Existentialism continued

There's merit in what you say here, Chris. I think for most of us though, in some form or other, that functionalism serves a core memetic purpose. In fairness it can be argued that that purpose is imposed on otherwise unwilling participants in the majority of cases, and that is most likely for a political expediency. Still, I do believe that the largest majority of those so inclined are at least morally better off than had they been turned loose on the world as a blank slate to reinvent the wheel as it were regarding morality and ethics.

A final thought to consider, I alluded to briefly earlier in response to BR, "why shouldn't G-d be real?" I agree that our collective mythos designed to establish an image in our minds differ enough to create a very confused image were we to try to amalgamate every major idea into a unified whole. That alone though is no reason to presume G-d doesn't exist...rather, to my mind, it serves to reinforce the notion that He does in fact exist, though likely not in any form we would immediately recognize (hence the conflicting views).

Cerebral as usual Juan!

I've spent a lot of time thinking about what God might be of Itself. I think that I'm most partial to a sort of uber-Logos concept in which God is a Principle that utterly transcends, but completely informs the functional model. It's interesting how such an indescribable "thing" becomes the impetus for the expression of art, which, to my mind, is the ongoing attempt to describe that indescribable "thing."

Chris
 
c0de: So what was the "cause" of God's existence?

Ghazali: I said "begins to exist." God did not have a beginning.
Good. This is a very rationalist approach, I like that.
c0de: if existence is a property shared by us and God alike, then how can you claim that our existence had a beginning, but God's didnt??

If God exists and his existence was not caused -> then a way to solve these (very dire) empirical issues is to say that God exists, but we do not (i.e have any inherent properties of existence.)
One can argue that the creator is either eternal or not. We have no way of knowing, in addition we have no way of knowing whether the creator exists or not.


C0de-As much respect as I have for Ghazali (+ bishop berkley) i must still fault them for accepting that one most tempting of human assumptions: cognito ergo sum. They went far (with questioning our conception of causality) but not far enough. Ghazali for example also believed in free-will, ignoring all the issues with that can of worms.
You really need to read some Al-Farabi.
 
I am thinking that is a possibility. I've sent a PM to Brian, not sure what else to do. I've been gaining access by using cached history. This is my first visit to this thread in a week.
 
I am thinking that is a possibility. I've sent a PM to Brian, not sure what else to do. I've been gaining access by using cached history. This is my first visit to this thread in a week.

I'm having similar issues for the past several days. Have PM'ed Brian as well. Can get in through the back door, as it were, by googling key words from past postings, but can't access the front page.

Chris
 
I've just got through an AV soft malware attack that placed a trojan virus on my computer. It inundates you with pop-up messages and a fake security scan offer that won't go away, and won't let you use executable files to get rid of it. Took me hours to figure a way around it. Norton didn't pick it up.

Chris
 
Being July 4th weekend, a celebration of independence, I thought I would share with you some thoughts about free will. These are ideas from Spinoza:

Everything, according to Spinoza, is ruled by an absolute logical necessity. There is no such thing as free will in the mental sphere or chance in the physical world. Everything that happens is a manifestation of God's inscrutable nature, and it is logically impossible that events should be other than they are. This leads to difficulties in regards to sin, which critics were not slow to point out. One of them, observing that, according to Spinoza, everything is decreed by God and is therefore good, asks indignantly: Was it good that Nero should kill his mother ? Was it good that Adam ate the apple ? Spinoza answers that what was positive in these acts was good, and only what was negative was bad; but negation exists only from the point of view of finite creatures. In God, who alone is completely real, there is no negation, and therefore the evil in what to us seem sins does not exist when they are viewed as parts of the whole. This doctrine, though, in one form or another, it has been held by most mystics, cannot, obviously, be reconciled with the orthodox doctrine of sin and damnation. It is bound up with Spinoza's complete rejection of free will. Although not at all polemical, Spinoza was too honest to conceal his opinions, however shocking to contemporaries; the abhorrence of his teaching is therefore not surprising.

Ref - A History of Western Philosophy

Is this a sound argument for rejection of free will ? If not, what are the logical fault(s) presented ? What is free will ? Does it mean that if I hit a billiard ball at a certain velocity and direction, that when it impacts another billiard ball, that the second ball will then move with a pre-determined velocity and direction ? Is that all that is meant by free will ? Determinism ? Is the argument valid in the current world of quantum mechanics ? What about freedom to live your life as you deem fit ? Freedom to do good or evil ? Was Spinoza's greatness that he challenged prevailing thought ?

Happy 4th.
 
Spinoza indulged in philosophical wanking. First, off, he presumes that God CANNOT suspend His own powers of control to permit free will. It cannot be logically proven that God has not chosen to suspend His power specifically to permit human free will. I will concede that God would have the power to control all things from beginning to end. But there is no argument that can demonstrate logical necessity that he cannot use that power to suspend use of that power in specific instances, nor is there any argument to demonstrate a logical necessity that he has not made such a suspension. While I cannot claim with logical rigor that He has, I need not do so for this purpose. All I need do is show that it has not been logically proven that He has not.

Likewise, to claim that it is logically impossible for events to be other than they are requires that the claimant know all possible events and know all events that have occurred, are occurring, and shall occur. Otherwise, the claimant's belief in "logical necessity" must be admitted to have been based upon inference from a limited sample. That an individual has seen logical necessity all around him only philosophically proves the universality of logical necessity if the individual has universal perception, in space and time. Otherwise, Hume's objection to inference from observation overrides. The person may legitimately claim "as far as I have seen" logical necessity holds, but can claim no further without indulging in speculation, which is never logically supported. I am, of course, allowing the individual to claim perfect perception and not calling into question limits of said perception, which, were I being strictly logical, could certainly do.

I may not have demolished Spinoza's argument, but I have shown that it is not logically necessary, which, given that Spinoza claims logical necessity, is functionally equivalent to demolishing it. I didn't even have to invoke "goodness" to do it, either. God could be a total ******* and Spinoza's argument would still not be logically necessary. It might or might not be true, but it is not logically inescapable. I didn't even have to sail off into quantum mechanics.
 
Dogbrain:
I didn't even have to sail off into quantum mechanics.


Actually, Dogbrain, you do have to "sail off into quantum mechanics (QM)" if you want to prove Spinoza wrong. Prior to QM Spinosa was for practical purposes correct. Before Heisenberg proved uncertainty we lived in a fully deterministic world. Heisenberg was the first to show that both the momentum and position of a particle could only be measured to only within a constant level of certainty. This proof forever eliminated the possiblity of our universe being fully deterministic. At this point Spinoza and the other determinists were demonstrated to be wrong. That provides the proof of free will, because if the universe is non-deterministic, action and reaction cannot be predicted with certainty, Q.E.D.

On the other hand, Spinoza should be credited with his early speculation of a pantheistic creator, which was perhaps his greatest observation.

By the way, what are your thoughts about: "spooky action at a distance" ?
 
Actually, Dogbrain, you do have to "sail off into quantum mechanics (QM)" if you want to prove Spinoza wrong. Prior to QM Spinosa was for practical purposes correct. Before Heisenberg proved uncertainty we lived in a fully deterministic world. Heisenberg was the first to show that both the momentum and position of a particle could only be measured to only within a constant level of certainty. This proof forever eliminated the possiblity of our universe being fully deterministic. At this point Spinoza and the other determinists were demonstrated to be wrong. That provides the proof of free will, because if the universe is non-deterministic, action and reaction cannot be predicted with certainty, Q.E.D.
Heisenberg uncertainty principle is logical because the very act of measuring something disturbs what you try to measure.
 
Heisenberg uncertainty principle is logical because the very act of measuring something disturbs what you try to measure.

Right, this is an example of how our intuition can evolve to comprehend phenomena which is, in fact, rather non-intuitive. During the days of Heisenberg it was nearly impossible to imagine that any particles could behave in a non-deterministic manner.
 
Everything, according to Spinoza, is ruled by an absolute logical necessity. There is no such thing as free will in the mental sphere or chance in the physical world.
So Spinoza started off correctly. Since the starting point has not been proved to be wrong, the conclusion (the second line in the quote) cannot be dismissed as yet.
 
Everything, according to Spinoza, is ruled by an absolute logical necessity. There is no such thing as free will in the mental sphere or chance in the physical world.

So Spinoza started off correctly. Since the starting point has not been proved to be wrong, the conclusion (the second line in the quote) cannot be dismissed as yet.

Right idea again, and great point. But the question it begs is not the one you asked, but: "how could someone so correct in his first observation be so wrong in his second" ?

We have discussed the lack of understanding with respect to the physical world. There was too much not yet known during Spinoza's time.

However, it is hard to understand his belief about "no such thing as free will in the mental sphere". Free will has been around since Adam ate the apple.
 
Assuming we defined free will as the ability to choose, the next question is then whether there are factors affecting the choice. If there are factors affecting the choice, then the outcome of the choice cannot be considered 100% free from interferences.

If there are no influencing factors, the outcome of the choice will be random. Can there be no influencing factors for the chooser? Yes if you are God. But if you are God, do you need to make choices in the first place?

Making choices are only for most who do not have access to complete information.

One may say that the act of choosing is free. But I am not sure if this is of much use when the outcome is not that free. In other words, in describing the act, I am not sure one can entirely disengage it from the outcome.
 
I question the premise. Prove that everything is ruled by logical necessity. It is merely claimed axiomatically, but not proved. I did not need quantum mechanics to deny logical necessity.

Why is everyone afraid of Hume?
 
I question the premise. Prove that everything is ruled by logical necessity. It is merely claimed axiomatically, but not proved. I did not need quantum mechanics to deny logical necessity.

Why is everyone afraid of Hume?
I would guess that if everything is not ruled by logical necessity, even if you are God, there will be something that you as God cannot explain.
 
I question the premise. Prove that everything is ruled by logical necessity. It is merely claimed axiomatically, but not proved. I did not need quantum mechanics to deny logical necessity.

Why is everyone afraid of Hume?

no fear, only scepticism [a logical necessity!]
 
Back
Top