Questions Sep 14-17

W/Th 16-17

LH

• Can you relate to Augustine's famous "ask" of God? Does it make him less "saintly" in your eyes? 35
• What do you think of the Manichaean "solution" to the problem of suffering? 36-7
• Even if you thought that "moral evil" and the suffering it produces was a product of human free will, how would you account for so-called "natural evil" (earthquakes, tornadoes, fatal diseases etc.) that no one chooses?
• Why do you think Boethius talks to Lady Philosophy, in his cell, and not to Lady Theology? 41 Why doesn't he acknowledge that he was a Christian? 43
• If a "God grasps everything in an instant" and "sees past, present and future as one," how can a human still be said to possess free will (if that will is supposed to be able to change future events)? 44-5
• Do humans really have an idea of God, that is, an idea of a perfect being that they are capable of understanding with their imperfect and finite intelligence? And if somehow they do, does that prove anything? 47
• Does Aquinas's First Cause argument make sense to you? Or do you wonder what would have caused the First Cause? And, would that be a God (with the moral perfection and personal interest in humans and the universe that most religious people in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions affirm)?

FL

• Was Mark Twain right about "the mistake we all make"? 55
• Do you think Ronald Reagan really believed the Jefferson/angel legend? 58
• Do you agree with Andersen about the difference between Christians in Europe and in America? 59
• Are you surprised at what Jefferson told his French friend about religion in America? 60
• Do you wish you'd been at Cane Ridge? Or Woodstock? 62
• Were Finney and Whitefield right about religion as "show biz"? 
• Was William Miller crazy? Why did he inspire so many Americans? 65
• Why did so many Americans believe Joseph Smith? 71 (And what would Kant say to them about that?)
• [Now I can't find my new questions on Time and Karma! So we'll improvise, starting with... 
• How do you define "time"? I like Thoreau's, myself, though I don't entirely know what it means: "Time is but the stream I go a'fishing in."  And Immanuel Kant, we'll see, says it's a category of our understanding but not something objective "in the world" (except insofar as we are)... And Einstein said past, present, and future are "stubborn illusions"...
• Mark Twain said history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes. 114 Do you think time is linear, cyclical, both, neither...?
• "When life is harsh, it is no surprise that so many look for salvation in a life to come." 117 And is that why some people believe in karma, too?
• "It's just karma." 120 When people say that, are they being fatalistic? Are they "blaming the victim"? Is it a (bad) solution to the problem of suffering?
• "The young no longer believe in karma... ideas of free will and aspiration have come in its place." 122 Is this a positive development?

==

Since we're talking free will, and because provocation and controversy make for better conversation, let me introduce you to Jesus and Mo (no offense or blasphemy intended):

More free will J&M cartoons here...

Excerpt:
1
AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO (354–430)

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
—Paul, Colossians 2:8

AUGUSTINE, a teenager studying in Carthage in the 370s, begins to ponder what he will one day consider the inevitable shortcomings of human philosophy ungrounded in the word of God. This process begins, as Augustine will later recount in his Confessions, when he reads Cicero’sHortensius, written around 45 b.c.e. The young scholar, unacquainted with either Jewish or Christian Scripture, takes away the (surely unintended) lesson from the pagan Cicero that only faith—a faith that places the supernatural above the natural—can satisfy the longing for wisdom.

“But, O Light of my heart,” Augustine wrote to his god in Confessions (c. 397), “you know that at that time, although Paul’s words were not known to me, the only thing that pleased me in Cicero’s book was his advice not simply to admire one or another of the schools of philosophy, but to love wisdom itself, whatever it might be. . . . These were the words which excited me and set me burning with fire, and the only check to this blaze of enthusiasm was that they made no mention of the name of Christ.”

The only check? To me, this passage from Confessions has always sounded like the many rewritings of personal history intended to conform the past to the author’s current beliefs and status in life—which in Augustine’s case meant being an influential bishop of an ascendant church that would tolerate no dissent grounded in other religious or secular philosophies. By the time he writes Confessions, Augustine seems a trifle embarrassed about having been so impressed, as a young man, by a pagan writer. So he finds a way to absolve himself of the sin of attraction to small-“c” catholic, often secular intellectual interests by limiting Cicero to his assigned role as one step in a fourth-century boy’s journey toward capital-“C” Catholicism. It is the adult Augustine who must reconcile his enthusiasm for Cicero with the absence of the name of Christ; there is no reason why this should have bothered the pagan adolescent Augustine at all. Nevertheless, no passage in the writings of the fathers of the church, or in any personal accounts of the intellectual and emotional process of conversion, explains more lucidly (albeit indirectly) why the triumph of Christianity inevitably begins with that other seeker on the road to Damascus. It is Paul, after all, not Jesus or the authors of the Gospels, who merits a mention in Augustine’s explanation of how his journey toward the one true faith was set in motion by a pagan.

It is impossible to consider Augustine, the second most important convert in the theological firmament of the early Christian era, without giving Paul his due. But let us leave Saul—he was still Saul then—as he awakes from a blow on his head to hear a voice from the heavens calling him to rebirth in Christ. Saul did not have any established new religion to convert to, but Augustine was converting to a faith with financial and political influence, as well as a spiritual message for the inhabitants of a decaying empire. Augustine’s journey from paganism to Christianity was a philosophical and spiritual struggle lasting many years, but it also exemplified the many worldly, secular influences on conversion in his and every subsequent era. These include mixed marriages; political instability that creates the perception and the reality of personal insecurity; and economic conditions that provide a space for new kinds of fortunes and the possibility of financial support for new religious institutions.

Augustine told us all about his struggle, within its social context, in Confessions—which turned out to be a best-seller for the ages. This was a new sort of book, even if it was a highly selective recounting of experience (like all memoirs) rather than a “tell-all” autobiography in the modern sense. Its enduring appeal, after a long break during the Middle Ages, lies not in its literary polish, intellectuality, or prayerfulness—though the memoir is infused with these qualities—but in its preoccupation with the individual’s relationship to and responsibility for sin and evil. As much as Augustine’s explorations constitute an individual journey—and have been received as such by generations of readers—the journey unfolds in an upwardly mobile, religiously divided family that was representative of many other people finding and shaping new ways to make a living; new forms of secular education; and new institutions of worship in a crumbling Roman civilization.

After a lengthy quest venturing into regions as wild as those of any modern religious cults, Augustine told the story of his spiritual odyssey when he was in his forties. His subsequent works, including The City of God, are among the theological pillars of Christianity, butConfes­sions is the only one of his books read widely by anyone but theologically minded intellectuals (or intellectual theologians). In the fourth and early fifth centuries, Christian intellectuals with both a pagan and a religious education, like the friends and mentors Augustine discusses in the book, provided the first audience for Confessions. That audience would probably not have existed a century earlier, because literacy—a secular prerequisite for a serious education in both paganism and Christianity—had expanded among members of the empire’s bourgeois class by the time Augustine was born. The Christian intellectuals who became Augustine’s first audience may have been more interested than modern readers in the theological framework of the autobiography (though they, too, must have been curious about the distinguished bishop’s sex life). ButConfessions has also been read avidly, since the Renaissance, by successive generations of humanist scholars (religious and secular); Enlightenment skeptics; nineteenth-century Romantics; psychotherapists; and legions of the prurient, whether religious believers or nonbelievers. Everyone, it seems, loves the tale of a great sinner turned into a great saint.

In my view, Augustine was neither a world-class sinner nor a saint, but his drama of sin and repentance remains a real page-turner. Here & Now==
An old post-

Augustine & string theory

Is anyone, from God on down, “pulling our strings”? We’d not be free if they were, would we? If you say we would, what do you mean by “free”? Jesus and Mo have puzzled this one, behind the wheel with with Moses and with "Free Willy." But as usual, the Atheist Barmaid is unpersuaded.

(As I always must say, when referencing this strip: that’s not Jesus of Nazareth, nor is it the Prophet Mohammed, or the sea-parter Moses; and neither I nor Salman Rushdie, the Dutch cartoonists, the anonymous Author, or anyone else commenting on religion in fictional media are blasphemers. We're all just observers exercising our "god-given" right of free speech, which of course extends no further than the end of a fist and the tip of a nose. We'll be celebrating precisely that, and academic freedom, when we line up to take turns reading the Constitution this morning.

No, they’re just a trio of cartoonish guys who often engage in banter relevant to our purposes in CoPhi. It’s just harmless provocation, and fun. But if it makes us think, it’s useful.)

Augustine proposed a division between the “city of god” and the “earthly city” of humanity, thus excluding many of us from his version of the cosmos. “These two cities of the world, which are doomed to coexist intertwined until the Final Judgment, divide the world’s inhabitants.” SEP

And of course he believed in hell, raising the stakes for heaven and the judicious free will he thought necessary to get there even higher. If there's no such thing as free will, though, how can you do "whatever the hell you want"? But, imagine there's no heaven or hell. What then? Some of us think that's when free will becomes most useful to members of a growing, responsible species.

Someone posted the complaint on our class message board that it's not clear what "evil" means, in the context of our Little History discussion of Augustine. But I think this is clear enough: "there is a great deal of suffering in the world," some of it proximally caused by crazy, immoral/amoral, armed and dangerous humans behaving badly, much more of it caused by earthquakes, disease, and other "natural" causes. All of it, on the theistic hypothesis, is part and parcel of divinely-ordered nature.

Whether or not some suffering is ultimately beneficial, character-building, etc., and from whatever causes, "evil" means the suffering that seems gratuitously destructive of innocent lives. Some of us "can't blink the evil out of sight," in William James's words, and thus can't go in for theistic (or other) schemes of "vicarious salvation." We think it's the responsibility of humans to use their free will (or whatever you prefer to call ameliorative volitional action) to reduce the world's evil and suffering. Take a sad song and make it better.

Note the Manichaean strain in Augustine, and the idea that "evil comes from the body." That's straight out of Plato. The world of Form and the world of perfect heavenly salvation thus seem to converge. If you don't think "body" is inherently evil, if in fact you think material existence is pretty cool (especially considering the alternative), this view is probably not for you. Nor if you can't make sense of Original Sin, that most "difficult" contrivance of the theology shop.

"Augustine had felt the hidden corrosive effect of Adam's Fall, like the worm in the apple, firsthand," reminds Arthur Herman. His prayer for personal virtue "but not yet" sounds funny but was a cry of desperation and fear.

Like Aristotle, Augustine believed that the quality of life we lead depends on the choices we make. The tragedy is that left to our own devices - and contrary to Aristotle - most of those choices will be wrong. There can be no true morality without faith and no faith without the presence of God. The Cave and the Light

Bertrand Russell, we know, was not a Christian. But he was a bit of a fan of Augustine the philosopher (as distinct from the theologian), on problems like time.

As for Augustine the theologian and Saint-in-training, Russell's pen drips disdain.

It is strange that the last men of intellectual eminence before the dark ages were concerned, not with saving civilization or expelling the barbarians or reforming the abuses of the administration, but with preaching the merit of virginity and the damnation of unbaptized infants.

Funny, how the preachers of the merit of virginity so often come late - after exhausting their stores of wild oats - to their chaste piety. Not exactly paragons of virtue or character, these Johnnys Come Lately. On the other hand, it's possible to profess a faith you don't understand much too soon. My own early Sunday School advisers pressured and frightened me into "going forward" at age 6, lest I "die before I wake" one night and join the legions of the damned.

That's an allusive segue to today's additional discussion of Aristotelian virtue ethics, in its turn connected with the contradictions inherent in the quest to bend invariably towards Commandments. "Love your neighbor": must that mean, let your neighbor suffer a debilitating terminal illness you could pull the plug on? Or is the "Christian" course, sometimes, to put an end to it?

We also read today of Hume's Law, Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy, the old fact/value debate. Sam Harris is one of the most recent controversialists to weigh in on the issue, arguing that "good" means supportive of human well-being and flourishing, which are in turn based on solid facts. "The answer to the question, 'What should I believe, and why should I believe it?' is generally a scientific one..." Brain Science and Human Values

Also: ethical relativism, meta-ethics, and more. And maybe we'll have time to squeeze in consideration of the perennial good-versus-evil trope. Would there be anything "wrong" with a world in which good was already triumphant, happiness for all already secured, kindness and compassion unrivaled by hatred and cruelty? I think it might be just fine. Worth a try, anyway. Where can I vote for that?

==

M/T 14-15. 

Here's the School of Life on Stoics & Epicureans... (find accompanying text by searching "Book of Life")



“‘Stoicism’ was a philosophy that flourished for some 400 years in Ancient Greece and Rome, gaining widespread support among all classes of society. It had one overwhelming and highly practical ambition: to teach people how to be calm and brave in the face of overwhelming anxiety and pain…” You can read more on this and many other topics on our blog TheBookofLife.org: https://goo.gl/GKlHa5

LH

• Was Epicurus right about fearing death, and the best way to live? 23
• Are you an "epicure" in either the ancient or contemporary sense of the word? 24
• Was Wittgenstein right about death? 25
• Have you experienced the loss of a loved one as a tragic "event" in your life?
• Was Epicurus right not to worry about an afterlife? 26
• What do you think of the Stoics' "basic idea"? 29
• Do you feel better about growing old and eventually dying, after reflecting on Cicero's ideas? 30
• Was Seneca right, are most people's lives long enough? (Or would they be, if people stopped wasting so much time?) 31
• Is there a danger of becoming cold and heartless, if you become a Stoic? 33

FL

• The Founders were Enlightenment rationalists and pragmatists devoted to secular government and a "wall of separation" between church and state, but the myth persists among many Americans that they intended to establish "a Christian nation," a theocracy not unlike those in the Islamic world. Why do you think that is?
• Why do you think Americans have been so obsessed with Hell? 
• What do you think accounts for "the Affections" of some fundamentalist church services ("moaning, weeping, screaming, jerking, fainting" etc.)?
• Was Jefferson's advice to his nephew good? 51
• What do you think of Kant's motto? 52
• Will reason eventually win out in the "marketplace of ideas"?
• Do you have any significant philosophical differences with your parents? Do you discuss them? Do you want to?
• Does "nirvana" (Enlightenment, personal liberation) have to be the same for everyone? What would be your personal definition/experience of nirvana?  
• Matthieu Ricard has been called the happiest man in the world. Do you think eastern philosophies focused on the alleviation of suffering are a more promising route to happiness than its "pursuit" in the western/Jeffersonian tradition of individualism and personal liberty?
• Is "Holy Spirit" something real and supernatural, or is it the name of a natural form of experience best studied and explicated by neuroscientists, and analyzed by philosophers?
• Have you been "born again," or encouraged by faith leaders or peers to seek spiritual rebirth? Is that something real, metaphorical, or delusional?
• Why did the founders omit reference to God in the Constitution, do you think?
• Do you think it takes courage to think for yourself and invoke reason against superstition, tradition, etc.?

HWT

[I posted a bunch of questions about Pragmatism, Tradition, etc., but they have somehow and maddeningly disappeared into the ether-!!-so I leave you to fashion your own... but here are a couple at least:

• If you're going to be a Stoic, should you also be a kind of Pragmatist?
• Is anything, any practice or belief, ever totally justified merely because it's traditional, just because "that's the way we do things, and our ancestors did before us"? 

From Up@dawn, Sep16: I composed and thought I'd posted a bunch of questions for discussion, pertaining to the Baggini chapters. They've vanished, maddeningly, but I do want us today -- or eventually, we'll revisit the subjects of Pragmatism and Tradition later in the semester -- to ponder Peirce's statement about not pretending to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts, Dewey's repudiation of "the problems of philosophers" in favor of "the problems of men," and James's quintessentially pragmatic question, "What concrete difference will its being true [or being believed to be true] make in anyone's actual life?"

Found 'em:

• Why are so many more Americans than Brits (etc.) religion? 80
• Is James right to emphasize the "concrete differences" of ideas and beliefs? 81
• Is Dewey right, do we often "get over" philosophical problems rather than "solve" them?
• Is Peirce right, that we shouldn't pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt "in our hearts"? 83
• Do you like Peirce's definition of truth? 84
• Is Rorty right about truth as "intersubjective agreement"? 
• Why did America give the presidency to a "vulgar property developer"? 86
• Do you support "the reality-based community"? 88
• Should later thinkers consider themselves "mere commentators"? 91
• Should enlightened thinkers still venerate tradition? 92
• Is a Golden Age ahead of us, behind us, or nowhere? 93
• Is it possible to work within a tradition while also critiquing it independently?96
• Can truth-seekers also be way-seekers, and vice versa? 99
• Is it possible to "engage in the world" without strong reliance on concepts and language?   100
• 
  

==

What Is Enlightenment? 

by Immanuel Kant

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage [immaturity]. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance. They are the reasons why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on--then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me. Those guardians who have kindly taken supervision upon themselves see to it that the overwhelming majority of mankind--among them the entire fair sex--should consider the step to maturity, not only as hard, but as extremely dangerous. First, these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if they should try to walk by themselves. Now this danger is really not very great; after stumbling a few times they would, at last, learn to walk. However, examples of such failures intimidate and generally discourage all further attempts... (continues)

==

 Our culture is obsessed with youth-and why not? What's the appeal of growing old, of gaining responsibilities and giving up on dreams, of steadily trading possibility for experience?

The philosopher Susan Neiman argues that the absence of appealing models of maturity is not an accident: by describing life as a downhill process, we prepare young people to expect - and demand - very little from it. In Why Grow Up? she challenges our culture of permanent adolescence, turning to thinkers including Kant, Rousseau, and Arendt to find a model of maturity that is not a matter of resignation. In growing up, we move from the boundless trust of childhood to the peculiar mixture of disappointment and exhilaration that comes with adolescence. Maturity, however, means finding the courage to live in a world of painful uncertainty without giving in to dogma or despair. A grown-up, Neiman writes, helps to move the world closer to what it should be while never losing sight of what it is.

Why Grow Up? is a witty and concise argument for the value of maturity as a subversive ideal: a goal rarely achieved entirely, and all the more worth striving for.

g'r

“Growing up means realizing that no time of one's life is the best one, and resolving to savor every second of joy within reach. You know each will pass, and you no longer experience that as betrayal.” 

“Freedom cannot simply mean doing whatever strikes you at the moment: that way you're a slave to any whim or passing fancy. Real freedom involves control over your life as a whole, learning to make plans and promises and decisions, to take responsibility for your actions' consequences.” 

“A defence of the Enlightenment is a defence of the modern world, along with all its possibilities for self-criticism and transformation. If you’re committed to Enlightenment, you’re committed to understanding the world in order to improve it.” 

“Reason drives your search to make sense of the world by pushing you to ask why things are as they are. For theoretical reason, the outcome of that search becomes science; for practical reason, the outcome is a more just world.” 

“When consuming goods rather than satisfying work becomes the focus of our culture, we have created (or acquieced in) a society of permanent adolescents.” 
― Susan Neiman, Why Grow Up?: Subversive Thoughts for an Infantile Age

Susan Neiman at the Southern Festival of Books, Nashville - October 2019 - "Learning from the Germans"
==

Jefferson was a self-avowed Epicurean and materialist. "Spiritualism" for him is a term of abuse applied mostly to the Platonic tradition.  "Of Jesus he says, 'I am a Materialist; he takes the side of spiritualism.' [But] perhaps Jesus could be interpreted as an Epicurean after all."

In that spirit, perhaps we should all read our (Jefferson) Bible.