mere side-effects of achieving the ends (i.e outcomes that all short of being means).
The difference between an outcome of your act that is a side-effect of achieving the ultimate end and an outcome that is a means of achieving the end. A means causes the ultimately desired outcome, while a side-affect just accompanies the ultimately desired outcome.
Committing acts that involve a regretted means to a good end that goes against basic good is forbidden, because the means typically counts as intended.
Committing acts that involve a regretted and foreseen side-affect that goes against a basic good is sometimes permitted, because the side-effect typically doesn't count as intended.
E.g. Suppose it is a good ultimately desired end to rid Tasmania of its Viking overlords. It is not permitted to kill Viking civilians as a means of forcing them out. It can be, however, permitted to wage war that you know will kill some civilians as a side-affect.
Note that even if the civilian deaths are a side-effect and not a means, the action may still be forbidden if certain further conditions aren't met.
Full statement:
If (i) the ulatimate goal is good or at least indifferent
i.e doesn't go against a basic good.
(ii) if the bad effect in question is not intended
(iii) if the bad effect is not (intended as) a means to the good goal
(iv) the good result is proportionate to the to (i.e outweighs) the bad result
then the act will be (typically) permitted, even if the bad result is foreseen.
Recall: Natural law theory forbids intentionally committing acts that go against the basic human goods, and also holds that you fully intend, at least typically, the means you have knowingly employed to a given end.
" he who wills the ends wills the means " (that he used to achieve the end)
e.g. if you steal in order to fund a relief effort that saves lives, you can plausibly be held to intend not just the good ends but also the theft, however regretfully you may have performed it and even if you would have chosen some other means had it been available.
You are not, however, typically deemed to intend mere side-effects of achieving the ends (i.e outcomes that all short of being means).
The difference between an outcome of your act that is a side-effect of achieving the ultimate end and an outcome that is a means of achieving the end. A means causes the ultimately desired outcome, while a side-affect just accompanies the ultimately desired outcome.
Committing acts that involve a regretted means to a good end that goes against basic good is forbidden, because the means typically counts as intended.
Committing acts that involve a regretted and foreseen side-affect that goes against a basic good is sometimes permitted, because the side-effect typically doesn't count as intended.
E.g. Suppose it is a good ultimately desired end to rid Tasmania of its Viking overlords. It is not permitted to kill Viking civilians as a means of forcing them out. It can be, however, permitted to wage war that you know will kill some civilians as a side-affect.
Note that even if the civilian deaths are a side-effect and not a means, the action may still be forbidden if certain further conditions aren't met.
Full statement:
If (i) the ulatimate goal is good or at least indifferent
i.e doesn't go against a basic good.
(ii) if the bad effect in question is not intended
(iii) if the bad effect is not (intended as) a means to the good goal
(iv) the good result is proportionate to the to (i.e outweighs) the bad result
then the act will be (typically) permitted, even if the bad result is foreseen.
His202
Beginnign to describe the enlightenment in a post-newtonian world.
Voltaire held a similarly massive influence as did Newton.
On Voltaire's tomb 'he taught us to be free'.
'hagiography' Voltaire isn't a saint... but he's still given a sort of secular saintly status for the birth of nations in the Enlightenment. The Baconian ideal that man dominates nature (exemplified in Newton's mathematical logic) is the central idea of the enlightenment.
Reason allows man to understand nature, to know natural and universal laws - it's because they dominated and deployed the faculty of reason.
1688 is often claimed to be a land mark year in British history where a revolution of sorts is believed to have taken place. The Glorious Revolution - 1660-1684. The battle between parliamentarians and the crown seemed to be over. The battle that led to Charles the 1st being beheaded and England being a republic of sorts for 10 years from 1650 to 1660.
They shook off the patriarchal role that the monarchy usually held over business and in that vein of thought investors were putting money into ship design, weaponry, metalurgical skills, engineering, mining, lucrative trades. This is a time when the British began telling themselves that they were the greatest power in Europe - they were flourishing economically, militarily and they had a great navy.
'Nature and nature's laws lay hid in night; God said 'let Newton be' and all was light."
- Alexander Pope
So instead of asking God about the laws on nature, you ask Newton.
By applying baconian ideals and baconian rigorous methodological research, Newton proved his worth - and the royal society was promoted by Newton's legacy as he was the headstone of the committee, at the forefront of the achievements.
We see them as humanists, natural magicians, both Bacon and Newton were also using hypothesis and speculations. Neither of them were just making up tables of instances or discussing man's voyages - but there was an image of great empiricists, or great knowledge makers, of the ability to know nature's hidden secrets - that was the reputation put forward - and the rep built up further after his death.
The englightenment in terms of consciousness in terms of human ability was built around the late 17th century and the early 18th century around cultural imaging. It's the post-newtonians who looked back and wrote histories about Bacon, Newton and others - from the point of view of post-newtonians the period of the last 100 years had seen a tremendous intellectual leap, finally getting a head of the ancient thinkers - they have supposedly achieved that goal.
Newton is known for carrying the prosperity and knowledge of a whole generation knowing and creating a consciousness in its place in history.
John Locke wrote that 'the minds of all humans at birth are blank'. It's not a platonic line of thought. But our minds are filled as we grow with experience. Experiential knowledge is thus the key to understanding nature.
King or Prime Minister does not interfere with the capitalist ideals of an enlightened individual who knows what they can achieve. The government is there to keep the most basic and most important laws safe.
Locke does not deny the existence of God he only rationalises God's role in the universe and prosperity. This was called natural religion - and it is believed to be the slippery slope that leads to atheism.
Voltaire started to tap into the English positive, progressive mood. He was impressed by English pride in their freedom. He was also impressed by the commercial success of English businessmen. He studied Newton and read much of Locke's work and was impressed by the freedom of writers to publish what they like without the fear of being imprisoned. He was particularly impressed by Locke's theory that there is no innate knowledge - knowledge can only be gained through experience. He was also impressed by the religious tolerance, only really existed towards Christianity and nothing else.
One who rationalises their religion during this period describes themselves as a Deist. It means you do not have to adhere to Church doctrines.
1st of November, 1755 - 10,000 people died in Lisbon earthquake. The seven years war. Between rival colonial forces in north america. The question, was therefore, how could God do this to so many people? How could he see the death of so many people who came to worship him? These questions were written about in 'The disaster of Lisbon'. As such Voltaire becomes rather sceptical. They are disillusioned about positivity.
Voltaire held a similarly massive influence as did Newton.
On Voltaire's tomb 'he taught us to be free'.
'hagiography' Voltaire isn't a saint... but he's still given a sort of secular saintly status for the birth of nations in the Enlightenment. The Baconian ideal that man dominates nature (exemplified in Newton's mathematical logic) is the central idea of the enlightenment.
Reason allows man to understand nature, to know natural and universal laws - it's because they dominated and deployed the faculty of reason.
1688 is often claimed to be a land mark year in British history where a revolution of sorts is believed to have taken place. The Glorious Revolution - 1660-1684. The battle between parliamentarians and the crown seemed to be over. The battle that led to Charles the 1st being beheaded and England being a republic of sorts for 10 years from 1650 to 1660.
They shook off the patriarchal role that the monarchy usually held over business and in that vein of thought investors were putting money into ship design, weaponry, metalurgical skills, engineering, mining, lucrative trades. This is a time when the British began telling themselves that they were the greatest power in Europe - they were flourishing economically, militarily and they had a great navy.
'Nature and nature's laws lay hid in night; God said 'let Newton be' and all was light."
- Alexander Pope
So instead of asking God about the laws on nature, you ask Newton.
By applying baconian ideals and baconian rigorous methodological research, Newton proved his worth - and the royal society was promoted by Newton's legacy as he was the headstone of the committee, at the forefront of the achievements.
We see them as humanists, natural magicians, both Bacon and Newton were also using hypothesis and speculations. Neither of them were just making up tables of instances or discussing man's voyages - but there was an image of great empiricists, or great knowledge makers, of the ability to know nature's hidden secrets - that was the reputation put forward - and the rep built up further after his death.
The englightenment in terms of consciousness in terms of human ability was built around the late 17th century and the early 18th century around cultural imaging. It's the post-newtonians who looked back and wrote histories about Bacon, Newton and others - from the point of view of post-newtonians the period of the last 100 years had seen a tremendous intellectual leap, finally getting a head of the ancient thinkers - they have supposedly achieved that goal.
Newton is known for carrying the prosperity and knowledge of a whole generation knowing and creating a consciousness in its place in history.
John Locke wrote that 'the minds of all humans at birth are blank'. It's not a platonic line of thought. But our minds are filled as we grow with experience. Experiential knowledge is thus the key to understanding nature.
King or Prime Minister does not interfere with the capitalist ideals of an enlightened individual who knows what they can achieve. The government is there to keep the most basic and most important laws safe.
Locke does not deny the existence of God he only rationalises God's role in the universe and prosperity. This was called natural religion - and it is believed to be the slippery slope that leads to atheism.
Voltaire started to tap into the English positive, progressive mood. He was impressed by English pride in their freedom. He was also impressed by the commercial success of English businessmen. He studied Newton and read much of Locke's work and was impressed by the freedom of writers to publish what they like without the fear of being imprisoned. He was particularly impressed by Locke's theory that there is no innate knowledge - knowledge can only be gained through experience. He was also impressed by the religious tolerance, only really existed towards Christianity and nothing else.
One who rationalises their religion during this period describes themselves as a Deist. It means you do not have to adhere to Church doctrines.
1st of November, 1755 - 10,000 people died in Lisbon earthquake. The seven years war. Between rival colonial forces in north america. The question, was therefore, how could God do this to so many people? How could he see the death of so many people who came to worship him? These questions were written about in 'The disaster of Lisbon'. As such Voltaire becomes rather sceptical. They are disillusioned about positivity.
Literature Exam
Answer 2 questions on Dickens and 2 on Dostoyevsky.
For part II - general comprehensive understanding of the course.
For part II - general comprehensive understanding of the course.
The waste land most influential poem of the 20th century and T.S Elliot the most influential poet of the 20th century.
Now we are well and truly into modernism. We started the course with Paradise lost - pl introduces us to some of the turmoil and excitement of the renaissance. It's a very different world, the 17th century, compared to Dante's. We see in paradise lost the fall of man imaginatively depicted in a way that connects it to the new age - the discoveries of science, the turmoil in Christendom, the reformation (Milton takes sides as a puritan he depicts Catholics as occupying a place of hell) The quest for knowledge at that time, with its excitement and its dangers, is a theme picked up again in other works such as Frankenstein, Hard Times and Crime and Punishment. The romantics are of course heavily influenced by Milton's revolutionary spirit - the romantics also react against the excessors of enlightenment rationalism - they extol the value of imagination and emotion. These ideas are also present in Frankenstein, Hard Times (dichotomy between reason and imagination are extended to breaking point - seen as antithetical almost) We've also looked at Poetry by the great 19th century Jesuit, Hopkins. His poetry was not received until the 19th century in the climate of literary modernism. T.S Elliot we than see brings together these threads.
The Wasteland, as the title suggests that in the early 20th century that Western Civilisation has finally and definitively broken up - the form of the poem reflects this as does the style - the themes and the images. 'I have shawed up my fragments against my ruin' these are the cultural fragments of western civilisation and Xstianity (no longer the dominant discourse giving shape to the west it was thrown off by successive generations) the stylistic innovation of the wasteland makes it a revolutionary poem, and yet, as has been argued since its publication since the 1920's, the wasteland has been argued as a very concervative poem as it tries to conserve the fragments so that they may be taken up and reformed into a good society once again.
Elliot was born in 1888, born American, grew up in the Midwest. Studied in the states. Settled in England. His first marriage to vivian haywood (turned into a film, tom and viv) ended in 1933. Vivian ended up being placed in an Asylum. Elliot was received into the Anglican Church in 27. Elliot as long with Joyce, Yates, Virginia Wolfe and others belong to what is known as the first generation as modernists. Joyce and Elliot are the two most significant - respectively giving to us Ulysses.
Elliots poems are littered with cigarette stubs, lipstick, hair curlers, broken windows and record players. These sort of details had never really appeared in poetry before.
Elliot as a modernist both reflects and grapples with the challenges of modernity. In particular, the loss of belief. The Wasteland is a poem of a doubting man in a doubting civilisation. This stands in stark contrast to Elliot's later conversation to Christianity.
Classisist in literate, royalist in politics, Anglo-Catholic in religion.
Elliot transformed literary criticism. Revived John Dunn. He bequeathed to us technical terms such as 'dissociation of sensiblity'
Modernism came towards the end of the first world war - a time of near despair of the calamity that had just befallen Western Europe - generations wiped out - Europe is at loggerheads. Wars became total wars for the first time - whole countries going to war - whole countries littered with bodies. As such, it was deemed that the rural values of the countries were irrelevant. The reality is, for the modernist, most people don't live in the country side - in a pastoral world - most people live in the din of cities.
We see in the modernist works the individual and individualism - for the modernist the individual is now almost existing in a world of solipsism. Self-contained, cut off from community and family. The older certainties have passed away - personality itself seems broken down. In the wasteland it's not clear who is speaking to us, we pick up different voices and they don't cohere into one personality. It's kind of schizophrenic.
The wasteland deals with defeating chaos and re-establishing order. The chaos comes from the void of religion - the collapse of religion. The poem is haunted by a disturbing and dangerous sexuality - it's full of fear, of sexuality. The poem represents in stark detail the tension between desire (which can become dangerous) and the need for emotional restraint. We get this strange joining together of an emotional reserve and distance coupled with an intimacy, which is a representation of modern sexuality - suddenly the subject of the poem becomes casual sexual liasons - human beings become broken down into separate body parts - (Fisher king myth) - sexuality becomes something sterile. The poem is full of images on fertility and on the other hand sterility - they stand together, in tension.
How are we too interpret this strange poem? How are we to approach it?
Elliot pointed to various works which he believed would help the discerning reader understand Wasteland. Suddenly we need to go to extra textual sources as interpretive keys for the poem (Typically modernist). [point 4]
Tyresius - oedipus rex (and the odyssey) is the blind seer and he brings the truth to oedipus that oedipus does not want to hear. Tyresius is the suffering servant who embodies the truth that others don't want to hear - because the truth implicates them with the calamities of their people.
It's debatable whether the poem offers any redemption. It's confusing, and it's meant to be confusing.
Holy grail, fisher king, tyresius (all important images in the poem).
There's a sort of strangeness in the sexual union that is usually cold, dissapointing and distressing. The human being in the poem is represented mechanically.
The epigraph tells us that this poem will be one of visionary experience.
First line - April, making deliberate allusion to the 'swich licour' the canterbury tales. Elliot's poem is contrasting modern fragmented civilisation with the older medieval Christocentric well formed society.
Compare this too Hopkin's spring.
Lilac = purple, colour of lent, nuancing the title 'the burial of the dead'.
'Unreal city' verse is very mechanical.
'A game of chess' Man talking to his imaginary woman, he's locked inside his own room, his own head. He's afraid to go outside.
'HURRY UP PLEASE IT'S TIME' is an incessant reminder of something coming to an end.
The fire sermon - demytholigised landscape, disenchanted.
Soda was a remedial for veneral disease.
There is always a yearning for connection in the poem - but the connections always expound upon and increase the loneliness.
Now we are well and truly into modernism. We started the course with Paradise lost - pl introduces us to some of the turmoil and excitement of the renaissance. It's a very different world, the 17th century, compared to Dante's. We see in paradise lost the fall of man imaginatively depicted in a way that connects it to the new age - the discoveries of science, the turmoil in Christendom, the reformation (Milton takes sides as a puritan he depicts Catholics as occupying a place of hell) The quest for knowledge at that time, with its excitement and its dangers, is a theme picked up again in other works such as Frankenstein, Hard Times and Crime and Punishment. The romantics are of course heavily influenced by Milton's revolutionary spirit - the romantics also react against the excessors of enlightenment rationalism - they extol the value of imagination and emotion. These ideas are also present in Frankenstein, Hard Times (dichotomy between reason and imagination are extended to breaking point - seen as antithetical almost) We've also looked at Poetry by the great 19th century Jesuit, Hopkins. His poetry was not received until the 19th century in the climate of literary modernism. T.S Elliot we than see brings together these threads.
The Wasteland, as the title suggests that in the early 20th century that Western Civilisation has finally and definitively broken up - the form of the poem reflects this as does the style - the themes and the images. 'I have shawed up my fragments against my ruin' these are the cultural fragments of western civilisation and Xstianity (no longer the dominant discourse giving shape to the west it was thrown off by successive generations) the stylistic innovation of the wasteland makes it a revolutionary poem, and yet, as has been argued since its publication since the 1920's, the wasteland has been argued as a very concervative poem as it tries to conserve the fragments so that they may be taken up and reformed into a good society once again.
Elliot was born in 1888, born American, grew up in the Midwest. Studied in the states. Settled in England. His first marriage to vivian haywood (turned into a film, tom and viv) ended in 1933. Vivian ended up being placed in an Asylum. Elliot was received into the Anglican Church in 27. Elliot as long with Joyce, Yates, Virginia Wolfe and others belong to what is known as the first generation as modernists. Joyce and Elliot are the two most significant - respectively giving to us Ulysses.
Elliots poems are littered with cigarette stubs, lipstick, hair curlers, broken windows and record players. These sort of details had never really appeared in poetry before.
Elliot as a modernist both reflects and grapples with the challenges of modernity. In particular, the loss of belief. The Wasteland is a poem of a doubting man in a doubting civilisation. This stands in stark contrast to Elliot's later conversation to Christianity.
Classisist in literate, royalist in politics, Anglo-Catholic in religion.
Elliot transformed literary criticism. Revived John Dunn. He bequeathed to us technical terms such as 'dissociation of sensiblity'
Modernism came towards the end of the first world war - a time of near despair of the calamity that had just befallen Western Europe - generations wiped out - Europe is at loggerheads. Wars became total wars for the first time - whole countries going to war - whole countries littered with bodies. As such, it was deemed that the rural values of the countries were irrelevant. The reality is, for the modernist, most people don't live in the country side - in a pastoral world - most people live in the din of cities.
We see in the modernist works the individual and individualism - for the modernist the individual is now almost existing in a world of solipsism. Self-contained, cut off from community and family. The older certainties have passed away - personality itself seems broken down. In the wasteland it's not clear who is speaking to us, we pick up different voices and they don't cohere into one personality. It's kind of schizophrenic.
The wasteland deals with defeating chaos and re-establishing order. The chaos comes from the void of religion - the collapse of religion. The poem is haunted by a disturbing and dangerous sexuality - it's full of fear, of sexuality. The poem represents in stark detail the tension between desire (which can become dangerous) and the need for emotional restraint. We get this strange joining together of an emotional reserve and distance coupled with an intimacy, which is a representation of modern sexuality - suddenly the subject of the poem becomes casual sexual liasons - human beings become broken down into separate body parts - (Fisher king myth) - sexuality becomes something sterile. The poem is full of images on fertility and on the other hand sterility - they stand together, in tension.
How are we too interpret this strange poem? How are we to approach it?
Elliot pointed to various works which he believed would help the discerning reader understand Wasteland. Suddenly we need to go to extra textual sources as interpretive keys for the poem (Typically modernist). [point 4]
Tyresius - oedipus rex (and the odyssey) is the blind seer and he brings the truth to oedipus that oedipus does not want to hear. Tyresius is the suffering servant who embodies the truth that others don't want to hear - because the truth implicates them with the calamities of their people.
It's debatable whether the poem offers any redemption. It's confusing, and it's meant to be confusing.
Holy grail, fisher king, tyresius (all important images in the poem).
There's a sort of strangeness in the sexual union that is usually cold, dissapointing and distressing. The human being in the poem is represented mechanically.
The epigraph tells us that this poem will be one of visionary experience.
First line - April, making deliberate allusion to the 'swich licour' the canterbury tales. Elliot's poem is contrasting modern fragmented civilisation with the older medieval Christocentric well formed society.
Compare this too Hopkin's spring.
Lilac = purple, colour of lent, nuancing the title 'the burial of the dead'.
'Unreal city' verse is very mechanical.
'A game of chess' Man talking to his imaginary woman, he's locked inside his own room, his own head. He's afraid to go outside.
'HURRY UP PLEASE IT'S TIME' is an incessant reminder of something coming to an end.
The fire sermon - demytholigised landscape, disenchanted.
Soda was a remedial for veneral disease.
There is always a yearning for connection in the poem - but the connections always expound upon and increase the loneliness.
Sunday, 25 October 2009
Theology exam
3 questions - each of them will require that I give something of a synthesis of the insights in the course - especially the second half of the course (after we moved on from the pre-conciliar development, the modern heresies, the movements leading up to Vat II - also looking at the council dox, the historiography, as well as subsequent developments) The place of vatican II in the development of Catholic theology
Important trends from the middle of the 20th century until now
And the way in which developments in catholic theology with regards to interpretations of the Vatican II (wk 11 readings are specially relevant)
The answers are there - you just have to find those fuckers. Day and night working working working. The only texts we can bring into the exam are the bare dox of the Vatican II.
Important trends from the middle of the 20th century until now
And the way in which developments in catholic theology with regards to interpretations of the Vatican II (wk 11 readings are specially relevant)
The answers are there - you just have to find those fuckers. Day and night working working working. The only texts we can bring into the exam are the bare dox of the Vatican II.
Phi202
Natural law and rules of conduct
Recall that Natural Law Ethics affirms that one can by natural reason discern certain basic moral actions, among them that certain things, (e.g knowledge, life, sociability) are basic forms of human good and that the good is to be pursued.
On the face, there seems to be a considerable gap between such basic principles and say judgement as to what to do in particular siutation, especially since
(a) Natural ethis does seek to provide such rules (In this it is in contrast to a certain prominent sort of virtue ehtics, which emphasises the impossibility of formulating universally valid general ethical rules and the necessity of situation judgement via phronesis. These features are often taken in such a way as to give the impression that virtue, character, is something above the rules. See Machieavelli for an extreme version of this attitude towards virtue.
(b) the guidance that the general principles are supposed to supply is not that you should maximise the total amount of good, in some sense.
So what guidance do these principles supply?
Part of it is that, so far as acts positiely promoting the good are convenient, you do have to rely on situational judgement. E.g go out and promote sociability or stay in and promote knowledge?
Where exceptionless rules come in is in prohibitience. The general rough idea is never the following: intentionally commit an act taht goes against one of the basic forms of human good.
There is a certain amount to unpack here.
Suppose you are contacted by an invincible serial killer who you know will kill 4 innocents unless you kill one.
The utilitarian answer is that, to the extent that you are certain of the extreme outcomes, you should kill the one. Our intuitions and Natural Law Theory, say otherwise. TO kill the one is for you to intentionally commit an act that goes against the good of life. To allow the 4 to be killed by the madman is not to commit any such act. So Natural law theory counsels the latter.
Note also that Natural law theory does not allow one to intentionally commit acts going against the basic goods even if the outcome against those goods are not your ultimatel goal, but merely a means for a goal (that may well be good.) I.e
Pauline principle: One maynot do evil that good may come.
Also: the ends do not justify the means.
Also: He who wills the ends wills the means.
Recall that Natural Law Ethics affirms that one can by natural reason discern certain basic moral actions, among them that certain things, (e.g knowledge, life, sociability) are basic forms of human good and that the good is to be pursued.
On the face, there seems to be a considerable gap between such basic principles and say judgement as to what to do in particular siutation, especially since
(a) Natural ethis does seek to provide such rules (In this it is in contrast to a certain prominent sort of virtue ehtics, which emphasises the impossibility of formulating universally valid general ethical rules and the necessity of situation judgement via phronesis. These features are often taken in such a way as to give the impression that virtue, character, is something above the rules. See Machieavelli for an extreme version of this attitude towards virtue.
(b) the guidance that the general principles are supposed to supply is not that you should maximise the total amount of good, in some sense.
So what guidance do these principles supply?
Part of it is that, so far as acts positiely promoting the good are convenient, you do have to rely on situational judgement. E.g go out and promote sociability or stay in and promote knowledge?
Where exceptionless rules come in is in prohibitience. The general rough idea is never the following: intentionally commit an act taht goes against one of the basic forms of human good.
There is a certain amount to unpack here.
Suppose you are contacted by an invincible serial killer who you know will kill 4 innocents unless you kill one.
The utilitarian answer is that, to the extent that you are certain of the extreme outcomes, you should kill the one. Our intuitions and Natural Law Theory, say otherwise. TO kill the one is for you to intentionally commit an act that goes against the good of life. To allow the 4 to be killed by the madman is not to commit any such act. So Natural law theory counsels the latter.
Note also that Natural law theory does not allow one to intentionally commit acts going against the basic goods even if the outcome against those goods are not your ultimatel goal, but merely a means for a goal (that may well be good.) I.e
Pauline principle: One maynot do evil that good may come.
Also: the ends do not justify the means.
Also: He who wills the ends wills the means.
Monday, 19 October 2009
Phi202
For natural law theorists, natural/right reason discerns the good.
Not just the right course of action for all rational beings but the nature of the good life for beings possessing our natures (including the 'non-rational' inclinations)
provide clues to reason as to what is intrinsically good/valuable
E.g all creatures are inclined to self-preservation so life is good all creatures are inclined to procreation, so family life is good. Sociability/friendship, knowledge, play, aesthetic experience, practical reasonableness
all of these things come under 'religion' in Finnis's list of intrinsic good. Would be good as ends even if they were never means to further goods.
That knowledge is good, play is good, etc are basic forms of human good. I.e basic premises in our moral reasoning.
Self-evident axioms like those in geometry (except that they are practical axioms, about what to do, rather than theoretical axioms). They intersect with another axiom:
the good is to be pursued
in conjunction with, e.g. knowledge is good, you get, Knowledge is to be pursued.
Properly speaking, knowledge is good if evaluative, i.e says that something is intrinsically (as an axiom) valuable.
In contrast, knowledge is to be pursued. is equivalent to it is the right thing to do to pursue knowledge (or one ought to pursue knowledge) Think of this as making an implicit command: pursue knowledge!
Tells you what to do, i.e. is normative.
Sometimes, people speak of knowledge is good as normative in a loose sense possibly because they think of it as being put together with the good is to be pursued to yield this strictly normative view (knowledge is in the mind, is not implicitly normative it is purely descriptive.)
For someone like Finnis pursuing the good and maximising the good is not the same thing.
How does this differ from consequentialism? (Consequentialism identifies certain goods and enjoins you to pursue them, such goods are aesthetic experience [G.E Moore] - the right thing to do is to maximise the good) The difference lies in the fact that the natural law theorist denies that pursuing the good involves maximising it. Rather, it involves abiding by certain exceptionless laws that our reason tells us reflects those goods.
Because the various basic good are incommensurable you can't weigh up an outcome involving much knowledge and little friendship against the converse.
(If you must use such terminology, natural law ethics is both deontological and teleological - Finnis).
Doesn't this picture amount to reasoning
Most people are inclined to X
Therefore X is natural
Therefore X is an intrinsic good
Therefore X ought to be pursued
(In controvention of the is-ough distinct of Hume?)
Recall, Hume in effect says that to accept the normative 'ought' claim requires implicitly accepting the command which involves being inclined to obey it. Whereas, you can rationally accept (says Hume) any descriptive claim while not being inclined in any particular way.
So Finnis accepts the is-ought distinction but denies that he is deducing the normative and/or evaluative claims from descriptive claims. Rather, they are self-evident (the normative and/or evaluative claims).
Not just the right course of action for all rational beings but the nature of the good life for beings possessing our natures (including the 'non-rational' inclinations)
provide clues to reason as to what is intrinsically good/valuable
E.g all creatures are inclined to self-preservation so life is good all creatures are inclined to procreation, so family life is good. Sociability/friendship, knowledge, play, aesthetic experience, practical reasonableness
all of these things come under 'religion' in Finnis's list of intrinsic good. Would be good as ends even if they were never means to further goods.
That knowledge is good, play is good, etc are basic forms of human good. I.e basic premises in our moral reasoning.
Self-evident axioms like those in geometry (except that they are practical axioms, about what to do, rather than theoretical axioms). They intersect with another axiom:
the good is to be pursued
in conjunction with, e.g. knowledge is good, you get, Knowledge is to be pursued.
Properly speaking, knowledge is good if evaluative, i.e says that something is intrinsically (as an axiom) valuable.
In contrast, knowledge is to be pursued. is equivalent to it is the right thing to do to pursue knowledge (or one ought to pursue knowledge) Think of this as making an implicit command: pursue knowledge!
Tells you what to do, i.e. is normative.
Sometimes, people speak of knowledge is good as normative in a loose sense possibly because they think of it as being put together with the good is to be pursued to yield this strictly normative view (knowledge is in the mind, is not implicitly normative it is purely descriptive.)
For someone like Finnis pursuing the good and maximising the good is not the same thing.
How does this differ from consequentialism? (Consequentialism identifies certain goods and enjoins you to pursue them, such goods are aesthetic experience [G.E Moore] - the right thing to do is to maximise the good) The difference lies in the fact that the natural law theorist denies that pursuing the good involves maximising it. Rather, it involves abiding by certain exceptionless laws that our reason tells us reflects those goods.
Because the various basic good are incommensurable you can't weigh up an outcome involving much knowledge and little friendship against the converse.
(If you must use such terminology, natural law ethics is both deontological and teleological - Finnis).
Doesn't this picture amount to reasoning
Most people are inclined to X
Therefore X is natural
Therefore X is an intrinsic good
Therefore X ought to be pursued
(In controvention of the is-ough distinct of Hume?)
Recall, Hume in effect says that to accept the normative 'ought' claim requires implicitly accepting the command which involves being inclined to obey it. Whereas, you can rationally accept (says Hume) any descriptive claim while not being inclined in any particular way.
So Finnis accepts the is-ought distinction but denies that he is deducing the normative and/or evaluative claims from descriptive claims. Rather, they are self-evident (the normative and/or evaluative claims).
His202
Isaac Newton and the Newtonian Revolution
Newton believed he was working within the tradition of the mechanical natural philosophy, established and articulated by Descartes. Newton was one generation after Descartes (After Descartes articulated a very STRICT philosophy - all atoms are just bumping into each other, everything is mathematically explained, everything is mathematical everything is mechanical there's very little room to move).
By the time Newton came to university mechanism was widely used but it was also mixed with a philosophy that encouraged experiments and such, which is in fact contrary to what Descartes prescribed.
(Post Cartesian)
Most natural philosophers subscribed a mechanical natural philosophy that included 'vacuums' (Descartes did not believe that vacuums could exist).
Bacon's inductive beliefs and method was mixed with Descarte's natural mechanical philosophy.
Newton and natural magic (the occult):
Newton insisted that the natural world cannot be explained solely in terms of the arrangement and inertial movements of totally passive atoms. Instead, Newton said that atoms have active principles. Each atom has its own power to attract and repel at a distance.
Kepler:
There's a magnetic theory in Kepler's work but there's no mathematical description or demonstration of that theory.
So Newton wants to give this some explanation, some description. So the first thing he does is he looks at Newton's third law. Thus Newton comes up with INVERSE SQUARE LAW: The attractive force is dependent on the distance of the planet from the sun.
Newton believed he was working within the tradition of the mechanical natural philosophy, established and articulated by Descartes. Newton was one generation after Descartes (After Descartes articulated a very STRICT philosophy - all atoms are just bumping into each other, everything is mathematically explained, everything is mathematical everything is mechanical there's very little room to move).
By the time Newton came to university mechanism was widely used but it was also mixed with a philosophy that encouraged experiments and such, which is in fact contrary to what Descartes prescribed.
(Post Cartesian)
Most natural philosophers subscribed a mechanical natural philosophy that included 'vacuums' (Descartes did not believe that vacuums could exist).
Bacon's inductive beliefs and method was mixed with Descarte's natural mechanical philosophy.
Newton and natural magic (the occult):
Newton insisted that the natural world cannot be explained solely in terms of the arrangement and inertial movements of totally passive atoms. Instead, Newton said that atoms have active principles. Each atom has its own power to attract and repel at a distance.
Kepler:
There's a magnetic theory in Kepler's work but there's no mathematical description or demonstration of that theory.
So Newton wants to give this some explanation, some description. So the first thing he does is he looks at Newton's third law. Thus Newton comes up with INVERSE SQUARE LAW: The attractive force is dependent on the distance of the planet from the sun.
Lit202
Sonya, as a prostitute, makes her redemptive qualities more moving. Part 4, chapter 4, she reads the passage of Lazarus' resurrection from significantly Lizaveta's bible.
Raskalnikov - 'holy fool' explaining the paradox that Sonya represents.
In St Paul the faith in the incarnation is a scandal to the Jew (who refuse to accept Christianity) and folly to the Greek (the philosophers of pagan antiquity). Here though, Sonya is this divine wisdom - precisely the paradox of Christianity, the first will be last, the last the first, weakness is strength, all of these things which violate almost our own instincts. Love your enemies. Turn the other cheek. Somebody needs your shirt then give them your jacket too. This Paradox of Christianity, G.K Chesterton always stresses the paradoxes of Christianity, the mysteries of Christianity. Raskalnikov is suddenly seeing something that is wonderful. The paradox of Sonya. He is drawn to this mystery, to her. And that will be his redemption. In this prostitute's house here is the new testament, who is rebuking me for talking about that her God does nothing for her - she says that God gives her everything - how is this possible? With every minute that passes he finds her more peculiar and more interesting.
Raskalnikov is deluded in thinking that he can redeem Sonya by bringing him to his world view. You've stepped over you gotta keep stepping over until it doesn't hurt any more. Until you don't care any more. It's ironic because he says 'take the suffering upon yourself'. This is what she has done already.
Raskalnikov - 'holy fool' explaining the paradox that Sonya represents.
In St Paul the faith in the incarnation is a scandal to the Jew (who refuse to accept Christianity) and folly to the Greek (the philosophers of pagan antiquity). Here though, Sonya is this divine wisdom - precisely the paradox of Christianity, the first will be last, the last the first, weakness is strength, all of these things which violate almost our own instincts. Love your enemies. Turn the other cheek. Somebody needs your shirt then give them your jacket too. This Paradox of Christianity, G.K Chesterton always stresses the paradoxes of Christianity, the mysteries of Christianity. Raskalnikov is suddenly seeing something that is wonderful. The paradox of Sonya. He is drawn to this mystery, to her. And that will be his redemption. In this prostitute's house here is the new testament, who is rebuking me for talking about that her God does nothing for her - she says that God gives her everything - how is this possible? With every minute that passes he finds her more peculiar and more interesting.
Raskalnikov is deluded in thinking that he can redeem Sonya by bringing him to his world view. You've stepped over you gotta keep stepping over until it doesn't hurt any more. Until you don't care any more. It's ironic because he says 'take the suffering upon yourself'. This is what she has done already.
Lit202
The investigator works towards Raskalnikov's temporal redemption.
The russian people are generally eastern orthodox Christianity.
P.126, the change, the interval.
Raskalnikov (inconsistent) he rails against the marriage her sister wants to have. He threatens to disown her. Then suddenly, he says he doesn't care if she marries. And he means it, because that other part of his personality is now dominant. So there's a fight going on inside of him. The division of Raskalnikov can be looked at in many different ways. One way is to look at him embodying the philosophical dispositions of having cold logic yet being remarkably passionate. The romantics are sort of heirs of the englightenment yet they react to the enlightment with these airs of emotion that are the opposite of will and reason.
He says he will not suffer to the fate of will and reason that makes others ordinary.
The stirrings of his conscience lead him to a state of near madness (almost like Macbeth's) and this is the cause of his nightmares, and sleeplessness. It emerges that after the murder his reason had grown feeble, broken apart, indicating that Raskalnikov himself, has broken in two. And in this way he represents that modern man has been torn apart, dostoyevsky sees the disenchantment already in the early 20th century. We see the effects of the collapse of morality and the loss of face. We see the effects in society, prostitution, pedofilia, gambling, etc. The vices are prevalent in the novel. The conditions in which people live are horrible.
Raskalnikov's name establishes as analogy between an ecclesial schism between the Russian church as well as a schism between humanity and God. Raskalnikov's name is the sectarian, the separated. A breach in the natural law separates us from nature, from our fellow man and from the giver of the law, God.
It is the task of Sonya and the investigator to bring back Raskalnikov to the fold (independently of each other) through confession and then penance. Which is spending part of his life in prison.
There's a secondary writer who notes that Porphry and Sonya represent the State and the Church working in harmony, respectively. (Pierce wrote this). Porphy's name comes from the name of the purple cloak worn by the Byzantine attributors.
Sonya's name comes from Sophia, which evokes 'HAGGIA SOPHIA' holy wisdom (that's the name of a cathedral i think).
Raskalnikov's name means the heretic.
Svidirigailov - the barbarian. He stands in symbolic opposition to Sonya and Porphry, he sort of represents the diabolical. He's completely reprehensible. He is representative of one half of Raskalnikov's personality.
The landlady, Alyora, is a usurer, she's horribly.
The extra-ordinary people are Alyora, Luzhin 'look at where love has gotten us, I split my coat and now two people are cold instead of one', Svedryiaglov.
The ordinary people: Lizaveta.
The russian people are generally eastern orthodox Christianity.
P.126, the change, the interval.
Raskalnikov (inconsistent) he rails against the marriage her sister wants to have. He threatens to disown her. Then suddenly, he says he doesn't care if she marries. And he means it, because that other part of his personality is now dominant. So there's a fight going on inside of him. The division of Raskalnikov can be looked at in many different ways. One way is to look at him embodying the philosophical dispositions of having cold logic yet being remarkably passionate. The romantics are sort of heirs of the englightenment yet they react to the enlightment with these airs of emotion that are the opposite of will and reason.
He says he will not suffer to the fate of will and reason that makes others ordinary.
The stirrings of his conscience lead him to a state of near madness (almost like Macbeth's) and this is the cause of his nightmares, and sleeplessness. It emerges that after the murder his reason had grown feeble, broken apart, indicating that Raskalnikov himself, has broken in two. And in this way he represents that modern man has been torn apart, dostoyevsky sees the disenchantment already in the early 20th century. We see the effects of the collapse of morality and the loss of face. We see the effects in society, prostitution, pedofilia, gambling, etc. The vices are prevalent in the novel. The conditions in which people live are horrible.
Raskalnikov's name establishes as analogy between an ecclesial schism between the Russian church as well as a schism between humanity and God. Raskalnikov's name is the sectarian, the separated. A breach in the natural law separates us from nature, from our fellow man and from the giver of the law, God.
It is the task of Sonya and the investigator to bring back Raskalnikov to the fold (independently of each other) through confession and then penance. Which is spending part of his life in prison.
There's a secondary writer who notes that Porphry and Sonya represent the State and the Church working in harmony, respectively. (Pierce wrote this). Porphy's name comes from the name of the purple cloak worn by the Byzantine attributors.
Sonya's name comes from Sophia, which evokes 'HAGGIA SOPHIA' holy wisdom (that's the name of a cathedral i think).
Raskalnikov's name means the heretic.
Svidirigailov - the barbarian. He stands in symbolic opposition to Sonya and Porphry, he sort of represents the diabolical. He's completely reprehensible. He is representative of one half of Raskalnikov's personality.
The landlady, Alyora, is a usurer, she's horribly.
The extra-ordinary people are Alyora, Luzhin 'look at where love has gotten us, I split my coat and now two people are cold instead of one', Svedryiaglov.
The ordinary people: Lizaveta.
Sunday, 18 October 2009
Phi202
Natural law theory.
One of the hardest sorts to pin down. Particularly on the issue of what makes a number of different theories, natural law theories. E.g Aquinas (paradigm case), Stoics like Cicero and the likes of Hobbes are all in the category, even though Cicero is not a conventional theorist and Hobbes has a very harsh view of human existence. The common thread is to do with the role of reason.
Popularly, Natural Law theory is contrasted to relativism and nihilism, as holding that there is an objective moral law superseding mere human law and custom/convention.
But this characterisation doesn't make clear why, e.g., Kant, who also believes in an objective moral law to a our conv may or may not conform,[illegible text] isn't a Natural Law theorist. So what more is required to render a theorist a natural law theorist?
Consider another popular slogan. Natural Law theory says that there is an objective moral order discernible by right natural reason. Why doesn't Kant fall under this description? Clue: Kant speaks 'pure' rather than 'natural' reason. He has, that is, a different view about the nature of the moral truths that reason can establish.For him,the only truths deducible from pure reason (if so the onlygenuinelymoralones) are 'neutral' with respect to conceptions of true good 'i.e neutral with respect to different views of what would constitute a good outcome.
They tell yo only what your duty is, i.e what you are morally obligated to do and not do, i.e what is never morally permissible to not do or do irrespective of what constitutes a good outcome. Most importantly, it's your duty not to violate anyon'es rights, even if it would make sense to a good outcome to do so. It's never right (permissible) to violate someone's rights.
E.g for Kant, everyone has a right not to be lied to. I.e it is your duty not to do so, i.e it is never right/permissible to do so.
(don't confuse what it is right to do with the rights someone has).
Also, everyone has a right to a fair trial, regardless of the convenience of (good outcomes) violating that right.
So for Kant, moral truths discernible by reason are 'procedural/formal' in flavour, rather than substance.
Natural Law theorists in contrast, hold that one can rationally deduce truths about what would constitute a good outcome.
Why use the word 'natural' to mark this point, rather than e.g 'teleological'. Because for Kant the moral facts deducible by reason are facts about the right course of action for all rational beings. For Natural Law theorists, we deduce facts about what constitutes a good life for creatures of our nature, which includes more than our rational nature.
One of the hardest sorts to pin down. Particularly on the issue of what makes a number of different theories, natural law theories. E.g Aquinas (paradigm case), Stoics like Cicero and the likes of Hobbes are all in the category, even though Cicero is not a conventional theorist and Hobbes has a very harsh view of human existence. The common thread is to do with the role of reason.
Popularly, Natural Law theory is contrasted to relativism and nihilism, as holding that there is an objective moral law superseding mere human law and custom/convention.
But this characterisation doesn't make clear why, e.g., Kant, who also believes in an objective moral law to a our conv may or may not conform,[illegible text] isn't a Natural Law theorist. So what more is required to render a theorist a natural law theorist?
Consider another popular slogan. Natural Law theory says that there is an objective moral order discernible by right natural reason. Why doesn't Kant fall under this description? Clue: Kant speaks 'pure' rather than 'natural' reason. He has, that is, a different view about the nature of the moral truths that reason can establish.For him,the only truths deducible from pure reason (if so the onlygenuinelymoralones) are 'neutral' with respect to conceptions of true good 'i.e neutral with respect to different views of what would constitute a good outcome.
They tell yo only what your duty is, i.e what you are morally obligated to do and not do, i.e what is never morally permissible to not do or do irrespective of what constitutes a good outcome. Most importantly, it's your duty not to violate anyon'es rights, even if it would make sense to a good outcome to do so. It's never right (permissible) to violate someone's rights.
E.g for Kant, everyone has a right not to be lied to. I.e it is your duty not to do so, i.e it is never right/permissible to do so.
(don't confuse what it is right to do with the rights someone has).
Also, everyone has a right to a fair trial, regardless of the convenience of (good outcomes) violating that right.
So for Kant, moral truths discernible by reason are 'procedural/formal' in flavour, rather than substance.
Natural Law theorists in contrast, hold that one can rationally deduce truths about what would constitute a good outcome.
Why use the word 'natural' to mark this point, rather than e.g 'teleological'. Because for Kant the moral facts deducible by reason are facts about the right course of action for all rational beings. For Natural Law theorists, we deduce facts about what constitutes a good life for creatures of our nature, which includes more than our rational nature.
Mechanism vs Neo-Platonism vs Aristotelianism
A lot of 17th century philosopher talked about Corpuscles (as opposed to atoms).
Neo-Platonist's mystic tendencies did not fit in well with moderate, orthodox, social, religious and political views.
There are different types of neo-platonism: One type regards the earth as something like: Mathematical character of reality, mystical element, mathematical spiritual dualism.
(Mystic - magical philosophers [observers of nature, rather than mathematics]:
Hermetic philosopher - Paracelsus
Fludd, Pico (on the one side of the spectrum))
Kepler might fall somewhere in between (between magic and mechanical)
(mechanical/mathematical philosophers:
On the other side we have Descartes, neo-platonic school of thought using mathematics, talks about the transcendence of the soul. Also perhaps Galileo)
Pico and some of the courtiers in Florence believed that mathematics was still subordinate to observance of nature in natural philosophy in the early modern world.
Many natural magicians advocated social and political reform - how states should be governed and how lives should be lived.
Giordano Bruno (Copernican, and natural magician) insisted that God is not only the creator of the Universe but God is also within nature. He created all the spiritual and mystical movements and is constantly in interaction with nature. Magic, of course, meant knowledge of nature. And as such Bruno was merging magic and religion and so he was burnt at the stake for heresy in 1600. Bruno is not a strict natural philosopher, he is a social theorizer as well as a natural philosopher. He deemed it important to reform ourselves to achieve illumination.
At this time as well Aristotelian philosophy was finding some deficiencies as physics and mathematics started to play a bigger role. Aristotelianism was becoming outdated.
The mechanical, mathematical Neo-Platonists believed they held the truth. They wanted control, knowledge over nature. And they wanted to contain the Church. They wouldn't allow anything too mystical too happen. They were more socially and religiously conservative. Which offers somewhat of a contentious view, that mechanists were religiously and socially conservative, after all looking back on intellectual history we see that Descartes were radicals, breaking the mould, setting off on ideas that the religious and political authorities didn't like and yet in this sense, in this context, the history of thought they are actually quite conservative. And that's the message Descartes tried to convey when he spoke about the difference between the mind and the body, and the prime mover. Realms of orthodox religious belief, mysticism could only be contained within these realms, if it breached these realms than it wasn't accepted.
In the 17th century philosophers sought an orthodox relationship between religion and philosophy. Less mysticism, Mechanists sought to be orthodox, less magical and more scientific.
Gassendi, re-interpreting Plato, and the ancient epicurians, in a manner that was more acceptable to Christianity. Rather than speaking about atomism, they would speak about copuscularenism (making atomism acceptable). He thought of himself as a new Thomas Aquinas.
Descartes is not alone, he and others are standing upon new humanistic practices in the natural sciences to create a new alternative to scholasticism, this also shows that Descartes and his colleagues wanted to frame this new thought in an orthodox standard.
The development of the mechanical observance of nature could only happen post-reformation, or perhaps even still during the reformation of the 17th century. This could only happen in the light of the religious and political controversy that the neo-platonists of the 15th and 16th centuries bring up.
Francis Bacon. Is an indication of the cultural flourishing of this period (He is in the splendour of the his gown, typical of Elizabethan England) He came to power post Queen Elizabeth. England is still flourishing financially and politically from the long Elizabethan reign. A reflection of this pride and wealth is the garments that they wore. Bacon study law at Trinity College, Cambridge. He was a skilled with rhetoric and confident in his abilities. Lord Chancellor, is the highest judicial placement in Britain.
What does knowledge of nature mean for humanity? This question, Bacon tried to answer, in his book Novam Organum. This book is a response to Aristotelianism and is about methodology. Focusing on more thorough processes and methodologies of natural knowledge. The suggestion that man can and is going beyond what has been achieved so far (refer to the cover image on the book, the ship of knowledge returning through Hercules' pillars). The idea of exploring beyond the limits of Europe is quite a popular image for Europeans (it's only 200 years after the discoveries of America [have to check this]).
This book isn't just about a rejection of Aristotelianism and a suggestion of something better. It's also about:
book 1: The scriptures. Adam and the fall of Eden is discusses. A discussion about man's loss of nature is also present. Bacon presents the idea that this mastery can be re-attained. This is not surprising. It harmonises well with natural philosophy. There's an ultimate spiritual illumination through the attainment of knowledge. The book also talks about practical arts (refer to handout, with quotes).
Bacon argued that the first thing you have to do to reform learning is to discard the Ancients. He claims that relying on the Ancients will eventually mislead us. And to corroborate this thought he says that we are already misled. And these misleading he calls 'Idols of the Mind' false ideas and concepts. One IoM is reliance on ancient text. Another is the type of language that we use. Another is the stories that we pass down from generation to generation that become part of our knowledge-base without any verification. So we often fall into these pitfalls of 'knowledge'.
What does one do to overcome these idols and not use the ancients? Well Bacon says we should rely on observations of nature. But not just experiments. We need to be systematic and methodological about this. He believes that we shouldn't focus totally on speculation, what's more important is the experience. The only thing one can rely on is one's own experience - one can't rely on theorizing, one must observe, experience and accumulate reports about what one sees in nature. And this accumulation leads to laws and facts about nature, this is called the induction process. (Parallels Descartes 'you can only rely on your own mind'.)
In order to be systematic Bacon sets out tables of instances.
Bacon believes that motion and friction creates heat atoms/corpuscles. The problem with this inductive method is that you only have to find one observation which contradicts the eventual conclusion that means that one must throw out the whole law. However, some people started talking about the 'falsification of theories'.
We can see that Bacon was part of the natural magical tradition, encouraging empiricism in the 17th century. Dominion over nature, illumination.
So Bacon is definitely not a full blown mystic and neither a mechanist. His emphasis is on empiricism.
Once again, in the 17th century we have a variety of world views encapsulating much of the humanistic and religious interests of the Renaissance.
Neo-Platonist's mystic tendencies did not fit in well with moderate, orthodox, social, religious and political views.
There are different types of neo-platonism: One type regards the earth as something like: Mathematical character of reality, mystical element, mathematical spiritual dualism.
(Mystic - magical philosophers [observers of nature, rather than mathematics]:
Hermetic philosopher - Paracelsus
Fludd, Pico (on the one side of the spectrum))
Kepler might fall somewhere in between (between magic and mechanical)
(mechanical/mathematical philosophers:
On the other side we have Descartes, neo-platonic school of thought using mathematics, talks about the transcendence of the soul. Also perhaps Galileo)
Pico and some of the courtiers in Florence believed that mathematics was still subordinate to observance of nature in natural philosophy in the early modern world.
Many natural magicians advocated social and political reform - how states should be governed and how lives should be lived.
Giordano Bruno (Copernican, and natural magician) insisted that God is not only the creator of the Universe but God is also within nature. He created all the spiritual and mystical movements and is constantly in interaction with nature. Magic, of course, meant knowledge of nature. And as such Bruno was merging magic and religion and so he was burnt at the stake for heresy in 1600. Bruno is not a strict natural philosopher, he is a social theorizer as well as a natural philosopher. He deemed it important to reform ourselves to achieve illumination.
At this time as well Aristotelian philosophy was finding some deficiencies as physics and mathematics started to play a bigger role. Aristotelianism was becoming outdated.
The mechanical, mathematical Neo-Platonists believed they held the truth. They wanted control, knowledge over nature. And they wanted to contain the Church. They wouldn't allow anything too mystical too happen. They were more socially and religiously conservative. Which offers somewhat of a contentious view, that mechanists were religiously and socially conservative, after all looking back on intellectual history we see that Descartes were radicals, breaking the mould, setting off on ideas that the religious and political authorities didn't like and yet in this sense, in this context, the history of thought they are actually quite conservative. And that's the message Descartes tried to convey when he spoke about the difference between the mind and the body, and the prime mover. Realms of orthodox religious belief, mysticism could only be contained within these realms, if it breached these realms than it wasn't accepted.
In the 17th century philosophers sought an orthodox relationship between religion and philosophy. Less mysticism, Mechanists sought to be orthodox, less magical and more scientific.
Gassendi, re-interpreting Plato, and the ancient epicurians, in a manner that was more acceptable to Christianity. Rather than speaking about atomism, they would speak about copuscularenism (making atomism acceptable). He thought of himself as a new Thomas Aquinas.
Descartes is not alone, he and others are standing upon new humanistic practices in the natural sciences to create a new alternative to scholasticism, this also shows that Descartes and his colleagues wanted to frame this new thought in an orthodox standard.
The development of the mechanical observance of nature could only happen post-reformation, or perhaps even still during the reformation of the 17th century. This could only happen in the light of the religious and political controversy that the neo-platonists of the 15th and 16th centuries bring up.
Francis Bacon. Is an indication of the cultural flourishing of this period (He is in the splendour of the his gown, typical of Elizabethan England) He came to power post Queen Elizabeth. England is still flourishing financially and politically from the long Elizabethan reign. A reflection of this pride and wealth is the garments that they wore. Bacon study law at Trinity College, Cambridge. He was a skilled with rhetoric and confident in his abilities. Lord Chancellor, is the highest judicial placement in Britain.
What does knowledge of nature mean for humanity? This question, Bacon tried to answer, in his book Novam Organum. This book is a response to Aristotelianism and is about methodology. Focusing on more thorough processes and methodologies of natural knowledge. The suggestion that man can and is going beyond what has been achieved so far (refer to the cover image on the book, the ship of knowledge returning through Hercules' pillars). The idea of exploring beyond the limits of Europe is quite a popular image for Europeans (it's only 200 years after the discoveries of America [have to check this]).
This book isn't just about a rejection of Aristotelianism and a suggestion of something better. It's also about:
book 1: The scriptures. Adam and the fall of Eden is discusses. A discussion about man's loss of nature is also present. Bacon presents the idea that this mastery can be re-attained. This is not surprising. It harmonises well with natural philosophy. There's an ultimate spiritual illumination through the attainment of knowledge. The book also talks about practical arts (refer to handout, with quotes).
Bacon argued that the first thing you have to do to reform learning is to discard the Ancients. He claims that relying on the Ancients will eventually mislead us. And to corroborate this thought he says that we are already misled. And these misleading he calls 'Idols of the Mind' false ideas and concepts. One IoM is reliance on ancient text. Another is the type of language that we use. Another is the stories that we pass down from generation to generation that become part of our knowledge-base without any verification. So we often fall into these pitfalls of 'knowledge'.
What does one do to overcome these idols and not use the ancients? Well Bacon says we should rely on observations of nature. But not just experiments. We need to be systematic and methodological about this. He believes that we shouldn't focus totally on speculation, what's more important is the experience. The only thing one can rely on is one's own experience - one can't rely on theorizing, one must observe, experience and accumulate reports about what one sees in nature. And this accumulation leads to laws and facts about nature, this is called the induction process. (Parallels Descartes 'you can only rely on your own mind'.)
In order to be systematic Bacon sets out tables of instances.
Bacon believes that motion and friction creates heat atoms/corpuscles. The problem with this inductive method is that you only have to find one observation which contradicts the eventual conclusion that means that one must throw out the whole law. However, some people started talking about the 'falsification of theories'.
We can see that Bacon was part of the natural magical tradition, encouraging empiricism in the 17th century. Dominion over nature, illumination.
So Bacon is definitely not a full blown mystic and neither a mechanist. His emphasis is on empiricism.
Once again, in the 17th century we have a variety of world views encapsulating much of the humanistic and religious interests of the Renaissance.
Monday, 12 October 2009
Phi202
For Thrasymachus, to be virtuous is to be excellent and to be excellent is to be a winner. An excellence is something that helps to achieve the goal of being the best. So a virtue can be being unjust.
What Socrates does is that he turns these ideas back on themselves. In terms of that telos (above), being a lion among men, a wolf among men, is not going to achieve that goal. It's not a genuine thing. Justice IS a virtue.
Henceforth, he then takes a different tack and argues that justice doesn't pay. Moreover, he has it that justice is not a virtue, i.e. not an excellence. How can this be?
For Thrasymachus, the human telos is rather like that of a beast of prey. It consists in dominating and imposing your will. For that end, justice may well not be an affective means. But a thing is excellent if and only if it has qualities that help it fulfil its end. So forth the just man won't have such qualities, i.e. won't be excellent.
Socrates responds to this by arguing for a different telos. Roughly, humans are social and human excellence consists for Socrates at least partly in having qualities that render you able to interact well socially - justice plausibly is one of these qualities.
Is there anything that Socrates can say to argue Thrasymachus out of his view as to what the human telos is?
One argument is that no one man can dominate all the people all the time. So even on his own terms Thrasymachus has to admit that the man who acts like a beast of prey will not succeed.
What Socrates does is that he turns these ideas back on themselves. In terms of that telos (above), being a lion among men, a wolf among men, is not going to achieve that goal. It's not a genuine thing. Justice IS a virtue.
Henceforth, he then takes a different tack and argues that justice doesn't pay. Moreover, he has it that justice is not a virtue, i.e. not an excellence. How can this be?
For Thrasymachus, the human telos is rather like that of a beast of prey. It consists in dominating and imposing your will. For that end, justice may well not be an affective means. But a thing is excellent if and only if it has qualities that help it fulfil its end. So forth the just man won't have such qualities, i.e. won't be excellent.
Socrates responds to this by arguing for a different telos. Roughly, humans are social and human excellence consists for Socrates at least partly in having qualities that render you able to interact well socially - justice plausibly is one of these qualities.
Is there anything that Socrates can say to argue Thrasymachus out of his view as to what the human telos is?
One argument is that no one man can dominate all the people all the time. So even on his own terms Thrasymachus has to admit that the man who acts like a beast of prey will not succeed.
His202
Scholastic Unity of Faith and Reason
Action against Galileo became essential when he started making public pronouncements about the theological orthodoxy of his work - but even more inflammatory than that, leaving the astronomy to the astronomers.
'Mathematics will help describe nature using reason'. For Jesuits mathematical astronomy is a valuable practice, it's a valuable reflection of human knowledge - but it's not philosophy.
There is a tension in the rising efficacy of the rising sciences such as Mathematics and Astronomy. They are coming close to philosophy.
Jesuits were trying to establish unity between faith and reason. And trying to find a place for mathematics within liberal arts. From the point of view of the Church any defence of Copernicism, especially as fierce as Galileo's defence, had to be disputed on a science and theological level. And that theological argument took Galileo to court.
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) was the representation of the Church's beliefs: universality of knowledge, faith and reason, orthodox, aristotelian (cosmology), tolemaic (mathematical astronomy), tomistic world view.
According to Bellarmine, Galileo had to be stopped.
The lynx - shows a dedication to observation and to the future pope, Urban the 8th.
Galileo wrote Dialogo in Italian to reach a mass market. It had to be sarcastic, witty, creative, intelligent, to get people to read it.
Sagredo -Galilean student
Salviati - Galileo himself, Copernican philosopher
Simplico - 6th century commentator on Aristotle (hint of the passage, resembles Barbalini's statement to Galileo, that things could be otherwise.) There is a possibility that this character represents the Pope.
Descartes emphasised everything that he would like to perfect with regards to Jesuit education.
Mathematically based, mechanical world view. He's talking about a universe that can be measured and calculated which is very different from Kepler's mystical views.
Descartes establishing a new philosophy based on classical principals to counter scholastic thought.
Gassendi - mid 17th century
Think about Descarte's skills and interests. Use John Henry's mechanical philosophy as a guide. Compare it to Bacon's mechanical philosophy.
So the work that they were doing is very much a part of what was occurring
renaissance humanism, jesuit education, responses to scholasticism.
Is this is a revolution?? Or a re-thinking and re-application of certain classical principals.
Action against Galileo became essential when he started making public pronouncements about the theological orthodoxy of his work - but even more inflammatory than that, leaving the astronomy to the astronomers.
'Mathematics will help describe nature using reason'. For Jesuits mathematical astronomy is a valuable practice, it's a valuable reflection of human knowledge - but it's not philosophy.
There is a tension in the rising efficacy of the rising sciences such as Mathematics and Astronomy. They are coming close to philosophy.
Jesuits were trying to establish unity between faith and reason. And trying to find a place for mathematics within liberal arts. From the point of view of the Church any defence of Copernicism, especially as fierce as Galileo's defence, had to be disputed on a science and theological level. And that theological argument took Galileo to court.
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) was the representation of the Church's beliefs: universality of knowledge, faith and reason, orthodox, aristotelian (cosmology), tolemaic (mathematical astronomy), tomistic world view.
According to Bellarmine, Galileo had to be stopped.
The lynx - shows a dedication to observation and to the future pope, Urban the 8th.
Galileo wrote Dialogo in Italian to reach a mass market. It had to be sarcastic, witty, creative, intelligent, to get people to read it.
Sagredo -Galilean student
Salviati - Galileo himself, Copernican philosopher
Simplico - 6th century commentator on Aristotle (hint of the passage, resembles Barbalini's statement to Galileo, that things could be otherwise.) There is a possibility that this character represents the Pope.
Descartes emphasised everything that he would like to perfect with regards to Jesuit education.
Mathematically based, mechanical world view. He's talking about a universe that can be measured and calculated which is very different from Kepler's mystical views.
Descartes establishing a new philosophy based on classical principals to counter scholastic thought.
Gassendi - mid 17th century
Think about Descarte's skills and interests. Use John Henry's mechanical philosophy as a guide. Compare it to Bacon's mechanical philosophy.
So the work that they were doing is very much a part of what was occurring
renaissance humanism, jesuit education, responses to scholasticism.
Is this is a revolution?? Or a re-thinking and re-application of certain classical principals.
Phi202 Essay
Is Kant's moral theory defensible?
Kant's moral theory is an interesting theory which has merits and shortcomings. The philosophy of the categorical imperative produces some interesting and thought provoking ideas. However, when taken to an extreme end, it proves to be an irrational and dangerous philosophy. Kant's moral philosophy gives a strong starting point to discussing and developing ideas about the way morality works, however this logical force is lost in the long run to problems such as contradictory terms and other fallacies.
The first formulation expresses Kant's categorical imperative quite well: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. (Kant, Immanuel; translated by James W. Ellington [1785] (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals 3rd ed.. Hackett. pp. 30) This expression provides a firm foundation for analysing morality. To explicate further, according to Kant, an action can only be right if this action may be considered and applied by all of humanity without having any detrimental affects on humanity. Therefore, the action of lying for one's own gain cannot be right because, if one imagines, a world where everybody lies for one's own gain then the nobody would believe one another and no gain would be found thus the premise is found to be illogical. However, the direct opposite of this claim, that is a world where everybody must not, is not logically defensible either, as it will be explained later on in this essay. Not long after Kant expressed his first formulation he was challenged by other philosophers. Benjamin Constant, a Swiss philosopher, challenged Kant's theory on the basis that telling the truth must be universally right an thus must happen in our world. He provided the scenario where a murderer has asked for details of his potential victim, of you, and you must tell the truth, thus divulging the details of the murderer's potential victim and thus aiding and abetting the criminal. Obviously this seems illogical and puts Kant's theory at risk. Kant replied to Constant's challenge by writing the essay "On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives". Kant primarily agrees with Constants premise that one must not lie to a murderer. He then denies that this action creates any sought of weakness in his own philosophy, justifying this by explicating that the ends should play no role in one's decision making when deciding about the means. One simply should not be worried about the final conclusion of their actions when they follow the universal law, according to Kant. So, it seems that Kant's categorical imperative is a horribly illogical philosophy veiled in a shroud of supposed logic. However, under the formula of Universal Law, the conclusion is found to be logical.
Even so, in another light this scenario does not prove Kant's philosophy to be wrong. It shows that in the face of evil even human morality sometimes gives humanity the chance to do something that may, from an idealistic perspective, seem to be wrong. (Christine M. Korsgaard, Cambridge University Press, 1995, Kant's Moral Philosophy, p.135). As Korsgaard explicates, Kant's philosophy is not deemed wrong from this conclusion, it actually illuminates a nuance often overlooked when we deal with evil, that is, that when evil presents itself the situation often needs us to use special principles to properly interact with evil. One of these special principles is found in the scenario with the murderer and the person who may or may not lie. It is found to be right that the person lies to the murderer in order to save the victims life. It is definitely not wrong to lie when the lie disables or hinders evil plans. And according to Kant's categorical imperative, this maxim, that it is right to lie when the lie disables or hinders evil plans, would work universally. It is similar to the concept of there being: "a lesser of two evils".
Furthermore, Kant describes his Formula of the End in Itself. Which is a ridiculously fancy way of saying that we should all treat each other with respect. He endeavours to describe that each of us holds within us the 'end', that is we all hold rationality within us. And because of this rationality we must all treat each other with respect, and not use each other as 'means'. This ties in with Kant's idea about the autonomy of Mankind. Kant suggests that all human adults should be able to think rationally and because of this we are able to justify and argue our beliefs. In Kant's eye these beliefs would have to live up to his categorical imperative, the beliefs must embody universality. What this means is, for a person to be an end, not a means, that person must have knowledge of what is going on around them. And furthermore, those who are around them, must make known what is occurring. So that at any time, each person knows and may assent to what is occurring. If this does not happen then evil is present, for coercion and deception are evil things. Therefore, if your end is one that others cannot know about, that you may not tell them for the sake of remaining in your position, then that end cannot be good. All things that are good must be able to be made known to everybody so that everybody may be able to assent to them. If you can not tell somebody what you are going to do, then you should not do it. The world where these philosophies occur perfectly is called the Kingdom of Ends.
The Kingdom of Ends is a world filled with rational beings who live by universal maxims. This is the perfect world, in Kant's eyes, because it combines his theory of categorical imperatives with autonomous individuals creating a society of perfected rules. According to Korsgaard the kingdom of nature is representative of the Kingdom of Ends (p.140). The reason is because moral laws have a relationship with natural laws. Natural laws are by themselves perfect, and so if a moral law can be compared with a natural law, and if no differences in structure and use are found, then it can be deemed that the moral law is now a universal natural law. This however, proves to be problematic for Kant's philosophy, as some theories that were taken for granted in the earlier formulations are now being challenged. Take for example, the scenario with the murderer, in the first formulation, the categorical imperative, it seems as though lying to the murderer is the wrong thing to do. However, upon further inspection, duties such as the duty of mutual aid and the duty of self respect arise which contradict the duty of telling the truth. Thus we see a problem in Kant's theory which was not addressed by him.
The merits of Kantian moral philosophy are small but sweet. His foundations provoke interesting thought with regards to the philosophical area of morals and his philosophy certainly does provide an interesting argument. However, it can be seen that the shortcomings of this philosophy are too significant. The contradictions and horribly ridiculous conclusion which can be drawn from his philosophy prove it to be a highly irrational theory veiled in the guise of logic.
Kant's moral theory is an interesting theory which has merits and shortcomings. The philosophy of the categorical imperative produces some interesting and thought provoking ideas. However, when taken to an extreme end, it proves to be an irrational and dangerous philosophy. Kant's moral philosophy gives a strong starting point to discussing and developing ideas about the way morality works, however this logical force is lost in the long run to problems such as contradictory terms and other fallacies.
The first formulation expresses Kant's categorical imperative quite well: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. (Kant, Immanuel; translated by James W. Ellington [1785] (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals 3rd ed.. Hackett. pp. 30) This expression provides a firm foundation for analysing morality. To explicate further, according to Kant, an action can only be right if this action may be considered and applied by all of humanity without having any detrimental affects on humanity. Therefore, the action of lying for one's own gain cannot be right because, if one imagines, a world where everybody lies for one's own gain then the nobody would believe one another and no gain would be found thus the premise is found to be illogical. However, the direct opposite of this claim, that is a world where everybody must not, is not logically defensible either, as it will be explained later on in this essay. Not long after Kant expressed his first formulation he was challenged by other philosophers. Benjamin Constant, a Swiss philosopher, challenged Kant's theory on the basis that telling the truth must be universally right an thus must happen in our world. He provided the scenario where a murderer has asked for details of his potential victim, of you, and you must tell the truth, thus divulging the details of the murderer's potential victim and thus aiding and abetting the criminal. Obviously this seems illogical and puts Kant's theory at risk. Kant replied to Constant's challenge by writing the essay "On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives". Kant primarily agrees with Constants premise that one must not lie to a murderer. He then denies that this action creates any sought of weakness in his own philosophy, justifying this by explicating that the ends should play no role in one's decision making when deciding about the means. One simply should not be worried about the final conclusion of their actions when they follow the universal law, according to Kant. So, it seems that Kant's categorical imperative is a horribly illogical philosophy veiled in a shroud of supposed logic. However, under the formula of Universal Law, the conclusion is found to be logical.
Even so, in another light this scenario does not prove Kant's philosophy to be wrong. It shows that in the face of evil even human morality sometimes gives humanity the chance to do something that may, from an idealistic perspective, seem to be wrong. (Christine M. Korsgaard, Cambridge University Press, 1995, Kant's Moral Philosophy, p.135). As Korsgaard explicates, Kant's philosophy is not deemed wrong from this conclusion, it actually illuminates a nuance often overlooked when we deal with evil, that is, that when evil presents itself the situation often needs us to use special principles to properly interact with evil. One of these special principles is found in the scenario with the murderer and the person who may or may not lie. It is found to be right that the person lies to the murderer in order to save the victims life. It is definitely not wrong to lie when the lie disables or hinders evil plans. And according to Kant's categorical imperative, this maxim, that it is right to lie when the lie disables or hinders evil plans, would work universally. It is similar to the concept of there being: "a lesser of two evils".
Furthermore, Kant describes his Formula of the End in Itself. Which is a ridiculously fancy way of saying that we should all treat each other with respect. He endeavours to describe that each of us holds within us the 'end', that is we all hold rationality within us. And because of this rationality we must all treat each other with respect, and not use each other as 'means'. This ties in with Kant's idea about the autonomy of Mankind. Kant suggests that all human adults should be able to think rationally and because of this we are able to justify and argue our beliefs. In Kant's eye these beliefs would have to live up to his categorical imperative, the beliefs must embody universality. What this means is, for a person to be an end, not a means, that person must have knowledge of what is going on around them. And furthermore, those who are around them, must make known what is occurring. So that at any time, each person knows and may assent to what is occurring. If this does not happen then evil is present, for coercion and deception are evil things. Therefore, if your end is one that others cannot know about, that you may not tell them for the sake of remaining in your position, then that end cannot be good. All things that are good must be able to be made known to everybody so that everybody may be able to assent to them. If you can not tell somebody what you are going to do, then you should not do it. The world where these philosophies occur perfectly is called the Kingdom of Ends.
The Kingdom of Ends is a world filled with rational beings who live by universal maxims. This is the perfect world, in Kant's eyes, because it combines his theory of categorical imperatives with autonomous individuals creating a society of perfected rules. According to Korsgaard the kingdom of nature is representative of the Kingdom of Ends (p.140). The reason is because moral laws have a relationship with natural laws. Natural laws are by themselves perfect, and so if a moral law can be compared with a natural law, and if no differences in structure and use are found, then it can be deemed that the moral law is now a universal natural law. This however, proves to be problematic for Kant's philosophy, as some theories that were taken for granted in the earlier formulations are now being challenged. Take for example, the scenario with the murderer, in the first formulation, the categorical imperative, it seems as though lying to the murderer is the wrong thing to do. However, upon further inspection, duties such as the duty of mutual aid and the duty of self respect arise which contradict the duty of telling the truth. Thus we see a problem in Kant's theory which was not addressed by him.
The merits of Kantian moral philosophy are small but sweet. His foundations provoke interesting thought with regards to the philosophical area of morals and his philosophy certainly does provide an interesting argument. However, it can be seen that the shortcomings of this philosophy are too significant. The contradictions and horribly ridiculous conclusion which can be drawn from his philosophy prove it to be a highly irrational theory veiled in the guise of logic.
Lit202
p.183 luzhin
the picture we get of luzhin is that he's a cold manipulative character - that he sees people as a means to an end. P.183 that paragraph about Luzhin's 'fiance' - sister.
Luzhin criticizes Raskolnikov's mother's intellectual dispositions p.184 - imagination, etc.
Luzhin would like to eradicate feeling and sentiment for scientific progress etc endless dreaming and sentiment and that is confirmed here.
In retort, Raskanikol says that the end of that would be people going around killing people - a very personal remark, as he has already killed someone, and so we see that it's on his mind. And from Dostoyevky's position, the subjective reasons, the social climate, objective critique from the author himself.
Raskanilkov - wanting to test his theory he puts it into action - he murders the woman the landlady - he has pangs of conscience that he has to suppress to prove he is the ultimate. This crisis comes to represent the crisis in Russia itself in war between the old Order of the Tsar and the new humanist movement. Dostoyevsky is seen as a prophet as a few years later in 1918, Russia, the October revolution occurs.
The morality or immorality about killing were common - so he asserts. It's the most extreme form of the great ideas of the time. But there are others, for example, in the conversation in the bar between Marmeladov and Raskinolkov, he talks about Mr. Lazbetiyetnikov, is known to beat his wife. Compassion has been declared a social evil. This notion is already being put into practice in England.
So we have the idea now that there are all these theories and there's someone who tries to put them into action - and so for Raskanilkov, he tries to follow one theory, to kill someone and get away with it - so that he may feel that he has escaped the morality of the tribe (Christian morality) and thus is above the rest of the horde.
As therefore, things that don't have an end, a utile purpose, Monks, worship, prayer, are unnecessary.
The latest fashion of ideas. The latest fashion of 'unbelief' it's re-iterated a lot. So now we have the latest emergence of Atheism.
Ironically Raskalnikov shows up the super-ficiality of these theories. He proves the theories wrong by trying to prove them right - because he always feels guilt - he's not made for these type of theories.
It's seen as the new order vs the old order. And Dostoyevsky is seen as prophetic precisely because these tensions came to ahead in 1917, many years after his death.
Raskalnikov goes to see Rezumikem, Rez mentions to Ras about the book seller. If science is being recquisitioned to prove ideas like woman are not human. The irony here is palpable because Raskalnikov just killed a woman who to him was not worthy of living in the human race. He did a service to mankind.
Everyone has to appeal to the idea that they are doing something for the good of others, for the good of mankind, for the sake of humanity.
Everything is being called into question.
It's a time of cultural, social and religious ferment.
Part 1 - Chapter 5. Reason, rationalism, and the irrational.
Razumikhum - Razum means reason - thus razumikhum is linked to reason in a positive way.
In this chapter they are debating an issue: To what extent, are one's actions culturally determined and conditioned?
Bear in mind in all of this that Porphry is trying to set a trap to see if Raskalnikov is the murderer.
Razumikhum demonstrates the inadequacy of the socialist theory - it doesn't fit in with human nature (an early argument that will become full blown communism)
Reason (inadequate in and of itself) it's impossible to leap over nature solely by means of logic, says Razumikhum. Razumikhum is critical of the idea that life's great mystery can be reduced to two printer's sheets (this reference reminds us of what he gave to Raskalnikov to translate, the work about whether woman is human). Razumikhum doesn't think that these theories can expound about human nature because they ignore the human soul. So Razum (And Dostoyevsky through him) is critiquing the Atheist theories as well as the latest trends. As such there is this objective thing which has certain qualities and characteristics which can't be argued away by theory however seemingly logical. This reminds us of Raskalnikov, he has endeavoured to put a theory into practice through logic. Razumikhun, not aware that Raskanikov has committed the murder, says that it's impossible to step over human nature - we can't escape the universal conscience. These theories are dead because they don't have reference to the soul and to have reference to the soul you need to have reference to God. And if you take away God, and you take away the soul - then man will act like there is no God and he has no soul.
Razumikhum is desperate to preserve the idea of the soul, of free will. It's impossible to leap over nature by logic.
Raskalnikov has attempted to apply abstract theories to reality - he has tried to justify murder - but he hasn't been able to live. And so he proves Razumikhum right. You can rationalise away human nature, away love and the soul, if you want. But can you actually LIVE with that. What happens to you, if you do that? (Disenchantment.)
"Heart of Darkness" - Conrad. Kurtz steps over the bound. "THE HORROR, THE HORROR!"
What he does is that he kills her to prove his point that if one kills somebody one need not always feel compunction or something.
the picture we get of luzhin is that he's a cold manipulative character - that he sees people as a means to an end. P.183 that paragraph about Luzhin's 'fiance' - sister.
Luzhin criticizes Raskolnikov's mother's intellectual dispositions p.184 - imagination, etc.
Luzhin would like to eradicate feeling and sentiment for scientific progress etc endless dreaming and sentiment and that is confirmed here.
In retort, Raskanikol says that the end of that would be people going around killing people - a very personal remark, as he has already killed someone, and so we see that it's on his mind. And from Dostoyevky's position, the subjective reasons, the social climate, objective critique from the author himself.
Raskanilkov - wanting to test his theory he puts it into action - he murders the woman the landlady - he has pangs of conscience that he has to suppress to prove he is the ultimate. This crisis comes to represent the crisis in Russia itself in war between the old Order of the Tsar and the new humanist movement. Dostoyevsky is seen as a prophet as a few years later in 1918, Russia, the October revolution occurs.
The morality or immorality about killing were common - so he asserts. It's the most extreme form of the great ideas of the time. But there are others, for example, in the conversation in the bar between Marmeladov and Raskinolkov, he talks about Mr. Lazbetiyetnikov, is known to beat his wife. Compassion has been declared a social evil. This notion is already being put into practice in England.
So we have the idea now that there are all these theories and there's someone who tries to put them into action - and so for Raskanilkov, he tries to follow one theory, to kill someone and get away with it - so that he may feel that he has escaped the morality of the tribe (Christian morality) and thus is above the rest of the horde.
As therefore, things that don't have an end, a utile purpose, Monks, worship, prayer, are unnecessary.
The latest fashion of ideas. The latest fashion of 'unbelief' it's re-iterated a lot. So now we have the latest emergence of Atheism.
Ironically Raskalnikov shows up the super-ficiality of these theories. He proves the theories wrong by trying to prove them right - because he always feels guilt - he's not made for these type of theories.
It's seen as the new order vs the old order. And Dostoyevsky is seen as prophetic precisely because these tensions came to ahead in 1917, many years after his death.
Raskalnikov goes to see Rezumikem, Rez mentions to Ras about the book seller. If science is being recquisitioned to prove ideas like woman are not human. The irony here is palpable because Raskalnikov just killed a woman who to him was not worthy of living in the human race. He did a service to mankind.
Everyone has to appeal to the idea that they are doing something for the good of others, for the good of mankind, for the sake of humanity.
Everything is being called into question.
It's a time of cultural, social and religious ferment.
Part 1 - Chapter 5. Reason, rationalism, and the irrational.
Razumikhum - Razum means reason - thus razumikhum is linked to reason in a positive way.
In this chapter they are debating an issue: To what extent, are one's actions culturally determined and conditioned?
Bear in mind in all of this that Porphry is trying to set a trap to see if Raskalnikov is the murderer.
Razumikhum demonstrates the inadequacy of the socialist theory - it doesn't fit in with human nature (an early argument that will become full blown communism)
Reason (inadequate in and of itself) it's impossible to leap over nature solely by means of logic, says Razumikhum. Razumikhum is critical of the idea that life's great mystery can be reduced to two printer's sheets (this reference reminds us of what he gave to Raskalnikov to translate, the work about whether woman is human). Razumikhum doesn't think that these theories can expound about human nature because they ignore the human soul. So Razum (And Dostoyevsky through him) is critiquing the Atheist theories as well as the latest trends. As such there is this objective thing which has certain qualities and characteristics which can't be argued away by theory however seemingly logical. This reminds us of Raskalnikov, he has endeavoured to put a theory into practice through logic. Razumikhun, not aware that Raskanikov has committed the murder, says that it's impossible to step over human nature - we can't escape the universal conscience. These theories are dead because they don't have reference to the soul and to have reference to the soul you need to have reference to God. And if you take away God, and you take away the soul - then man will act like there is no God and he has no soul.
Razumikhum is desperate to preserve the idea of the soul, of free will. It's impossible to leap over nature by logic.
Raskalnikov has attempted to apply abstract theories to reality - he has tried to justify murder - but he hasn't been able to live. And so he proves Razumikhum right. You can rationalise away human nature, away love and the soul, if you want. But can you actually LIVE with that. What happens to you, if you do that? (Disenchantment.)
"Heart of Darkness" - Conrad. Kurtz steps over the bound. "THE HORROR, THE HORROR!"
What he does is that he kills her to prove his point that if one kills somebody one need not always feel compunction or something.
Sunday, 11 October 2009
The202
A prevailing attitude that traditionalists and conservatives were told to obey the council - because initially some changes were hard to accept.
Concilium group (Hans Kung - Scillibex)
Communio group - Von Baltharsar, De Lubac, Ratzinger,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrosanctum_Concilium
Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, is one of the constitutions of the Second Vatican Council. It was approved by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,147 to 4 and promulgated by Pope Paul VI on December 4, 1963. The main aim was to achieve greater lay participation in the Catholic Church's liturgy.
Concilium group (Hans Kung - Scillibex)
Communio group - Von Baltharsar, De Lubac, Ratzinger,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrosanctum_Concilium
Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, is one of the constitutions of the Second Vatican Council. It was approved by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,147 to 4 and promulgated by Pope Paul VI on December 4, 1963. The main aim was to achieve greater lay participation in the Catholic Church's liturgy.
Phi202
Plato on JusticeandSelf-interest (in the Republic)
1. Polemarchusand the conventional view ofjustice
Polemarchus asked to define: dike (state of justice)
dikeisine (the virtue of being just)
Answers: it is a matter of giving every man his due.
Fits in with an idea of cosmic hierarchy or order - everything has a place where it is meant to be.
Justice is giving everything what its entitled to in virtue of its place in the cosmic order.
Socrates wonders what this amounts to: Quote 1
Socrates will deny that a just act can do harm, contrary to what Polemarchus argues. He asks Polemarchus to consider justice as a skill. Quote 3.
Polemarchus thinks of justice as the skill of helping friends and harming enemies. Archi tectonic in some way (lol?). What if your friends are bad andyourenemies good? Surely justice cannot be used to harm thegood! Or, says Polemarchus, I meantthat justice is a matter of helping the friends, those who are good and harming genuine enemies, those who are bad. Well, says Socrates, if justice is a skill it can't be used to harm even the bad. Justice can only help, even when it is applied to the bad. (Doesn't rule out punishment, if the effect is to reform).
Justice is also revealed not to be a departmental skill, but an architedonic one. (socrates tries to get Polemarchus to tell him what benefit justice produces - none it seems.
2. Thrasymachus
Thrasymachus was a sophist
Holds that justice is a matter of convention or custom rather than nature. To say that justice or politeness is a matter is not to deny that there is a fact of the matter about what's polite or just here and now. It is to say that what is just or polite is arbitrary and contingent.
(It is not impolite to discuss real estate at dinner, but it could have been the height of rudeness.)
In contrast, that potatoes are nourishing rather than poisonous is a matter of nature. It isn't contingent on arbitrary human decision.
1. Polemarchusand the conventional view ofjustice
Polemarchus asked to define: dike (state of justice)
dikeisine (the virtue of being just)
Answers: it is a matter of giving every man his due.
Fits in with an idea of cosmic hierarchy or order - everything has a place where it is meant to be.
Justice is giving everything what its entitled to in virtue of its place in the cosmic order.
Socrates wonders what this amounts to: Quote 1
Socrates will deny that a just act can do harm, contrary to what Polemarchus argues. He asks Polemarchus to consider justice as a skill. Quote 3.
Polemarchus thinks of justice as the skill of helping friends and harming enemies. Archi tectonic in some way (lol?). What if your friends are bad andyourenemies good? Surely justice cannot be used to harm thegood! Or, says Polemarchus, I meantthat justice is a matter of helping the friends, those who are good and harming genuine enemies, those who are bad. Well, says Socrates, if justice is a skill it can't be used to harm even the bad. Justice can only help, even when it is applied to the bad. (Doesn't rule out punishment, if the effect is to reform).
Justice is also revealed not to be a departmental skill, but an architedonic one. (socrates tries to get Polemarchus to tell him what benefit justice produces - none it seems.
2. Thrasymachus
Thrasymachus was a sophist
Holds that justice is a matter of convention or custom rather than nature. To say that justice or politeness is a matter is not to deny that there is a fact of the matter about what's polite or just here and now. It is to say that what is just or polite is arbitrary and contingent.
(It is not impolite to discuss real estate at dinner, but it could have been the height of rudeness.)
In contrast, that potatoes are nourishing rather than poisonous is a matter of nature. It isn't contingent on arbitrary human decision.
His202
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Aims:
Galileo,astronomy, mathematics and physics.
Galileo and the Church.
One cannot come to know and understand the Galileo affair without knowing and properly understanding that he was a mathematician and that his career in Astronomy was forged on mathematics.
We will also look at his career inside the Tuscan court.
Galileo was interested in the mixed (PRACTICAL) mathematics. This sets him apart from Tycho and Kepler, who were more interested in the mystical applications of mathematics.
Catani,Galileo and the Telescope, (c. 1790) Engaged in Mathematics, Physics and Astronomy.
Whatever the myths may be - we do know that he was definitely interested in these studies.
Galileo was accused of being anti-papist for working in Padawa and Venice. Galileo thought there was money to be made in an academic career and he knew that he would only make money if he pitched, sold, ideas correctly. He despised teaching and just wanted to do research. He spent a lot of his time in Padawa working out mathematical equations of practical nature which could be sold for money. Much of this work was based on ancient geometers (Achiomedes for example). Interested in the sciences, in what the ancients had to say about them and interested in new ideas (Typical humanist).
Galileo got 8x magnification (not much). So it's a testament to the guy that he made some pretty impressive calculations with such low magnification.
Before he turned it to the stars he tried to sell it to wealthy merchants and politicians who wanted to see, ahead of their competitors, what cargo merchant traders were carrying into port - so as to make decisions ahead of their competitors. So he was able to sell his instrument to the merchant class.
Published observations - 2 small books: Starry Messenger (1610) Letters on Sunspots (1613).
What it reveals is the dedication to the Medici family in Tuscany - even though he was working in Venice - what this means is that he was doing a little bit more of ass-licking to potential patrons.
In these works he claimed to be rejecting Aristotelian natural philosophy (Galileo was a full blooded natural philosopher - he was interested in physics!)
The first example he sought to prove is that Venus rotated around the sun, internally to Earth. He would argue that the disc size and the phases of Venus account for this.
He also observed craters on the moons surface which he claims refutes the Aristotelian notion about the (eternal, unchanging) universe.
He also observed sunspots - the sun has imperfections (which goes against the Aristotelian notion).
The Medicean stars (four stars) - bodies moving around another planet - so goes against Aristotelian notions - it's also a monument to the Medici family, a tribute.
During the middle of the 16th century the Medici house established a new dynasty of Grand Dukes ruling Tuscany from the 1630's onwards. They sought to regain power by appealing to the social elite of Tuscany. They were trying to revive the glory days of Tuscany and the Medici house.
It's clear that the practical applications of mathematics was helping to establish the position of mathematicians as valuable members of the European elite (courtly life). So it's no surprise that Galileo would seem as a worthy candidate of the Tuscany court. For Galileo, he had to present a gift to the grand duke which would aid the Medici family. (There's a book which explicates the next sentence) A virtuous man needs to bring in something worthwhile to the court which would add to the patron's prestige - Galileo took the telescope.
Grand Duke offered Galileo the position of Court mathematician and philosopher - such was the promise of Galileo's work. The idea that you could have one person expert in both mathematics and philosophy was alien to universities and mostly everywhere. And also, this deal meant that Galileo did not have to teach so much.
One problem about Galileo's pro-copernican interpretations were not as fantastic as he claimed. There was a question about how much theory there was enveloped in his 'observations'. Some questions about the reliability of his telescope. Perhaps it wasn't an instrument that could effectively view the stars. Some used it and couldn't see what he saw. Some did see what he saw but then offered different interpretations.
The claim about Venus doesn't bring down Tycho's philosophy - planets zoom around the sun.
The craters - well they are filled with Ether - so there a bits for the moon that are less dense then others - so still the moon is less dense then others.
Sun spots? NO! They are tiny little planets revolving around the sun.
Besides all this Tycho had already observed a new comet in the 1570's.
So Aristotelian philosophy was a resilient paradigm.
So one or two observations was not going to bring down a whole philosophy.
And here come the Jesuits
Christopher Clavius (1538-1612)
Educated in mathematics and theology (Collegio Romano)
Gregorian calender in 1582
Geocentric interpretation of Galileo's observations.
Clavius was in the game of reviving Mathematics. Tight relationship between the early modern sciences, mathematical sciences and religious authority. Which dismisses the claim that science and religion were at loggerheads at this time.
And what Clavius did was maintain the traditional scholastic tradition that while the mixed mathematics are both revealing about what is out there in nature were still inferior to philosophy. Mathematics won't tell you what causes things.
Galileo couldn't convince the authoritative body (Jesuits) of the veracity of his claims.
Galileo's assertions seemed to run contrary to biblical passages which claim that the Earth is stationary. The protests came from Dominicans. These Dominican theologians were writing to the Pope about this problem pleading an investigation into Galileo's works.
Caccini - nasty fellow - got up on the pulpit denounced mathematicians, philosophers and Galileo as heretics.
Aims:
Galileo,astronomy, mathematics and physics.
Galileo and the Church.
One cannot come to know and understand the Galileo affair without knowing and properly understanding that he was a mathematician and that his career in Astronomy was forged on mathematics.
We will also look at his career inside the Tuscan court.
Galileo was interested in the mixed (PRACTICAL) mathematics. This sets him apart from Tycho and Kepler, who were more interested in the mystical applications of mathematics.
Catani,Galileo and the Telescope, (c. 1790) Engaged in Mathematics, Physics and Astronomy.
Whatever the myths may be - we do know that he was definitely interested in these studies.
Galileo was accused of being anti-papist for working in Padawa and Venice. Galileo thought there was money to be made in an academic career and he knew that he would only make money if he pitched, sold, ideas correctly. He despised teaching and just wanted to do research. He spent a lot of his time in Padawa working out mathematical equations of practical nature which could be sold for money. Much of this work was based on ancient geometers (Achiomedes for example). Interested in the sciences, in what the ancients had to say about them and interested in new ideas (Typical humanist).
Galileo got 8x magnification (not much). So it's a testament to the guy that he made some pretty impressive calculations with such low magnification.
Before he turned it to the stars he tried to sell it to wealthy merchants and politicians who wanted to see, ahead of their competitors, what cargo merchant traders were carrying into port - so as to make decisions ahead of their competitors. So he was able to sell his instrument to the merchant class.
Published observations - 2 small books: Starry Messenger (1610) Letters on Sunspots (1613).
What it reveals is the dedication to the Medici family in Tuscany - even though he was working in Venice - what this means is that he was doing a little bit more of ass-licking to potential patrons.
In these works he claimed to be rejecting Aristotelian natural philosophy (Galileo was a full blooded natural philosopher - he was interested in physics!)
The first example he sought to prove is that Venus rotated around the sun, internally to Earth. He would argue that the disc size and the phases of Venus account for this.
He also observed craters on the moons surface which he claims refutes the Aristotelian notion about the (eternal, unchanging) universe.
He also observed sunspots - the sun has imperfections (which goes against the Aristotelian notion).
The Medicean stars (four stars) - bodies moving around another planet - so goes against Aristotelian notions - it's also a monument to the Medici family, a tribute.
During the middle of the 16th century the Medici house established a new dynasty of Grand Dukes ruling Tuscany from the 1630's onwards. They sought to regain power by appealing to the social elite of Tuscany. They were trying to revive the glory days of Tuscany and the Medici house.
It's clear that the practical applications of mathematics was helping to establish the position of mathematicians as valuable members of the European elite (courtly life). So it's no surprise that Galileo would seem as a worthy candidate of the Tuscany court. For Galileo, he had to present a gift to the grand duke which would aid the Medici family. (There's a book which explicates the next sentence) A virtuous man needs to bring in something worthwhile to the court which would add to the patron's prestige - Galileo took the telescope.
Grand Duke offered Galileo the position of Court mathematician and philosopher - such was the promise of Galileo's work. The idea that you could have one person expert in both mathematics and philosophy was alien to universities and mostly everywhere. And also, this deal meant that Galileo did not have to teach so much.
One problem about Galileo's pro-copernican interpretations were not as fantastic as he claimed. There was a question about how much theory there was enveloped in his 'observations'. Some questions about the reliability of his telescope. Perhaps it wasn't an instrument that could effectively view the stars. Some used it and couldn't see what he saw. Some did see what he saw but then offered different interpretations.
The claim about Venus doesn't bring down Tycho's philosophy - planets zoom around the sun.
The craters - well they are filled with Ether - so there a bits for the moon that are less dense then others - so still the moon is less dense then others.
Sun spots? NO! They are tiny little planets revolving around the sun.
Besides all this Tycho had already observed a new comet in the 1570's.
So Aristotelian philosophy was a resilient paradigm.
So one or two observations was not going to bring down a whole philosophy.
And here come the Jesuits
Christopher Clavius (1538-1612)
Educated in mathematics and theology (Collegio Romano)
Gregorian calender in 1582
Geocentric interpretation of Galileo's observations.
Clavius was in the game of reviving Mathematics. Tight relationship between the early modern sciences, mathematical sciences and religious authority. Which dismisses the claim that science and religion were at loggerheads at this time.
And what Clavius did was maintain the traditional scholastic tradition that while the mixed mathematics are both revealing about what is out there in nature were still inferior to philosophy. Mathematics won't tell you what causes things.
Galileo couldn't convince the authoritative body (Jesuits) of the veracity of his claims.
Galileo's assertions seemed to run contrary to biblical passages which claim that the Earth is stationary. The protests came from Dominicans. These Dominican theologians were writing to the Pope about this problem pleading an investigation into Galileo's works.
Caccini - nasty fellow - got up on the pulpit denounced mathematicians, philosophers and Galileo as heretics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
