[Catch up from last time: Weiner, Socrates Express]
Augustine, Boethius, Anselm, Aquinas-LHP 6-8. FL 9-10, HWT 9-10
Presentations Marcus Aurelius - #6 Tyler R.; Aquinas- #6 Anon. #7 Zach S.
LHP
- [Add your own DQs]
- Would the existence of evil equivalent to good, without guarantees of tthe inevitable triiumph of the latter, solve the problem of suffering?
- Why do you think Boethius didn't write "The Consolation of Christianity"?
- Do you think you have a clear idea of what it would mean for there to be an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good supernatural being?
- Do you think knowledge is really a form of remembering or recollection? Have we just forgotten what we knew?
- Is there a difference between an uncaused cause (or unmoved mover) and a god?
- Which is the more plausible explanation of the extent of gratuitous suffering in the world, that God exists but is not more powerful than Satan, or that neither God nor Satan exists? Why?
- Are supernatural stories of faith, redemption, and salvation more comforting to you than the power of reason and evidence? Why or why not?
- What do you think of the Manichean idea that an "evil God created the earth and emtombed our souls in the prisons of our bodies"? (Dream of Reason 392)
- Do you agree with Augustine about "the main message of Christianity...that man needs a great deal of help"? (DR 395). If so, must "help" take the form of supernatural salvation? If not, what do you think the message is? What kind of help do we need?
- What do you think of Boethius' proposed solution to the puzzle of free will, that from a divine point of view there's no difference between past, present, and future? 402
- Did Russell "demolish" Anselm's ontological argument? (See below)
- COMMENT: “The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.” Carl Sagan
- COMMENT: “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.” Carl Sagan
- If you were falsely imprisoned, tortured, and scheduled for execution, would you be able to achieve "consolation"? How?
- Can the definition of a word prove anything about the world?
- Is theoretical simplicity always better, even if the universe is complex?
- Does the possibility of other worlds somehow diminish humanity?
- How does the definition of God as omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good make it harder to account for evil and suffering in the world? Would it be better to believe in a lesser god, or no god at all?
- Can you explain the concept of Original Sin? Do you think you understand it?
- Is it better to embrace (or renounce) religious faith early in life, or to "sow your wild oats" and enjoy a wide experience of the world before committing to any particular tradition or belief? Were you encouraged by adults, in childhood, to make a public profession of faith? If so, did you understand what that meant or entailed?
- Does the concept of a never-ending struggle between good and evil appeal to you? Does it make sense, in the light of whatever else you believe? 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?
- Do you find the concept of Original Sin compelling, difficult, unfair, or dubious? In general, do we "inherit the sins of our fathers (and mothers)"? If yes, give examples and explain.
- What kinds of present-day McCarthyism can you see? Is socialism the new communism? How are alternate political philosophies discouraged in America, and where would you place yourself on the spectrum?
- Andersen notes that since WWII "mainline" Christian denominations were peaking (and, as evidence shows, are now declining). What do you think about this when you consider the visible political power of other evangelical denominations? Are you a part of a mainline traditon? If so, how would you explain this shift?
"Boethius (AD c.475–524) was a Christian philosopher and theologian from an aristocratic Roman family who worked as principal minister to Theodoric the Ostrogoth, the ruler of Italy from 493 to 526. Boethius was depressed by the rapid degeneration of intellectual life and by the fact that few people in the West could read the Greek classics any more. He set out to translate all of Plato’s and Aristotle’s works into Latin so that they would not be lost to future generations.
Unfortunately he was executed for treason before this ambitious project could get very far. Its only surviving fruits are Latin versions of Aristotle’s logical writings, which may help to explain why early medieval philosophers were so obsessed with old logic. They had little else to study. It is intriguing to speculate how much better informed the Latin world might have been if only the labours of Boethius had not been cruelly cut short.
On the other hand, his indictment on what were probably trumped-up charges did have one happy result, though not for him. It was while he was in prison under sentence of death that Boethius wrote his impassioned The Consolation of Philosophy. Impending extinction concentrated his mind wonderfully: this masterpiece became one of the most widely read books of medieval times. King Alfred the Great, Chaucer and Queen Elizabeth I were among those who made English translations of it. It might never have been written had Boethius lived to a ripe, uneventful and scholarly old age instead of getting caught up in politics.
The Consolation takes the form of a dialogue between Boethius, who speaks in prose, and Lady Philosophy, who replies mostly in verse. Lady Philosophy answers Boethius’ despondent meditations about the miseries and injustice of life with a mixture of Stoic and Platonic wisdom. Adversity in general and evil rulers in particular are powerless to harm a good man, she says, because a good soul will remain untouched by ‘slippery Fortune’; besides, divine Providence oversees everything.
Lady Philosophy steers him away from the many false roads to happiness and tries to guide him instead towards the contemplation of all that is good—which is to say, God: Grant, Father, that our minds Thy august seat may scan, Grant us the sight of true good’s source, and grant us light That we may fix on Thee our mind’s unblinded eye. Disperse the clouds of earthly matter’s cloying weight; Shine out in all Thy glory; for Thou art rest and peace To those who worship Thee; to see Thee is our end, Who art our source and maker, lord and path and goal.
The book never explicitly mentions Christianity. But it manages to address, in a non-technical manner, many of the philosophical problems that are likely to intrigue a believer. For example, it includes a solution to the puzzle of how man can be said to have any real choice in his actions if an omniscient God always knows beforehand what he is going to do. Boethius’ answer starts from the idea that there is no difference between past, present and future from God’s point of view. For God, all of eternity is like the present. So when God foresees what I will do, my freedom is no more curtailed by this fact than it would be by somebody observing what I am doing while I am doing it. Essentially the same solution was adopted by St Thomas Aquinas and some other late-medieval theologians.
Dream of Reason: A History of Western Philosophy from the Greeks to the Renaissance (New Edition) by Anthony Gottlieb
How did Augustine "solve" the problem of evil in his younger days and after his conversion to Christianity? Why wasn't it such a problem for him originally?
ReplyDeleteAugustine believed evil existed as a separate force from good to explain suffering and sin. After his conversion, he changed his mind, thinking that evil was a lack of good rather than a separate being. He said God allowed evil to exist to bring greater good. This dilemma wasn’t a big deal for him until his conversion because he didn’t have to worry about God until then.
What does Boethius not mention about himself in The Consolation of Philosophy?
In The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius doesn’t mention Christianity or his own Christian faith. He didn't say it because he wanted his ideas to spread to nonchristian.
Boethius' "recollection of ideas" can be traced back to what philosopher?
This idea can be traced back to Plato, who said that learning is a process of recollecting knowledge based on experience.
What uniquely self-validating idea did Anselm say we have?
Anselm argued that God had to exist because existence is better than nonexistence and because people believe he exists.
Gaunilo criticized Anselm's reasoning using what example?
Gaunillo used the idea of a “perfect island” to criticize the idea that just because people want something to exist doesn’t mean it does.
What was Aquinas' 2nd Way?
Aquinas’ 2nd way was that everything has a cause for existing and coming into existence. Therefore, the world and its people must have a reason for the same thing: God.
4. Anselm argued the existence of God was proven through the intrinsic idea of God humans possess. Because we already have an idea of a higher power, a higher being must exist.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who believes in a higher power, I would say Anselm's arguement is weak for the existence of God, as Gaunilo pointed out. I believe the existence of God lies within our historical, testimonal, and scientifc records. The complexities of our cosmos, human anatomy, sociology, and psychology reveal a distinct design. It is not a multitude of random collections of unexplained phenomenons. Additionally, though I cannot speak for other religions, there are over 66,000 manuscripts of the Bible. In comparsion, Homer's Iliad are around 1,700 while Aristotle and Plato's manuscripts remain under 100 as of a few years ago.
One thing that I find strange is the drastic differences in Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle's beliefs and teachings, considering they were teachers and pupils of one another.
I completely agree with you in every comment you made! I think his reasoning is weak, and that the Bible is proof of a real God. There are thousands of manuscripts (like you mention) that support the existence of God.
DeleteAlso, in regard to your last comment, I am also curious on how each student of each other differs so vastly in their teachings and understanding of the world. I think it is similar to how students have assumptions and ideas about a certain topic before they discuss it with their professor or class. So, when these ideas mix, they take those preexisting thoughts and merge them with the new ideas and create something different and unlike anything before. I still agree with you that it is certainly strange how they all differ so greatly.
The Bible isn't "proof" in a scientific sense, though of course it and its expositors seem historically to have been persuasive with Christians... most of whom, in my experience, are more interested in FAITH than in proof.
DeleteAs for philosophers disagreeing with their teachers: there's nothing at all surprising about that. Philosophy values thinking for oneself above all-though as I keep repeating, not BY oneself. Most teachers are flattered when their students respectfully disagree with them.
Would you all please remember to include your section # with your comments.
Deletesection 005
DeletePersonally, as someone who was raised catholic, I would not consider the bible as proof of God since it was of course written by human men, and choosing to believe that the hand of god was writing through them is a belief rather than evidence. I am not sure what I myself believe anymore, but I don't think the Bible is really proof enough of anything.
In regard to Augustine and the idea of Original Sin I have a personal experience with this growing up Catholic. In most Christian denominations the act of baptism and accepting Christ/ to walk with God for the rest of your life, is done at the point in your life when you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior (could be at age 7, age 25, or even age 70). In the Catholic church it is a little different. I was a cradle Catholic (my entire family grew up in the church), so I was baptized as a baby (3 days old to be exact).The idea of Original Sin and how each generation passes the sin down the line explains why as Catholics we baptize infants. It originally started in early history as a way to ensure the baby was saved and going to heaven (mainly because infant deaths were extremely common due to plagues and diseases), but we still see this tradition done today with infants. I never understood why that was different until I switched denominations and was told no baby can actively choose Christ as their savior… I guess it depends on your religion, but the idea of Original Sin is still an issue many churches debate, especially in regard to how we can erase it.
ReplyDeleteI "went forward" and was baptized by the Southern Baptists at age 6. Didn't have a clue then what I was doing (but had been frightened by the nightly prayer I'd been taught to recite, "if I should die before I wake" etc.), and still don't have a clue how "original sin" explains anything.
DeleteI am shocked that lady philosophy was the one to redirect Boethius’ attention back to Christ in his final moments. I would have thought she (like a lot of philosophers of the time) would have rejected God and told him to avoid his feelings because they won’t change the fact that he will be dead soon. Instead, we see this woman tell him to find peace and comfort in God. This is very interesting to me. It makes me wonder if Boethius actually saw this woman and talked to her (who are we to say he is lying), or if he was hallucinating and talking to himself about God. I say this, because if it were truly God, why did he not reveal Himself or send an angel? Or maybe this lady philosophy is an angel of God? Maybe philosophy is a means to get closer to God? I wonder what Boethius would have said about these ideas…
ReplyDeleteThe God to whom Philosophy directs Boethius to return is not explicitly identified as the Christian god, though Boethius was nominally Christian. Lady Philosophy speaks of God in the same way Plato and the Stoics did, as a model of supreme goodness (as in Plato's Form of the Good, an eternal Idea rather than a living entity).
DeleteAs Nigel writes,
"But where can Boethius find true happiness? Philosophy's answer is that he will find it in God or goodness (these turn out to be the same thing). Boethius was an early Christian, but doesn't mention this in The Consolation of Philosophy. The God that Philosophy describes could be Plato's God, the pure Form of goodness."
#2: In the consolation of philosophy, Boethius does not mention that he was an early christian
ReplyDelete#5: Anselm believed that the fact that we can imagine an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, and therefore all-perfect God, means that gods existence was proven.
ReplyDeleteTo explain further, he believed that even if you denied the existence of God, you couldn't deny the idea of what God is supposed to be (an all-perfect being), and therefore god existed, because you cannot imagine anything greater than God, if the idea of God is an all-perfect being. I would compare this to Plato's beliefs of reason over empirical evidence.
Guanilo argued that even if you can imagine something perfect, such as a perfect island, a perfect building, a perfect mountain, etc. that does not bring it into existence.
I understand both perspectives, but as an empiricist, I prefer not to rely on abstract reasoning. I would’nt say either is right or wrong, they are simply matters of perspective, but since neither provides empirical proof, I ultimately have to disagree
It's quite of a roundabout concept. While I do not think the idea of a perfect being constitutes its existence, I do understand the implications of why that may make sense. Some individuals cater strongly to their desires to believe in something that they'll often try to make up a reason for their beliefs post-hoc.
DeleteIts pretty extreme to assume the all-knowing existence is everything and nothing. Personally, I observed the perspective of believing something into existence as more of a guide or pathway to morals rather than an exact truth.
Delete#6: Aquinas' 2nd way, or the "First Cause Argument", as described in the text, was that for every cause, there was an initial effect. However, Aquinas' recognized the argument that this "chain" of causes was not infinite, and that there had to be a first "uncaused cause", and he explained that this "uncaused cause" was God.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Aquinas' in a way.
I don't believe in any one God (ie: the Christan God, Buddhist God, Greek gods, etc.) I believe that everything came from somewhere, but humans are not capable of figuring that out. To add to that, the existence of multiple gods on earth (ie: the ones I listed above) is proof enough of this theory for me.
Maybe all of us are wrong, maybe all of us are right, maybe there is nothing at all, whatever it is, we just cant know
I don't think we should declare in advance that humans are incapable of figuring things out. That flirts with Pyrrhonian skepticism. And we can be pretty confident that "maybe there is nothing at all" is false. Nor can all of us be right. But that we're all at least partly wrong is almost surely true. That's why we must not throw in the towel of inquiry or stop asking questions.
Deletesection 005
DeleteI agree with your final statement about us never being able to know the truth about God or any kind of higher power. I think that people put too much of themselves into trying to find the answer instead of living their life within the things they can control.
I agree with your sentiment that humans are simply not capable of finding all the answers. This seems to be a point of significant divergence in general philosophical perspectives. According to the text, Augustine "wasn’t satisfied with the idea that God moves in mysterious ways that are beyond human comprehension. Augustine wanted answers." I think that many religious people are similarly not satisfied with the concept of the unknown, and religion relieves that uncomfortable feeling of uncertainty. Whereas I accept uncertainty as a part of my life. I think both perspectives are valid.
DeleteI do agree to your statement in a way. To find consolation, humans try to find explanations for every single thing, which is why many believe in god. Rather than having to think of a reason for every little thing, have an all knowing being brings comfort and relief. I think that even though we can’t know for certain until our end point in life, having faith helps many by making life easier in a way.
DeleteI was raised religious and I always questioned which God was real and who's was not. Over the time I have strayed away from religion and looking back at it I would say it is harder for me to regain that faith now that I am older and simply because I believe that people do the things they do simply for themselves and no higher power enforcing that decision. In my mind everyone says how God will protect us essentially and with some things that happen in the world I don't understand how that is God's plan for anyone.
DeleteIn contrast I was raised agnostic/atheist and was taught that God wasn't real to those who don't believe him. And while that sounds pretty blanket statement, when you said, 'humans aren't capable of figuring that out' I kind of raised an eyebrow. I genuinely don't know and due to how I grew up I want to agree. It's just such an odd topic with no way of knowing other than believing, and in return some people believing these all-knowing beings just might make them the 'uncaused cause.' And yet I just can't disagree with the possibility of nothing at all.
Delete1. Augustine believed in God but questioned his life purpose and beliefs. He didn't understand how God was all-knowing but allowed evil in the world. Manichaeans, on the other hand, do not believe that God is all-knowing or all powerful. They believed that God and Satan/ good and evil were equal. I do not agree with that statement. I believe that everyone has the choice to be good.
ReplyDelete2.Boethius wrote the Consolation of Philosophy. I think if the title included Christianity it would only appeal to Christians. His reference to Philosophy does resemble God. He rediscovers "Philosophy" and she is telling him that true happiness can only come from God and that God observes us in no particular time so choice is not an illusion it is actually a choice. I do agree that you have to find happiness without God, if that is what you believe in. If I was falsely accused I don't think I could achieve this mindset. I can not see how you can be happy if you are in prison, receiving forms of mistreatment that you did not deserve.
3. Augustine says that Original Sin is passed down generations, originating with Adam and Eve. I do not understand the concept of sin. As a child, you are unaware of sin until you are taught. Even in adulthood people still sin but why? We as humans who follow God know sinning is wrong but some of us do not fully cut sin out. Is that because we have free will? Sin is sin, it has no rankings which is weird to think about since there is definitely worse things that can be done in the world.
Good responses!
DeleteWhen congratulating a classmate on a "good response," please elaborate. Why do you think so?
DeleteI said that she had a good response because she answered in a similar fashion to the way I would've. I agreed with her point of view.
DeleteI really feel with your first response, again, I was raised agnostic/atheist. So, hearing these beings describe as motives of morality plays more into that feeling of being between religion and humility. Both instilling fear and hope, I truly believe that these in either respect contribute to those who are or are not religious.
Delete1. How did Augustine "solve" the problem of evil in his younger days, and then after his conversion to Christianity? Why wasn't it such a problem for him originally?
ReplyDeleteHe turned to Manichaeanism, which I think believe to hold some truth. While I don’t think the forces of evil are equal to that of good, I do think that we as humans have a constant teeter between good and evil. So, I’m more in agreement with the balance is shifted through us. However, I don’t think that this idea discredits God being all-powerful, which Kierkegaard touches on with Kenoticism. Augustine then added the idea of free will. I don’t think it was much of a problem because he wasn’t too concerned with it, having an unruly adolescence.
2. What uniquely self-validating idea did Anselm say we have?
That based on the idea that God is the greatest conceivable entity, simply the idea of God not existing in reality would be contradictory to that idea. Thus God must exist, because something only imaginary is cannot be the greatest conceivable entity. I think it’s a fun thought, though it’s based off an idea created by man’s understanding of greatness and conception. I believe there is a limit to our understanding, much like the perspective of being out of the bounds of time. I have no idea what that’s like, but I don’t see why it couldn’t be possible and that my understanding of it is enough ease confusion.
3. Why do you think Boethius didn't write "The Consolation of Christianity"?
I think that maybe Boethius thought of Christianity and philosophy as an ontology. Containing orthodoxy, orthopraxis, and orthocardia. More than that, that the search for true happiness and wisdom can be found in Christianity.
Please define all those "O" words. Ontology I know to mean the science and study of Being or Existence. And orthodoxy as being faithful to a specific tradition in specific ways. And orthodontist. But....
Deletesection 005
ReplyDeleteDo you think you have a clear idea of what it would mean for there to be an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good supernatural being?
Every time I start to have an idea of what that would be like, I can't help but think that it wouldn't be possible for all powerful and all good to exist at the same time. But when talking about all the evil in the world the argument of free will comes up and while we should be able to make our own choices and have to live with consequences of those choices, why would an all good god allow things to happen like the holocaust, and genocides happening all around the world even today? The idea that something can be all powerful as well as all good is hard for me to imagine.
If there was a truly omniscient being in the universe, that would mean this being would have knowledge of everything in the future. Therefore, the outcome of not only all of your choices, but of every battle between "good" and "evil" were predetermined the moment our universe was created and we don't experience free will. This would imply that an "all-good" being already sentenced everyone that will ever inhabit Hell to an eternity of unimaginable suffering for circumstances completely outside of their own control.
Delete1.)Are supernatural stories of faith, redemption, and salvation more comforting to you than the power of reason and evidence? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteResponse: I believe that the power of reason and evidence comforts me more because it gives me the knowledge that I completely understand what I'm seeing really is all that.
2.)What do you think of Boethius' proposed solution to the puzzle of free will, that from a divine point of view there's no difference between past, present, and future?
Response: His solution to the puzzle of free will is a definitely out there, but not far from reason. I can see where he comes from that God can see all moments in time all at once, but I think that you can tie that to fate in a sense. That we all have a fated point we get to, but we don't know until we reach it. The only one who knows where this point is, is God.
3.) What do you think of the Manichean idea that an "evil God created the earth and entombed our souls in the prisons of our bodies"?
Response: I don't agree with this idea at all because we aren't trapped at all in our bodies and I don't think there is a good or evil God. I believe that God put us here with a will of our own and how we choose to use it, directs our lives and what we do. The evil part is in us, not God. Now the part about us being trapped in our bodies or being prisoners isn't at all what I believe. Our bodies are us, the thing that we have to keep alive and healthy. Our outside is just as important and significant as the inside.
As a Christian, though I don't agree with everything you mentioned, I really like your way of thinking and approaching these ideas! I actually do agree with you on that God put us here with a will of our own, and that any evil is in us rather than God.
DeleteI think maybe you're letting an omnipotent/omniscient god off the hook a little too easily.
DeleteAt least in Greek mythology, the concept of good and evil gods is woefully represented. Gods become corrupt in the eyes of human nature and can do unspeakable things if they felt like it. But those Gods are often punished for the things they do. So if the belief in one sole God is true, then the concept of an evil God is a little more respectable, given that he is without punishment for his actions.
DeleteSection 006
ReplyDeleteI find the Manichaeans' beliefs to be more in line with how I understood the concept of God as a child. I think my mom explained Christianity in a similar way: there is a power struggle between good and evil (or God and Satan). This explanation makes sense to me, as opposed to the Free Will Defense. It's difficult for me to imagine why God would allow people to have free will if he is truly benevolent. Interestingly, as someone who grew up attending a Protestant church, I sometimes perceived God as being indifferent to human suffering. "A Little History of Philosophy" suggests that natural disasters are an example of "natural evil"; this made me think of the great flood God brought upon the earth in the Old Testament. Would Christians like Augustine consider this an act of evil? I'm curious if there are any philosophies which posit God as an all-powerful being who is not necessarily "good".
Section 006
ReplyDeleteAm I the only one completely lost on Anselm's argument for the proof of God? I'm not following the logic. If we can imagine the perfect being, that must mean that an actual perfect being beyond our comprehension exists? Why? My brain cannot connect the dots. Help.
Understandable! I agree that his logic kind of confused me. But from what I understand, if you can imagine and create belief in one thing then it possible to believe another being exists. It is not really a matter on whether they actually exist or not, it is about faith more so than anything. At least that is my interpretation.
Delete^^
DeleteThe logic per se seems pretty straightforward: a perfect being must exist in the world, not just in the mind, else it would be imperfect. The problem lies in linking the logic and human mentation to reality beyond it.
DeleteLHP
ReplyDelete1. How did Augustine “solve” the problem of evil in his younger days, and then after his conversion to Christianity? Why wasn’t it such a problem for him originally?
Augustine struggled with the question of why evil exists if God is good and all-powerful. In his youth, he followed Manichaeism, which taught that good and evil were two equal opposing forces. This provided a simpler explanation but didn’t fully satisfy him. After converting to Christianity, Augustine realized that evil isn’t a substance but a lack or corruption of good. Evil arises from free will and the choices of beings who turn away from God. Initially, it wasn’t a problem because Manichaeism seemed to address it in a dualistic framework.
2. What does Boethius not mention about himself in The Consolation of Philosophy?
Boethius writes the book while imprisoned, awaiting execution. However, he doesn’t dwell on his personal suffering, fears, or the political circumstances leading to his imprisonment. Instead, he focuses on broader philosophical themes, such as the nature of happiness, fortune, and providence. He avoids self-pity and instead seeks solace through reason and philosophical inquiry.
3. Boethius’ “recollection of ideas” can be traced back to what philosopher?
This idea aligns with Plato’s theory of recollection (anamnesis). Plato believed that knowledge is innate and learning is essentially remembering truths our soul already knows from its existence before birth.
4. What uniquely self-validating idea did Anselm say we have?
Anselm’s self-validating idea is the concept of God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” In his ontological argument, Anselm states that the very concept of God implies His existence, because a God that exists in reality is greater than one that exists only in the mind.
5. Gaunilo criticized Anselm’s reasoning using what example?
Gaunilo used the example of a “perfect island.” He argued that if Anselm’s reasoning were correct, one could imagine a perfect island, and by the same logic, it must exist. This was meant to show the flaw in Anselm’s argument.
6. What was Aquinas’ 2nd Way?
Aquinas’ Second Way is the Argument from Causation. He argued that everything in the world has a cause, and nothing can cause itself. There must be a first uncaused cause that started the chain of causation, which he identified as God.
1.) Augustine solved the evil of his younger by simply asking God to make him stop having sexual desires when the time was right for him as he only was interested in the Christian perspective. It wasn't a problem for him originally because in his younger days Augustine had a way of avoiding believing that God wanted evil to happen, as he was Manichaean, meaning that he thought that God wasn't all that powerful.
ReplyDelete2.) Boethius neglects to mention that he was an early Christian because throughout The Consolation of Philosophy he talks about his genuine questions about the God that many follow.
5.) Gaunilo criticized Anselm's reasoning using the example of if you don't believe that the perfect island imaginable can exist then why believe that the most perfect being imaginable can exist, known as God.
1. How did Enlightenment values advance in America in the 19th century?
ReplyDeleteOne of the largest advances came in the form of education changes. At this time education was becoming more widespread and accessible. This lead to more informed and intelligent citizens making their own decisions for themselves. People also sought out and fought for individualism. There were many movements such as the abolitionist and women's rights movement. People were willing to fight for change and what they believed was right
I agree with that! I believe that people finally started to second guess following people with no questions asked. The moment this happened, they started to want to take a control of their own lives, and seek their own solace that hasn’t been spoon fed to them.
Delete3. How was religion in America, unlike Europe, non-binary?
ReplyDeleteAmerican Religion has been more of a melting pot rather than a strict divide between two religions. This is partially due to the vast diversity of immigrant groups. America was settled by people from various countries each with their own religious traditions. Another huge factor is the lack of state ruling religion. The US does not have a state established church. Americans are free to practice whatever religion they wish to.
I believe that American religion is also a melting pot. I believe this is also because of our accepting laws to believe what or whoever we wish to believe in. Which leads to the vast diverse culture that we have in the United States today.
DeleteWould you say you agree or disagree with the United States decision to have an established religion. Personally I would say its a good thing that we do not as it would be contradicting to the statement "Land of the free"
Delete8. Who was William Miller and what beliefs did he help revive?
ReplyDeleteWilliam Miller is known for playing a significant role in the second great awakening. Millers study of the Bible led him to believe that the second coming of christ was near. He helped spark the Millerite movement which emphasized the importance of preparing for gods return.
McKinsley Slicker section 005
ReplyDeleteDo you think you have a clear idea of what it would mean for there to be an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good supernatural being? Absolutely not- even with growing up in a very religious setting, I have never had a clear understanding. I think it takes people years or decades to get a clear idea and most of the time they will. Also as humans who are always craving knowledge trying to understand a god vs science or how they correlate in my mind is very difficult.
How does the definition of God as omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good make it harder to account for evil and suffering in the world? Would it be better to believe in a lesser god, or no god at all? I think there is a double standard because of how the bible represented him. It made it sound like “ if you mess up and do something awful it's cool I will forgive you” which in my mind if you want to have a faithful following sometimes being more harsh will make people choose not to mess up. Also as far as worldly harm goes I think it leads people to question if god is so good how can they allow these things to happen.
Can you explain the concept of Original Sin? Do you think you understand it? All humans are born with a sinful nature, inherited from the first man, Adam, who disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden, meaning every person is inherently inclined towards sin due to this ancestral transgression; essentially, everyone is born with a "stain" of sin because of Adam's actions, requiring redemption through God's grace. I understand the origin or story of the concept of original sin but I do not necessarily agree with it based on my own views.
What was Aquinas' 2nd Way? Aquinas' "Second Way" is an argument based on the concept of efficient cause, essentially stating that since everything in the universe is caused by something else, there must be a "first efficient cause" which is not caused by anything else, as a chain of causes cannot go back infinitely.
1. How did Augustine "solve" the problem of evil in his younger days, and then after his conversion to Christianity? Why wasn't it such a problem for him originally?
ReplyDeleteAugustine didn't see the problem of "evil" as to be such an issue originally when he was younger because he followed a religion that says God is not all-powerful; God and Satan are in a continuous, never ending battle, and at any given moment, goodness or evil may be "winning". However, after he converted to Christianity, he began to take on the free will defense, that all sin and evil in this world is a result of human free will. This argument is still commonly used today by Christians to defend the idea that God might be allowing evil to happen.
I think that evil is just apart of human nature as love, kindness, intelligence, societal norms, anything else really. God would theoretically allow evil to happen because then there is an imperfection in the work he's created. If life was perfect, then there would be no life.
DeleteThere's a short story titled "The Birthmark" that I read for my English class this semester. It explains the faults of one's obsession to dominate nature and remove its imperfection. Nature is built to have quirks and be imperfect, for that is what separates each individual from another. While unfortunate, evil people are just quirks in the grand scheme of things.
Boethius did not mention that he was Christian in his Consolation of Philosophy, but some messages of Christianity were still apparent in his writing, such as the idea that the way to find true happiness was by finding God or goodness, which often turn out to be the same thing.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of "God or goodness" as key to happiness preceded Christianity.
DeleteBoethius's "recollection of ideas" can actually be traced back to Plato, who taught that we never really learn anything new, just have our memories jogged. Everything there is to learn is simply what we already know or have preconceptions of.
ReplyDeleteBoethius does not explain his Christian faith throughout. Even though he speaks and talks about his theological beliefs, he does not reference scripture or Christ. He relies on the European philosophers platonic and Aristotelian and stoic thought instead of Christian teachings. The omission of Christ in his teaching, has some people to believe that he was using the bible and mixing it in with his teaching considering to be a philosopher.
ReplyDeletesection 005
DeleteGaunilo criticized Anselm's reasoning by explaining how if you were to try to persuade people that the most perfect island exists, they'd think of it as a joke. He goes on to explain how if you fantasize about something so perfect, it doesn't necessarily mean that it exists. It's not as if Gaunilo was denying the existence of a greater being but just the way that Gaunilo comprehension of it seemed off. Gaunilo thought of his representation of a perfect island or anything of the matter compared to Anselm's representation of a greater being were quite the same.
ReplyDeleteSec. 5
DeleteWeiner.
ReplyDelete8. "to live in accord with nature". if you cant change something don't worry about it. No its keeps you from getting down about certain situations
9. to be prepared for every fortune
10. they aren't violent or very emotional, are not joyless automatons.
007
ReplyDelete1. When he was younger, Augustine thought of evil as something that combated against good since he was Manichaean at first. Evil exists because sometimes it would win against good. He did not think much of it before converting to Christianity. After his conversion however, he believed it was because of free will that people had. Having free will meant we can choose what to do, and that was what caused evil to exist.
2. Boethius did not mention the fact that he was Christian in his book, The Consolation of Philosophy. This made it so that his ideas can be applied generally without having to focus only on Christianity.
5. Gaunilo criticized Anselm's reasoning using an example about a perfect island that exists. It would not be taken seriously. Because you can choose not to believe in the existence of a perfect island, the same can apply with God.
1. Augustine solved this problem by converting his mind to the belief that God was not the all-powerful God he thought he was, and that rather than God being in control over all things, he was on the same level of power as Satan and they were in a battle. This allowed him to understand the reason for evil in the world because he brought his God a step down in power to explain why God does not or cannot interfere with worldly evil.
ReplyDelete2. Boethius does not speak on him being an early christian, possibly to touch the minds of the readers when he reveals the key to happiness is in God.
3. Boethius' recollection of ideas can be traced back to Plato, who explained how rather than learning, we are constantly retracing our forgotten ideas.
#005
Question 1: What does Boethius not mention about himself in The Consolation of Philosophy
ReplyDeleteResponse 1: In The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius does not directly tell us about his own philosophical process or the particular occurrences that ended up in his imprisonment. He mulls over his lot and the impermanence of any good or bad in this world but does not look back at his own life as a public figure, or his participation in political events. Rather, it is more a question of internal conflict and dialogue with Philosophy than a work that provides a great deal of biographical or historical background on the figure at the centre of the work, Boethius.
Question 2: How did Augustine "solve" the problem of evil in his younger days, and then after his conversion to Christianity? Why wasn't it such a problem for him originally?
Response 2: In his younger days, Augustine didn’t delve into the problem of evil to a great extent because he was brought up in the dualistic tradition of Manicheanism, which presented evil as the adversary of good, almost as if it was some other entity (Brown 48). Only after his conversion to Christianity did Augustine overcome the Manichean conception of evil and reinterpret it following the Neoplatonic tradition: as the lack of, or misrepresentation of, the good. He contended that God, an all-good God, did not create evil but permits it for the sake of free will. In this vision, evil is not a solid or spiritual essence but a process of degradation of the good. This change in the perception of events made it possible for Augustine to solve the issue of how a good God can allow evil.
Question 3: What was Aquinas' 2nd Way?
Response 3: Aquinas' Second Way, part of his Five Ways to prove the existence of God, is the argument from causation. It states that everything in the world has a cause, and there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. If every effect requires a cause, there must be a First Cause that itself is uncaused. This First Cause, Aquinas argues, is God. The Second Way emphasizes that the chain of causes must have a starting point, which is necessary for the existence of everything else, and that this uncaused cause is God, who is eternal and necessary.
1. How did Augustine "solve" the problem of evil in his younger days, and then after his conversion to Christianity? Why wasn't it such a problem for him originally?
ReplyDelete-As a young man, it didn't bother him because he was taught that good and evil were equally powerful and in constant struggle. They were both natural. After converting, he decided evil came from free will.
2. What does Boethius not mention about himself in The Consolation of Philosophy?
ReplyDelete-He chooses to write the book about his philosophies, rather than his current suffering.
3. Boethius' "recollection of ideas" can be traced back to what philosopher?
ReplyDelete- Boethius’ “recollection of ideas” can be traced back to Plato.
What kinds of present-day McCarthyism can you see?
ReplyDeletePresent-day McCarthyism can be seen in various forms, though it often manifests differently than the anti-communist hysteria of the 1950s. The core elements—political paranoia, blacklisting, guilt by association, and suppression of dissent—still appear in modern political and social dynamics.
1. How did Augustine "solve" the problem of evil in his younger days, and then after his conversion to Christianity? Why wasn't it such a problem for him originally?
ReplyDeleteWhen he was younger, he struggled with the idea of God and if he was “good”. He turned to Manichaeism and believed that “Evil came from dark sources and goodness from the forces of light”. Later in life, he rejected the Manichaean approach and took on a more Christian approach.
3. Boethius' "recollection of ideas" can be traced back to what philosopher?
Boethius’s recollection of ideas can be traced back to Plato. He also translated his work into Latin to keep Plato’s ideas alive.
4. What uniquely self-validating idea did Anselm say we have?
Anselm said that we have an idea of God and that proves that God exists. It forms a logical explanation from an uncontroversial starting point that God is the supreme being. The idea also follows with the definition of God.
5. Gaunilo criticized Anselm's reasoning using what example?
Gaunilo applied Anselm’s argument to the idea of a perfect island saying that just because you can picture something, doesn’t make it real. Gaunilo believed in God, but didn’t think that Anselm’s argument was strong.
6. What was Aquinas' 2nd Way?
Aquina argued that everything that exists has a cause that brought it into existence. In this theory, God was the first cause that brought everything into existence.
1. How did Augustine "solve" the problem of evil in his younger days, and then after his conversion to Christianity? Why wasn't it such a problem for him originally?
ReplyDeleteOriginally, Augustine was a Manichaean. He didn't believe that God was all powerful, therefore didn't have to figure out why God let evil happen. Augustine had to face the problem when he made his conversion to believing that God was all powerful, and that is when he learned and believed in free will which had an explanation of the evil in the world under God's watch.
2. What does Boethius not mention about himself in The Consolation of Philosophy?
He doesn't mention being an early christian, which is interesting given the fact that he died supporting christianity.
3. Boethius' "recollection of ideas" can be traced back to what philosopher?
Plato is the reason for his recollection of ideas. I think this is because Plato always believed in the fact that we dont ever learn anything new we just remember things.
Henry Hamlin 006
Delete3. Boethius' "recollection of ideas" can be traced back to what philosopher?
ReplyDelete* This can be traced back to Plato and his idea that learning was just a process knowledge based on previous experiences we have had.
5. Gaunilo criticized Anselm’s reasoning using what example?
ReplyDelete* He used the example of a “perfect island.” Basically, he was saying that if Anselm’s logic were to be correct, then whatever perfect thing we believe in must be true. If we were to imagine a perfect island, then it must be real.
6. What was Aquinas' 2nd Way?
ReplyDelete* “Causality”: the idea that everything has a cause, and nothing can cause itself. He identified the first cause, the one thing that was without cause, as God, who thus created and caused other things.
1. Can humans truly have free will even though God is omniscient and omnipotent?
ReplyDeleteI believe yes they can because since God has these characteristics, he is still able to allow us to make choices in our own lives
2. Is there a separation between God and the physical world?
I think there may be some sort of separation but even then God is in everyone and everything so therefore he has a direct line to us regardless in the physical world
3. Can consciousness rise from a material universe or is the human mind transcendent?
I believe our own physical minds are not able to comprehend the life around us without a soul which God instills in us all. Therefore I believe our minds cannot exist on it's own without God
I