I am a man of imagination. A mere epiphany of Blake, whom for the morn', will serve well as a mouthpiece. I shall have my own beliefs and habits -- or so I believe. He will no doubt greatly approve of some, hate others, or have mixed thoughts on some depending on the "sense" in which I speak. No matter, this is my time and my word.
There is a cool mist about the lake's surface this morning. Perhaps a cup 'o tea would warm my gut. It's a rather lovely scene except for the dead willows and the wretched birds that cry "it's morning!" every moment. If I had a rock I gamble I could find the source of that outcry. Oh dearest me, I do believe I have spilt some tea on meself. [wipe wipe] There we are, all clean.
The Lady Dawn has cleaned her eyes and is going about her morning duties. Wiping off the world of its darkness, maliciousness, its ugliness. The dew is Monsieur Night having tried to cover its work for protection. Alas, the poor thing always fails, for Lady Dawn takes about even making it seem beautiful. Wretched girl. She is nothing but the ignorance that accompanies innocence and as a result her work is mere folly. She never can catch both sides of the objects she wiped. Instead she goes about haphazardly wiping off things, missing spots, leaving a little coal on every object that Monsieur Night had spread on the night before. And thus we say one side of the tree is "shadowed."
I think a scone would do my mind some good, perhaps clear out all this ugly truth I see outside. There is a jar on my table which contains some plant of the orient -- I do recall the salesman saying it was "bam-boo." Its leaves are rather gallant. However they do take to dipping into the candle vases nearby. One is crimson as blood and the other white as snow. They take to playing in either, as if nature can afford such luxuries. I am not well pleased with its attitude. It irks me to see life other than man playing with the furies. Such is the war between man and the world. It shall submit itself to our will. Until then I salivate at the prospect of competition.
But does not every man live for the thrill of competition? Do we not see this in the betrothed? The individuals care not for one another so much as they care they they have captured something for their own. One can see this in even the youngest of our species. Little girls playing several men at once, the men in turn become jealous, compete against one another for the girl, then when they get her they realize they fell into a trap. It's all very amusing. Personally I love to play along for a while and then drop the whole charade and walk off as if nothing had ever occurred. It amuses me to watch such instances but I honestly cannot fathom how a man falls into such a trap. Clearly he aims towards some irrational idea of "love" which is nothing more than one's desire for the other and to have it exclusively. But when the other does not return it, what might possibly drive a man to even further levels of madness as to continue his competition with another man? Move on sir. Even assuming love is worthwhile this particular will not qualify as capable of such an action.
Well breakfast was particularly scrumptious this morning. The lake water is no longer still due to Lady Dawn having stirred it up. I wonder where it's going in such a hurry. No matter, soon Monsieur Night will stop its futility. All will be still. Inactivity is the best of states. It doesn't bother to change since it accepts its nature. And a things nature is best.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, he turned out to be a brute in scholarly clothes. Oh well, he was amusing while he lived. Alas! Tis no more.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Induction II
And of course I've forgotten my Kant. For how are we to say "One cannot know causality because of..." when the line itself presupposes causality is known? Naturally we cannot. But I find it still more interesting that my mentor says "Hume is a reductio [ad absurdum] of Locke, if we are to take Locke seriously." Apparently his colleagues think him mad for believing so, but it is an interesting point.
Anywho, it would seem I need a refresher course on what I have learned so that I might flesh out a better epistemology. I see now the problem arises because I never took an epistemology class. Although one cannot avoid the topic in other fields since epistemology needs to be prior to any study, since study is always of a thing and we must first "know" what we can "know" about this thing. Oops, it would seem I just slipped into some sort of metaphysical epistemology. Or is all epistemology metaphysical? I suppose these are some of the questions I need cleared up. Alas/Bleh. Hopefully my friend will send those epistemology papers sooner than later.
I need to clear up what it is that can be known from an empirical standpoint and what cannot. I mustn't slip back into Hume's argument against causality which presupposes causality. Perhaps a good reading of the divided line metaphor would help too. I'm not sure if I quite understood what it was I was reading at the time. And of course my books are either in Athens or I lent them out. Argggh.
Blake
Anywho, it would seem I need a refresher course on what I have learned so that I might flesh out a better epistemology. I see now the problem arises because I never took an epistemology class. Although one cannot avoid the topic in other fields since epistemology needs to be prior to any study, since study is always of a thing and we must first "know" what we can "know" about this thing. Oops, it would seem I just slipped into some sort of metaphysical epistemology. Or is all epistemology metaphysical? I suppose these are some of the questions I need cleared up. Alas/Bleh. Hopefully my friend will send those epistemology papers sooner than later.
I need to clear up what it is that can be known from an empirical standpoint and what cannot. I mustn't slip back into Hume's argument against causality which presupposes causality. Perhaps a good reading of the divided line metaphor would help too. I'm not sure if I quite understood what it was I was reading at the time. And of course my books are either in Athens or I lent them out. Argggh.
Blake
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Matthew 22:37 -- Love: Heart, Soul, & Mind
Introduction: I wrote this after I finished writing. It began as a spiel on what people meant when they say "heart." I quickly discovered it could be either feelings or thoughts, which is a disjunct, meaning one or the other and due to a passage I decided to use as an example, it quickly became a theological bout on the meaning of the passage. The work doesn't ultimately end with what we mean by heart since definitions are merely beginnings, but it does say something as to the nature of Love.
Sigh, I said I wouldn't write philosophy anymore, but only speak it. Nostalgia here I come...
What is this word, "heart?" I ask for two reasons:
One
(1) I hear it spoken so often at Wesley.
(2) When spoke it often refers to emotionalism.
(3) I don't prescribe to emotionalism.
(4) Thus, I don't prescribe to such a definition.
(5) My understanding is only right insofar as it is consistent with Scripture.
(5) If the Bible is defining heart as such, then I must come to understand what the true definition is.
Two
(1) Heart is used in Christ's first commandment.
(2) I ought to fulfill commandments.
(3) To fulfill a commandment I must understand what it is saying.
(4) Thus, I must understand heart before I can fulfill my commandment.
Now, the first to be clear on, is that some sort of epistemology is needed in order for the ethical life to occur. We say that ethical decisions are in accordance with the Good and unethical ones are do to decisions that actively create a lack of Good. I do not propose that certainty will ever be within our grasp, but I do suppose that some definitions and/or propositions must be grasped to some degree, even if not be to the highest. There is a difference in ignorance where one wills a perpetual lack of knowledge and ignorance where one simply hasn't had the opportunity to see and understand their ignorance, and thus have potential to correct it. In the case of the former, the person might not know the right from the wrong, but it is because of their own will that they do so. And willfully avoiding right action is by prior definition, wrong, for it creates a lack of Good in one's life, which is attributable to one's own decision.
All of this has been stated a thousand other times by men a thousand times wiser than myself. Simply put, ethical behavior requires intentional will. Willful ignorance is no excuse for any action, for it puts the causation on yourself. On the other hand, ignorance with no potential to change is excusable as what we call innocence.
As always I'm still struggling with "lack of action" as being a cause. What to do with such things? But I suppose in this case it is a lack of action in a physical sense, although ultimately the will is deciding to actively disengage from a situation, which is something -- for it is a thought, is a deed, and requires the mind to shut itself down and the body to leave circumstances which could alter the decision making process. In this sense, they are things, so I suppose I can say willful ignorance is blameworthy.
All this serves to say is that willful ignorance is not an excuse for evil deeds, but I still have yet to get to the point -- can we be ethical and ignorant? If it be the case that we are willfully ignorant, then no, for we have decided on a thought and mode of acting which actively goes away Good behavior. If it be ignorance not of one's will, then no, for by the same token neither can we say that their behavior is attributable to them. For their telos in their behavior was not toward the end that one proposes came, being a good act. What occurs instead is an illusion. We believe we see a good act, such as the man who saves the drowning girl because he saw news crews were near and new he would become famous. He didn't save her because it was good, but rather because of the fame.
I suppose means and ends have worked their way into this conversation. Lawd, I feel like I'm going through sophomore college year all over again. I'm rusty in the brain, though my mouth seems to have too much oil on it. If I found a balance I must not be so stupid. The problem occurring here is that the deed, being good in nature, was a means to the man's end, fame. The concept of Good is that it is something ultimate, that is, there is no reason to do it other than that it is itself. And means are always done for their ends, and never vice versa. This is because we believe the end to be better than the means, such as exercising and health. If someone had to pick between the means and the end they will always pick the end. E.G. pick between exercising and health, working and financial security, thinking about what's right or wisdom. We will undoubtedly say the end is the reason we ever engage in the means. Insofar as someone engages in ethical behavior it requires that they do it for its own sake, for to do otherwise would be to subdue the good to something else. As a corollary, whatever this thing is that the person places in value as higher than the good, is what the person believes to be the Good. Ipso facto much evil is caused by poor and/or wrong definitions. In order to do good, our intent must be to the end of the Good. In order for this to occur, I must have an an idea of the Good. I might not know it's nature, though I might know its effects and why it is worthy to do. Such as the case with not being able to look directly into the sun, though we see the beams, or we might not understand chemical combustion, though we can take a car apart and put it back together blindfolded. There is a grasping of the idea, though full explanation escapes us.
Quod erat demontrandum, epistemology is needed for ethical behavior. Now, let's get onto this whole Christ command jibberish. :)
Matthew 22:37
I should note that this passage perturbs me. According to what I have already worked out in my mind, it seems to be overly repetitive, to the point of pointlessness. Allow me to explain...
We're supposed to love God with all of our heart, soul, and mind. My theological understanding of heart is that the Hebrew word for it, implying Old Testament, has a two-fold meaning of both intellect and emotion. By soul I hear the Greek "psyche" from philosophy which is the thing which creates motion in ourselves, which just so happens to be the intellect and emotion. And then lastly we have mind, which I take to be intellect. This all of course is a first approach, immediate reaction to the text.
Then of course we have others who read heart as emotion, soul as something eternal, and mind as the intellect. I'm not sure how accurate this is, or mine, since both seem to imply problems of some sort or another for a consistent theology. So what do I do? I look it up in Greek and get some definitions.
Step 1: Get DEFINITIONS -- if you cannot define a thing in any way or sort, then you cannot possibly know what you are talking about. If you insist on talking, the listener will hear words but their mind will only translate it as "blah blah blippity blah." Any attempt to rationalize their statement given their lack of definitions is a post hoc justification on your part to try to understand that which is a series of incoherent propositions. You'll only succeed in understanding what you already think is the case, and most likely agree with the person verbally, though in truth you have nothing on which to agree, since you have something coherent and they have something incoherent in mind.
In essence I'm really speaking to those who say, "You cannot understand God" and don't make a distinction between direct and indirect attributes, or inner and outer nature, or equivalence of persons in the Trinity versus ordering of the Trinity in some sense. Surely we know some things, e.g. God is Love (agape), God is Good, Father begot the Son, Father is greater than the Son. It might be we don't fully understand such things, but we have a loose understanding of them. Parables is a big part of Christ's teachings, which I think is acknowledgment of such concepts. Surely we cannot know God in His fullness, but we know of Him. Thus, to say "We cannot know God and that is what is so cool/beautiful/mysterious" is a nonsense statement. For to say we cannot know X but X is so beautiful, the most logical thing one can do after such a statement is say, "What's X?" Followed shortly by "I don't know X but it's beautiful," to which the original responds, "What's X?" So goes such fallacious thinking ad infinitum. Then let us posit that if we are to say anything about God, it is of Him, but not directly of Him.
καρδια or Heart or kardia (kar-dee'-ah): the heart, i.e. (figuratively) the thoughts or feelings (mind); also (by analogy) the middle -- (+ broken-)heart(-ed).
ψυχη or Soul or psuche (psoo-khay'):
breath, i.e. (by implication) spirit, abstractly or concretely -- heart (+ -ily), life, mind, soul, + us, + you.
διανοια or Mind or dianoia (dee-an'-oy-ah): deep thought, properly, the faculty (mind or its disposition), by implication, its exercise -- imagination, mind, understanding.
So, I've made an assumption that the Greek is correct, passed down from men more knowledgeable in the field than myself. I believe it to be justified by this, and in tandem with the fact that God is speaking to a people through their own language, so if we understand the people and their culture, then we understand what God meant, for His Son was sent to speak to the people. This implies they would understand what he means, which means there exists a necessity for communication and a common language. If God spoke in words we didn't understand, that is, if you're willing to make the claim that what God meant through these words and how the people then understood were two different things, then interpretation and history fall apart, it makes no sense to say the Apostles understood anything since not even they would fall under the category of those who understand God's language, as well as this would challenge Scripture's history and why some texts were canonized and others were not. Of course one's understanding of God comes from reason, experience, as well as Scripture, and a consistency is needed in all three, as well as Scripture being revelation requires that the subject of the other two conform to it rather than vice versa. By God, the Scripture is the way we come to better understand God since the other two are not sufficient. I say this because logic is a form and needs propositions by which to work, it's much like having a hammer and no boards or nails to create something, and whereas emotion is nothing more than a concomitant to reason's product(s). What we see then is that in order to challenge language of Scripture requires one already having a sufficient concept of God, which comes from Scripture, and thus in order for one to challenge such language is to use their foundation to destroy it, which is a great postmodern problem if you're into pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. Now that the assumption is wrapped up, I've also given three definitions and the proposition which Christ spake unto us. Let's proceed.
In order to deal with my first problem, of it being repetitious, let's throw out some ideas -- shall we? First, let's take the saying and substitute all the possible meanings given the definitions we have found.
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy [ thoughts or feelings ], and with all thy [ spirit or heart or life or mind ], and with all thy mind.
Then we'll substitute thoughts for mind wherever it appears; I believe the reasoning behind this move to be self-evident. Could be wrong :) We'll also substitute thoughts or feelings for heart since it showed up in the definition of soul.
*Note* I already cut out soul as being "concrete heart" for I hope, obvious reasons. If it's not obvious...stop reading...hahaha, more seriously if not then it's because one's concrete heart is an organ which pumps blood and is not a conceptual part to our being which can be part of love.)
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy [ thoughts or feelings ], and with all thy [ spirit or (thoughts or feelings) or life or thoughts ], and with all thy [ thoughts ].
Now, before we begin to look at this, I should probably give a better explanation why repetition is something to be avoided while interpreting. Clearly Christ repeated himself; he did so to the people, he did so to his own Apostles, he did so to the world. But within a single proposition? Why? Why the need, or even desire, to say the same thing over and over with the conjunction "and?" It makes no sense to say:
So, the question is, would Christ say something which helps neither those of lesser or greater understanding? We might say sure in cases where Christ has already spoken and is showing the product of such things, which we might call love, but such counter-arguments I do not apply to commands. This goes back to the first part, for if the intellect must be prior to emotion, and to follow a command requires intent, which is of the intellect, then the command must be presented in a way which the intellect might grasp. God's knowledge is aware of our finite nature as well as His own telos in sending His Son, thus the Son will communicate in a coherent way which has the telos of adding to our understanding what it is we ought to do. So, for those who say this is a rhetorical knack Christ is using, I say, "Tis absurd sir," for a command's telos is to add to the intellect and such knacks as repitition do not add to the grasping of our commands by the intellect for those of greater or lesser understanding. It is in effect, useless to the intellect, and this is chiefly why we label those who use such knacks as demagogues, not as a label of reverence, but as a warning for all who would hear such a brute speak.
Corollary Tangent
Such knacks were devised to prey upon those who make emotion prior to the intellect, and such men who use them are monsters who prey upon the weak and lost. They themselves have used their intellect first before emotion (for those who don't buy into their own vain repetition), but they are not guided by the Spirit, but rather a self-instantiated telos for their own life which sets about to manipulate others as means to its logically absurd end. I say it is absurd because the artist gives the urn its telos, not the urn giving itself one. The same applies here, the Creator gives the created its telos, not otherwise, for this says the the temporally bound thing existed before it had temporal existence and determined its own final cause, which is contradictory. Final cause is part of a full account of causation and thus necessarily exists within a thing at least at the moment it achieves actuality, though this is still another conversation in and of itself. If one does accept this though, then silliness I say for those who posit otherwise (see Existentialism for a chuckle).
Back to the passage where words' definitions were put into place:
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy [ thoughts or feelings ], and with all thy [ spirit or (thoughts or feelings) or life or thoughts ], and with all thy [ thoughts ].
I could set about listing every possible permutation (I think this is the correct term and not combination?) but that might take a while. Instead lets eliminate some possibilities quickly then list out what's left.
Now, if the last term, διανοια or Mind or dianoia, is thoughts, and the first is either thoughts or feelings, and Christ would not use vain repetitions in commands [ for this would posit a problem if it were the case and we were to pray and reflect upon this with God (Matthew 6:7). But alas, I've said enough on the matter. ] then we can say that the first term (καρδια or Heart or kardia) means feelings here. I cannot of course say it always means feelings since it is a disjunct, and I cannot generalize from the particular. From here we have thoughts and feelings covered, meaning the middle term, ψυχη or Soul or psuche, cannot be either, leaving us with either spirit or life.
From here there's no telling. It's either spirit or life. Of course we might say "IT'S BOTH IT'S BOTH! IT WORKS SO WELL OUR SPIRIT IS OUR LIFE AND VICE VERSA," which sounds really pretty and makes ya' feel all warm and special, but that's not what we're left with. Whereas heart was defined as "thoughts or feelings" in a disjunct, the definition of Soul was a list consisting of commas with no sort of conjunction by which to eliminate possibilities. Perhaps it's both, perhaps it's one or the other. As always I'm not going to say or "perhaps something else" because of prior reason 1 -- my assumption is to trust scholars across history -- and reason 2 -- this would be an appeal to ignorance if one were to conclude it's something else at worst and a non-falsifiable hypothesis at best. Either way it's a horrible idea.
What is nice to know, is that the passage can thus be read as:
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy (feelings), and with all thy (spirit or life), and with all thy (thoughts).
On second thought...I don't think one could say life or both, for life consists of one's actions, decisions, relationships, etc. which all imply a self which is doing so. The thoughts and feelings are two of the fundamental parts which make up one's life, and thus this would be repetitious in a way, like saying "Let's play the game of baseball with bats and the game of baseball and balls." Not to mention Love is a part of life, conceptually so, even if we put to it as some ultimate goal of life, nope nope NOPE. I was contradicting myself there, a thing cannot be a part of something and the purpose of doing that thing, that creates separation. I only say running is part of health insofar as it causes health, but the running itself is only related to health, it isn't health-itself. Likewise if I were to say love is part of life an the telos of life I would be proposing it was both of and out of life. Ridiculous, what am I talking about? I don't say that the urn's "holding water" is outside of the urn, for the final cause is a part of the thing. I seem to be confusing means-to-ends with telos. Hmm, how to deal with this...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ...
it seems the efficient cause mixes the material and formal causes so that the thing upon achieving actuality may reach this potential, which is already inside the thing, e.g. tree is already in the acorn in potentiality.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Hmm
... ... ... ... ... i ... ... e ... n ... j ... o ... y ... ... d ... o ... t ... s ... ... e ... a ... c ... h ... i ... s ... ... a ... ... t ... i ... c ... k ... ... o ... f ... ... t ... h ... e ... ... m ... i ... n ... d ... ... p ... l ... e ... a ... s ... e ... ... h ... o ... l ...d ... ... ... c ... o ... n ... t ... e ... n ... t ... ...
Ok, so it doesn't seem to make any sense to say because the thing is a telos to conclude it it outside the thing, quite the contrary actually. What was I talking about again?
... l ... o ... a ... d ... i ... n ... g ... ... ...
Life or spirit or (life and spirit) in relation to? Gah, I don't want to scroll up; I need to work on my memory. ... .... ... ... ... ... I give up, scrolling...oh yeah, loving.
Alright, back to something a little more orderly in format. So even if we posit love (of God first and other second in accordance with the two new commands) as the telos of life it still doesn't seem to help us. It would be like sayiny:
Dear Urn,
Please hold water with all your (clay) and (circularity) and (both as far as their purpose is to hold water.)
Sincerely,
The Artisan
...goes right back to repetition. Hmm, maybe this has helped. I suppose now I know we cannot say it is both life and spirit, but we're still stuck with either life or spirit.
Dear Santa,
All I want for Christmas is wisdom. I promise not to abuse it too much.
Love,
Blake
Hahahaha, oh jeeze it's getting late. Here I am...talking to myself again. Writing seems to drive me mad in some ways and brings clarity in others.
I got it! That last conclusion was a step too far. The logical conclusion is that "life" cannot be the answer since it implies both already mentioned, and by extension, both cannot be the answer since one is falsified. Spirit it is. Wait, why was that so hard? Couldn't I just have said, thoughts and feelings are part of life so that would be repetitious? The long road it is...
The final interpretation is as follows:
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy (feelings), and with all thy (spirit), and with all thy (thoughts).
Haha, scrolling back up to copy this somehow ended up with me cutting and pasting the Artisan down here without knowing, all within about a two second span. I suppose some would say that's God giving His "mark of approval" to the interpretation, yet I can give an account of how it occurred, I was already poised to hit the code for cut and paste and hit it too soon. I think. Oh well, that's probably something better to file away and keep for testing rather than to spill out.
Another question has arisen to my mind though, how do I know spirit does not refer to feelings or thoughts or some combination to both? Well naturally I could roll through Scripture and look for differences in them, or make the appeal to what I've already been taught, that the spirit is more central than the soul which refers to feelings, thoughts, and will. I could look up the Greek for spirit that would be unnecessary since spirit is the English interpretation given as a definition for the word, which could have been otherwise. I will assume they were consistent and would have used thoughts or feelings if that were the case, and distinguished the two for a good reason, that being one of their judgment on language usage. Given the definition we know that it could not be that spirit refers to thoughts since this was suggested and seen as absurd. One might try the "it's emotion" but again this would be a non-falsifiable hypothesis at best or an appeal to ignorance at worst. The burden of proof would be on someone else to show me why this is not the case at worst since I think my case is solid, and at best you have a more accurate definition that I am ignorant of and that you might be...morally obligated to tell me of. :D Ultimately through elimination of vain repetition this passage can still work with my understanding of our state of becoming, since I believe the spirit gives guidance to the intellect, and the intellect to the emotions. It might be very well that I already presupposed this in saying that God would say that which adds to understanding, implying a move from His spirit to ours, which then speaks to our intellect, but I believe my reasons for doing so are sound and valid.
I probably should have begun with a prayer, but to be honest this day has been nothing but searching for God so I'll say I did pray in the beginning, at 10:30 a.m. So let's say an evening prayer to wrap up this wonderful day shall we?
Recite with me, if you will, a prayer as Christ taught us to say:
Our Father,
Who art in heaven,
hallowed by name.
Thy kingdom come
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory,
for ever and ever,
Amen.
Celestial Father,
Thank you for your guidance in our meditations and study of your Word. I desire to know more of these things that you have said to us, and to understand more each day what it is that I am to do. More so I desire that I might live the ethical life insofar as it seeks to bring your kingdom to fruition. Use me in whatever way possible for this, I fear not in this universal claim for I know of your unfaltering Goodness and faith in us. I pray that the Spirit might fill me and give me direction and word anytime I ponder over your curious and mysterious nature. Shape my desires in a way so that I would desire what is capable of being known of you and what is not, I would not worry about, so that I might use my time wisely and fulfill the telos you have set forth for me. I do not presume it is anything physical: a place to go, a job to take, a person to be with, but rather an all encompassing claim to me, as all I do now and here on this tainted world is not yet fulfilled, though it shall come to be. There are many doors beset before me, some good and some evil. I do no fret on which to choose or set up series of conditional prayers asking you to come down and show me which one, for I wish not to test you Lord. Instead, use me and make any road I might take righteous. I pray for righteous intervention so that penultimately my spirit might better hear yours, that my intellect might take it, use it properly, to produce a better will and emotion -- to the telos of loving (agapao) you Lord. Help me to fulfill my command, for while it is commanded of me, without you I am nothing, yet with you all is possible. If need be, give me ears to hear, give me words to pray, give me whatever is necessary for me to align my spirit to Yours.
I also pray for my family, that you might bring about a sense of peace and love within us, for we quarrel over ridiculous matters most of the time. I am guilty of reverting into some habitual form of myself when I return home. I pray protection over my identity in you at these times, so that I might not revert into some slothful, wrathful individual who lashes out at those who I love due to differences and sits about wasting days in childish entertainments.
I especially pray for Ahmaud, Ben, Frank, Josh, Lindsay, Kirk, Stephen, Ling, Hao, Tao, David, Whitey, Draper and Thomas for those matters which they need help and guidance. I do not ask for those things which do not help salvation nor their journeys to you Lord, but only that which will ultimately be used by you Lord.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti,
blake
Sigh, I said I wouldn't write philosophy anymore, but only speak it. Nostalgia here I come...
What is this word, "heart?" I ask for two reasons:
One
(1) I hear it spoken so often at Wesley.
(2) When spoke it often refers to emotionalism.
(3) I don't prescribe to emotionalism.
(4) Thus, I don't prescribe to such a definition.
(5) My understanding is only right insofar as it is consistent with Scripture.
(5) If the Bible is defining heart as such, then I must come to understand what the true definition is.
Two
(1) Heart is used in Christ's first commandment.
(2) I ought to fulfill commandments.
(3) To fulfill a commandment I must understand what it is saying.
(4) Thus, I must understand heart before I can fulfill my commandment.
Now, the first to be clear on, is that some sort of epistemology is needed in order for the ethical life to occur. We say that ethical decisions are in accordance with the Good and unethical ones are do to decisions that actively create a lack of Good. I do not propose that certainty will ever be within our grasp, but I do suppose that some definitions and/or propositions must be grasped to some degree, even if not be to the highest. There is a difference in ignorance where one wills a perpetual lack of knowledge and ignorance where one simply hasn't had the opportunity to see and understand their ignorance, and thus have potential to correct it. In the case of the former, the person might not know the right from the wrong, but it is because of their own will that they do so. And willfully avoiding right action is by prior definition, wrong, for it creates a lack of Good in one's life, which is attributable to one's own decision.
All of this has been stated a thousand other times by men a thousand times wiser than myself. Simply put, ethical behavior requires intentional will. Willful ignorance is no excuse for any action, for it puts the causation on yourself. On the other hand, ignorance with no potential to change is excusable as what we call innocence.
As always I'm still struggling with "lack of action" as being a cause. What to do with such things? But I suppose in this case it is a lack of action in a physical sense, although ultimately the will is deciding to actively disengage from a situation, which is something -- for it is a thought, is a deed, and requires the mind to shut itself down and the body to leave circumstances which could alter the decision making process. In this sense, they are things, so I suppose I can say willful ignorance is blameworthy.
All this serves to say is that willful ignorance is not an excuse for evil deeds, but I still have yet to get to the point -- can we be ethical and ignorant? If it be the case that we are willfully ignorant, then no, for we have decided on a thought and mode of acting which actively goes away Good behavior. If it be ignorance not of one's will, then no, for by the same token neither can we say that their behavior is attributable to them. For their telos in their behavior was not toward the end that one proposes came, being a good act. What occurs instead is an illusion. We believe we see a good act, such as the man who saves the drowning girl because he saw news crews were near and new he would become famous. He didn't save her because it was good, but rather because of the fame.
I suppose means and ends have worked their way into this conversation. Lawd, I feel like I'm going through sophomore college year all over again. I'm rusty in the brain, though my mouth seems to have too much oil on it. If I found a balance I must not be so stupid. The problem occurring here is that the deed, being good in nature, was a means to the man's end, fame. The concept of Good is that it is something ultimate, that is, there is no reason to do it other than that it is itself. And means are always done for their ends, and never vice versa. This is because we believe the end to be better than the means, such as exercising and health. If someone had to pick between the means and the end they will always pick the end. E.G. pick between exercising and health, working and financial security, thinking about what's right or wisdom. We will undoubtedly say the end is the reason we ever engage in the means. Insofar as someone engages in ethical behavior it requires that they do it for its own sake, for to do otherwise would be to subdue the good to something else. As a corollary, whatever this thing is that the person places in value as higher than the good, is what the person believes to be the Good. Ipso facto much evil is caused by poor and/or wrong definitions. In order to do good, our intent must be to the end of the Good. In order for this to occur, I must have an an idea of the Good. I might not know it's nature, though I might know its effects and why it is worthy to do. Such as the case with not being able to look directly into the sun, though we see the beams, or we might not understand chemical combustion, though we can take a car apart and put it back together blindfolded. There is a grasping of the idea, though full explanation escapes us.
Quod erat demontrandum, epistemology is needed for ethical behavior. Now, let's get onto this whole Christ command jibberish. :)
Matthew 22:37
- Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
- ο δε ιησους ειπεν αυτω αγαπησεις κυριον τον θεον σου εν ολη τη καρδια σου και εν ολη τη ψυχη σου και εν ολη τη διανοια σου
I should note that this passage perturbs me. According to what I have already worked out in my mind, it seems to be overly repetitive, to the point of pointlessness. Allow me to explain...
We're supposed to love God with all of our heart, soul, and mind. My theological understanding of heart is that the Hebrew word for it, implying Old Testament, has a two-fold meaning of both intellect and emotion. By soul I hear the Greek "psyche" from philosophy which is the thing which creates motion in ourselves, which just so happens to be the intellect and emotion. And then lastly we have mind, which I take to be intellect. This all of course is a first approach, immediate reaction to the text.
Then of course we have others who read heart as emotion, soul as something eternal, and mind as the intellect. I'm not sure how accurate this is, or mine, since both seem to imply problems of some sort or another for a consistent theology. So what do I do? I look it up in Greek and get some definitions.
Step 1: Get DEFINITIONS -- if you cannot define a thing in any way or sort, then you cannot possibly know what you are talking about. If you insist on talking, the listener will hear words but their mind will only translate it as "blah blah blippity blah." Any attempt to rationalize their statement given their lack of definitions is a post hoc justification on your part to try to understand that which is a series of incoherent propositions. You'll only succeed in understanding what you already think is the case, and most likely agree with the person verbally, though in truth you have nothing on which to agree, since you have something coherent and they have something incoherent in mind.
In essence I'm really speaking to those who say, "You cannot understand God" and don't make a distinction between direct and indirect attributes, or inner and outer nature, or equivalence of persons in the Trinity versus ordering of the Trinity in some sense. Surely we know some things, e.g. God is Love (agape), God is Good, Father begot the Son, Father is greater than the Son. It might be we don't fully understand such things, but we have a loose understanding of them. Parables is a big part of Christ's teachings, which I think is acknowledgment of such concepts. Surely we cannot know God in His fullness, but we know of Him. Thus, to say "We cannot know God and that is what is so cool/beautiful/mysterious" is a nonsense statement. For to say we cannot know X but X is so beautiful, the most logical thing one can do after such a statement is say, "What's X?" Followed shortly by "I don't know X but it's beautiful," to which the original responds, "What's X?" So goes such fallacious thinking ad infinitum. Then let us posit that if we are to say anything about God, it is of Him, but not directly of Him.
καρδια or Heart or kardia (kar-dee'-ah): the heart, i.e. (figuratively) the thoughts or feelings (mind); also (by analogy) the middle -- (+ broken-)heart(-ed).
ψυχη or Soul or psuche (psoo-khay'):
breath, i.e. (by implication) spirit, abstractly or concretely -- heart (+ -ily), life, mind, soul, + us, + you.
διανοια or Mind or dianoia (dee-an'-oy-ah): deep thought, properly, the faculty (mind or its disposition), by implication, its exercise -- imagination, mind, understanding.
So, I've made an assumption that the Greek is correct, passed down from men more knowledgeable in the field than myself. I believe it to be justified by this, and in tandem with the fact that God is speaking to a people through their own language, so if we understand the people and their culture, then we understand what God meant, for His Son was sent to speak to the people. This implies they would understand what he means, which means there exists a necessity for communication and a common language. If God spoke in words we didn't understand, that is, if you're willing to make the claim that what God meant through these words and how the people then understood were two different things, then interpretation and history fall apart, it makes no sense to say the Apostles understood anything since not even they would fall under the category of those who understand God's language, as well as this would challenge Scripture's history and why some texts were canonized and others were not. Of course one's understanding of God comes from reason, experience, as well as Scripture, and a consistency is needed in all three, as well as Scripture being revelation requires that the subject of the other two conform to it rather than vice versa. By God, the Scripture is the way we come to better understand God since the other two are not sufficient. I say this because logic is a form and needs propositions by which to work, it's much like having a hammer and no boards or nails to create something, and whereas emotion is nothing more than a concomitant to reason's product(s). What we see then is that in order to challenge language of Scripture requires one already having a sufficient concept of God, which comes from Scripture, and thus in order for one to challenge such language is to use their foundation to destroy it, which is a great postmodern problem if you're into pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. Now that the assumption is wrapped up, I've also given three definitions and the proposition which Christ spake unto us. Let's proceed.
In order to deal with my first problem, of it being repetitious, let's throw out some ideas -- shall we? First, let's take the saying and substitute all the possible meanings given the definitions we have found.
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy [ thoughts or feelings ], and with all thy [ spirit or heart or life or mind ], and with all thy mind.
Then we'll substitute thoughts for mind wherever it appears; I believe the reasoning behind this move to be self-evident. Could be wrong :) We'll also substitute thoughts or feelings for heart since it showed up in the definition of soul.
*Note* I already cut out soul as being "concrete heart" for I hope, obvious reasons. If it's not obvious...stop reading...hahaha, more seriously if not then it's because one's concrete heart is an organ which pumps blood and is not a conceptual part to our being which can be part of love.)
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy [ thoughts or feelings ], and with all thy [ spirit or (thoughts or feelings) or life or thoughts ], and with all thy [ thoughts ].
Now, before we begin to look at this, I should probably give a better explanation why repetition is something to be avoided while interpreting. Clearly Christ repeated himself; he did so to the people, he did so to his own Apostles, he did so to the world. But within a single proposition? Why? Why the need, or even desire, to say the same thing over and over with the conjunction "and?" It makes no sense to say:
- Eat that burrito with your mouth and your mouth and your teeth.
- Indiana! Save that woman with your whip and your whip and the handle to your whip.
- Beat that redheaded stepchild within an inch of his life with your fist and your fist and don't forget to use your knuckles too.
So, the question is, would Christ say something which helps neither those of lesser or greater understanding? We might say sure in cases where Christ has already spoken and is showing the product of such things, which we might call love, but such counter-arguments I do not apply to commands. This goes back to the first part, for if the intellect must be prior to emotion, and to follow a command requires intent, which is of the intellect, then the command must be presented in a way which the intellect might grasp. God's knowledge is aware of our finite nature as well as His own telos in sending His Son, thus the Son will communicate in a coherent way which has the telos of adding to our understanding what it is we ought to do. So, for those who say this is a rhetorical knack Christ is using, I say, "Tis absurd sir," for a command's telos is to add to the intellect and such knacks as repitition do not add to the grasping of our commands by the intellect for those of greater or lesser understanding. It is in effect, useless to the intellect, and this is chiefly why we label those who use such knacks as demagogues, not as a label of reverence, but as a warning for all who would hear such a brute speak.
Corollary Tangent
Such knacks were devised to prey upon those who make emotion prior to the intellect, and such men who use them are monsters who prey upon the weak and lost. They themselves have used their intellect first before emotion (for those who don't buy into their own vain repetition), but they are not guided by the Spirit, but rather a self-instantiated telos for their own life which sets about to manipulate others as means to its logically absurd end. I say it is absurd because the artist gives the urn its telos, not the urn giving itself one. The same applies here, the Creator gives the created its telos, not otherwise, for this says the the temporally bound thing existed before it had temporal existence and determined its own final cause, which is contradictory. Final cause is part of a full account of causation and thus necessarily exists within a thing at least at the moment it achieves actuality, though this is still another conversation in and of itself. If one does accept this though, then silliness I say for those who posit otherwise (see Existentialism for a chuckle).
Back to the passage where words' definitions were put into place:
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy [ thoughts or feelings ], and with all thy [ spirit or (thoughts or feelings) or life or thoughts ], and with all thy [ thoughts ].
I could set about listing every possible permutation (I think this is the correct term and not combination?) but that might take a while. Instead lets eliminate some possibilities quickly then list out what's left.
Now, if the last term, διανοια or Mind or dianoia, is thoughts, and the first is either thoughts or feelings, and Christ would not use vain repetitions in commands [ for this would posit a problem if it were the case and we were to pray and reflect upon this with God (Matthew 6:7). But alas, I've said enough on the matter. ] then we can say that the first term (καρδια or Heart or kardia) means feelings here. I cannot of course say it always means feelings since it is a disjunct, and I cannot generalize from the particular. From here we have thoughts and feelings covered, meaning the middle term, ψυχη or Soul or psuche, cannot be either, leaving us with either spirit or life.
From here there's no telling. It's either spirit or life. Of course we might say "IT'S BOTH IT'S BOTH! IT WORKS SO WELL OUR SPIRIT IS OUR LIFE AND VICE VERSA," which sounds really pretty and makes ya' feel all warm and special, but that's not what we're left with. Whereas heart was defined as "thoughts or feelings" in a disjunct, the definition of Soul was a list consisting of commas with no sort of conjunction by which to eliminate possibilities. Perhaps it's both, perhaps it's one or the other. As always I'm not going to say or "perhaps something else" because of prior reason 1 -- my assumption is to trust scholars across history -- and reason 2 -- this would be an appeal to ignorance if one were to conclude it's something else at worst and a non-falsifiable hypothesis at best. Either way it's a horrible idea.
What is nice to know, is that the passage can thus be read as:
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy (feelings), and with all thy (spirit or life), and with all thy (thoughts).
On second thought...I don't think one could say life or both, for life consists of one's actions, decisions, relationships, etc. which all imply a self which is doing so. The thoughts and feelings are two of the fundamental parts which make up one's life, and thus this would be repetitious in a way, like saying "Let's play the game of baseball with bats and the game of baseball and balls." Not to mention Love is a part of life, conceptually so, even if we put to it as some ultimate goal of life, nope nope NOPE. I was contradicting myself there, a thing cannot be a part of something and the purpose of doing that thing, that creates separation. I only say running is part of health insofar as it causes health, but the running itself is only related to health, it isn't health-itself. Likewise if I were to say love is part of life an the telos of life I would be proposing it was both of and out of life. Ridiculous, what am I talking about? I don't say that the urn's "holding water" is outside of the urn, for the final cause is a part of the thing. I seem to be confusing means-to-ends with telos. Hmm, how to deal with this...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ...
it seems the efficient cause mixes the material and formal causes so that the thing upon achieving actuality may reach this potential, which is already inside the thing, e.g. tree is already in the acorn in potentiality.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Hmm
... ... ... ... ... i ... ... e ... n ... j ... o ... y ... ... d ... o ... t ... s ... ... e ... a ... c ... h ... i ... s ... ... a ... ... t ... i ... c ... k ... ... o ... f ... ... t ... h ... e ... ... m ... i ... n ... d ... ... p ... l ... e ... a ... s ... e ... ... h ... o ... l ...d ... ... ... c ... o ... n ... t ... e ... n ... t ... ...
Ok, so it doesn't seem to make any sense to say because the thing is a telos to conclude it it outside the thing, quite the contrary actually. What was I talking about again?
... l ... o ... a ... d ... i ... n ... g ... ... ...
Life or spirit or (life and spirit) in relation to? Gah, I don't want to scroll up; I need to work on my memory. ... .... ... ... ... ... I give up, scrolling...oh yeah, loving.
Alright, back to something a little more orderly in format. So even if we posit love (of God first and other second in accordance with the two new commands) as the telos of life it still doesn't seem to help us. It would be like sayiny:
Dear Urn,
Please hold water with all your (clay) and (circularity) and (both as far as their purpose is to hold water.)
Sincerely,
The Artisan
...goes right back to repetition. Hmm, maybe this has helped. I suppose now I know we cannot say it is both life and spirit, but we're still stuck with either life or spirit.
Dear Santa,
All I want for Christmas is wisdom. I promise not to abuse it too much.
Love,
Blake
Hahahaha, oh jeeze it's getting late. Here I am...talking to myself again. Writing seems to drive me mad in some ways and brings clarity in others.
I got it! That last conclusion was a step too far. The logical conclusion is that "life" cannot be the answer since it implies both already mentioned, and by extension, both cannot be the answer since one is falsified. Spirit it is. Wait, why was that so hard? Couldn't I just have said, thoughts and feelings are part of life so that would be repetitious? The long road it is...
The final interpretation is as follows:
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy (feelings), and with all thy (spirit), and with all thy (thoughts).
Haha, scrolling back up to copy this somehow ended up with me cutting and pasting the Artisan down here without knowing, all within about a two second span. I suppose some would say that's God giving His "mark of approval" to the interpretation, yet I can give an account of how it occurred, I was already poised to hit the code for cut and paste and hit it too soon. I think. Oh well, that's probably something better to file away and keep for testing rather than to spill out.
Another question has arisen to my mind though, how do I know spirit does not refer to feelings or thoughts or some combination to both? Well naturally I could roll through Scripture and look for differences in them, or make the appeal to what I've already been taught, that the spirit is more central than the soul which refers to feelings, thoughts, and will. I could look up the Greek for spirit that would be unnecessary since spirit is the English interpretation given as a definition for the word, which could have been otherwise. I will assume they were consistent and would have used thoughts or feelings if that were the case, and distinguished the two for a good reason, that being one of their judgment on language usage. Given the definition we know that it could not be that spirit refers to thoughts since this was suggested and seen as absurd. One might try the "it's emotion" but again this would be a non-falsifiable hypothesis at best or an appeal to ignorance at worst. The burden of proof would be on someone else to show me why this is not the case at worst since I think my case is solid, and at best you have a more accurate definition that I am ignorant of and that you might be...morally obligated to tell me of. :D Ultimately through elimination of vain repetition this passage can still work with my understanding of our state of becoming, since I believe the spirit gives guidance to the intellect, and the intellect to the emotions. It might be very well that I already presupposed this in saying that God would say that which adds to understanding, implying a move from His spirit to ours, which then speaks to our intellect, but I believe my reasons for doing so are sound and valid.
I probably should have begun with a prayer, but to be honest this day has been nothing but searching for God so I'll say I did pray in the beginning, at 10:30 a.m. So let's say an evening prayer to wrap up this wonderful day shall we?
Recite with me, if you will, a prayer as Christ taught us to say:
Our Father,
Who art in heaven,
hallowed by name.
Thy kingdom come
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory,
for ever and ever,
Amen.
Celestial Father,
Thank you for your guidance in our meditations and study of your Word. I desire to know more of these things that you have said to us, and to understand more each day what it is that I am to do. More so I desire that I might live the ethical life insofar as it seeks to bring your kingdom to fruition. Use me in whatever way possible for this, I fear not in this universal claim for I know of your unfaltering Goodness and faith in us. I pray that the Spirit might fill me and give me direction and word anytime I ponder over your curious and mysterious nature. Shape my desires in a way so that I would desire what is capable of being known of you and what is not, I would not worry about, so that I might use my time wisely and fulfill the telos you have set forth for me. I do not presume it is anything physical: a place to go, a job to take, a person to be with, but rather an all encompassing claim to me, as all I do now and here on this tainted world is not yet fulfilled, though it shall come to be. There are many doors beset before me, some good and some evil. I do no fret on which to choose or set up series of conditional prayers asking you to come down and show me which one, for I wish not to test you Lord. Instead, use me and make any road I might take righteous. I pray for righteous intervention so that penultimately my spirit might better hear yours, that my intellect might take it, use it properly, to produce a better will and emotion -- to the telos of loving (agapao) you Lord. Help me to fulfill my command, for while it is commanded of me, without you I am nothing, yet with you all is possible. If need be, give me ears to hear, give me words to pray, give me whatever is necessary for me to align my spirit to Yours.
I also pray for my family, that you might bring about a sense of peace and love within us, for we quarrel over ridiculous matters most of the time. I am guilty of reverting into some habitual form of myself when I return home. I pray protection over my identity in you at these times, so that I might not revert into some slothful, wrathful individual who lashes out at those who I love due to differences and sits about wasting days in childish entertainments.
I especially pray for Ahmaud, Ben, Frank, Josh, Lindsay, Kirk, Stephen, Ling, Hao, Tao, David, Whitey, Draper and Thomas for those matters which they need help and guidance. I do not ask for those things which do not help salvation nor their journeys to you Lord, but only that which will ultimately be used by you Lord.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti,
blake
Friday, December 4, 2009
In the World of Tomorrow!...Errr Induction
Foreword: I'm starting to like these prefaces. I meant to write on the what I thought the future might be on because I spent a night looking at futuristic models ranging from the cult-like "proofs" to philosophical "proofs" which ranged on topics such as the singularity, immortality, and "cyber souls." Very entertaining stuff, but something about the web sites claims sickened me, and I soon discovered it was their certainty in claims about claims of which no certainty could be determined.
This shall be some exercise in imagination rather than deductive logic. Pardon the pleonasm, and trite alliteration following. I don't believe in inductive logic; I find it to be a contradiction in terms. A small preface about logic should be entertaining at least.
In order to prove induction as a valid form of reasoning we must show order exists in the world, otherwise there is nothing by which to make probabilistic generalizations from. After all, induction, especially in the hard sciences is about making observations and generating the "laws of the world." To do this though would require induction itself. This results in circular reasoning, which I find in many of my science minded friends and acquaintances, prompting the quiet chuckle or friendly smile from myself as they continue on their claim to speak...logically...about the world.
And while I laud Kant for showing time and space need be a priori concepts in order for experience to occur, it doesn't patch up problems with the final result of experiences given all concepts that come into factor. I'm thoroughly unconvinced by his attempts to make the subjective experiences of the many, objective. Sounds far too much like rounding the square to my delicate ears.
I know not whether or not what I believe is correct, but I know I have the belief, and have some justification for it, now the matter of whether or not it is true. It's practical for me to assume induction, but practical is not a logical justification. And in all reality I presume I do not do it as much as the average person. Indubitably I do it when I expect everyone else to arrive at work, that the oven will work, that my lungs will continue to function, and so on. When dealing with people and activities though I always wing things and don't know what to expect. I don't claim to avoid it altogether. But I do admit I have no reason in making such assumptions. But that's all they ultimately are, and always will be. It will have to suffice for practicality's sake that in everyday events I come up with another term for "justification" when dealing with such assumptions. For it isn't justified in the true sense of the word, so instead of using it, I shall use some other word.
Perhaps this is part of why I detest having meetings to make plans for another meeting. Another part is that if I take it seriously it quickly become an ad infinitum occurrence if one doesn't keep an eye on their watch and calendar.
Furthermore I find the scientific methodologies fun but not entirely convincing due to this fun little problem of the inductive "argument." Statistics is fun to play with too, we throw on our "+5% margin of error" and since we mentioned it we pretend like everything is okay. Somewhere along the line we decided if we admit there's a problem we can still assert it. This is best to be left as a "practical justification," and those who talk about it in terms of "logic" or "proofs" ought to keep quiet, for one ought never to speak on matters they know not. And if they do know, they ought never to misuse language knowingly. There is something very twisted about the man who speaks with certainty about that which by definition cannot obtain certainty, for he is a danger to mankind.
Wow what a rant. This is a really old problem which is known as the "problem of induction" in philosophy of epistemology and sciences. I don't believe any secular answer has sufficiently solved it, though every now and then some claim to. Popper tried to in the 20th century but he did so by trying to turn the question around by saying that we hold beliefs and falsify them until we get down to reality. This is really a fancy way of saying all knowledge is empirical, which is only gotten through induction. And once again I'm going to ask the question: is induction valid? Popper is going to say you can't justify it, it just is that way. It's a clever way of making an assertion look like an argument at best, and at worst, trying to dodge circularity by shifting the question, which still turns out to be circular when he tries to give an answer. One possible solution is to make God that which binds all experiences as objective. While I'm perfectly capable of making such a claim, some are not willing to accept God's existence. that we're all modes of God an Look it up for more information. Do not use wikipedia...Also try honey on bananas and/or wheat bread with a glass of milk. It's heavenly.
So, In The World of Tomorrow!
I actually don't feel like writing about this anymore...
In other news, I received a phone call from Duke today. Looks like I shall be attending there in Fall of 2010. Divinity Devil it is, how...contradictory :) It makes me chuckle, much like induction.
God's servant,
blake
This shall be some exercise in imagination rather than deductive logic. Pardon the pleonasm, and trite alliteration following. I don't believe in inductive logic; I find it to be a contradiction in terms. A small preface about logic should be entertaining at least.
In order to prove induction as a valid form of reasoning we must show order exists in the world, otherwise there is nothing by which to make probabilistic generalizations from. After all, induction, especially in the hard sciences is about making observations and generating the "laws of the world." To do this though would require induction itself. This results in circular reasoning, which I find in many of my science minded friends and acquaintances, prompting the quiet chuckle or friendly smile from myself as they continue on their claim to speak...logically...about the world.
And while I laud Kant for showing time and space need be a priori concepts in order for experience to occur, it doesn't patch up problems with the final result of experiences given all concepts that come into factor. I'm thoroughly unconvinced by his attempts to make the subjective experiences of the many, objective. Sounds far too much like rounding the square to my delicate ears.
I know not whether or not what I believe is correct, but I know I have the belief, and have some justification for it, now the matter of whether or not it is true. It's practical for me to assume induction, but practical is not a logical justification. And in all reality I presume I do not do it as much as the average person. Indubitably I do it when I expect everyone else to arrive at work, that the oven will work, that my lungs will continue to function, and so on. When dealing with people and activities though I always wing things and don't know what to expect. I don't claim to avoid it altogether. But I do admit I have no reason in making such assumptions. But that's all they ultimately are, and always will be. It will have to suffice for practicality's sake that in everyday events I come up with another term for "justification" when dealing with such assumptions. For it isn't justified in the true sense of the word, so instead of using it, I shall use some other word.
Perhaps this is part of why I detest having meetings to make plans for another meeting. Another part is that if I take it seriously it quickly become an ad infinitum occurrence if one doesn't keep an eye on their watch and calendar.
Furthermore I find the scientific methodologies fun but not entirely convincing due to this fun little problem of the inductive "argument." Statistics is fun to play with too, we throw on our "+5% margin of error" and since we mentioned it we pretend like everything is okay. Somewhere along the line we decided if we admit there's a problem we can still assert it. This is best to be left as a "practical justification," and those who talk about it in terms of "logic" or "proofs" ought to keep quiet, for one ought never to speak on matters they know not. And if they do know, they ought never to misuse language knowingly. There is something very twisted about the man who speaks with certainty about that which by definition cannot obtain certainty, for he is a danger to mankind.
Wow what a rant. This is a really old problem which is known as the "problem of induction" in philosophy of epistemology and sciences. I don't believe any secular answer has sufficiently solved it, though every now and then some claim to. Popper tried to in the 20th century but he did so by trying to turn the question around by saying that we hold beliefs and falsify them until we get down to reality. This is really a fancy way of saying all knowledge is empirical, which is only gotten through induction. And once again I'm going to ask the question: is induction valid? Popper is going to say you can't justify it, it just is that way. It's a clever way of making an assertion look like an argument at best, and at worst, trying to dodge circularity by shifting the question, which still turns out to be circular when he tries to give an answer. One possible solution is to make God that which binds all experiences as objective. While I'm perfectly capable of making such a claim, some are not willing to accept God's existence. that we're all modes of God an Look it up for more information. Do not use wikipedia...Also try honey on bananas and/or wheat bread with a glass of milk. It's heavenly.
So, In The World of Tomorrow!
I actually don't feel like writing about this anymore...
In other news, I received a phone call from Duke today. Looks like I shall be attending there in Fall of 2010. Divinity Devil it is, how...contradictory :) It makes me chuckle, much like induction.
God's servant,
blake
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Nostalgic Tea
Sometimes when I brew a pot of tea, I set it to medium heat, patiently awaiting the steam to let me know it is ready. It takes much longer than is necessary--and I even set the pot aside and watch the steam spill over the side like the exhale of a midnight smoker's lips. I'll turn a bottle of honey up and watch the gelatinous substance swarm the bottom of my tea cup. On days when I feel nostalgic, or the need to feel so, I'll throw a dash of whiskey in.
As a child, on sick days, my mother would boil tea, add a teaspoon of honey and a shot of whiskey. She said the temperature would kill the infection, the liquor would sterilize the throat, and the honey would soothe it. Probably another snake oil story. After several coughs and yelps from the heat I'd manage to get it down. I was then forced under the blankets until a furious sweat was worked up, often putting me into some sort of feverous pseudo-dream-like state. It was a disgusting elixir, and to this day it's filed under "medicine" to my taste buds. Nonetheless it brings back memories of my mother, so I do it.
As a child, on sick days, my mother would boil tea, add a teaspoon of honey and a shot of whiskey. She said the temperature would kill the infection, the liquor would sterilize the throat, and the honey would soothe it. Probably another snake oil story. After several coughs and yelps from the heat I'd manage to get it down. I was then forced under the blankets until a furious sweat was worked up, often putting me into some sort of feverous pseudo-dream-like state. It was a disgusting elixir, and to this day it's filed under "medicine" to my taste buds. Nonetheless it brings back memories of my mother, so I do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
