So in class today, the arguments got heated once again. It started with speculation about free will vs. determinism and somehow ended up in the (possible) existence of God and His supposed nature. So once again I'd like to give my take on the issue and see what y'all think. Although I'd like to start with the nature of God rather than free will.
The basic argument is: assuming God exists and that He is all knowing, all powerful, and all good/perfection, shouldn't His perfection require Him to prohibit the evil that occurs in the world? Or even before that, since He is perfect, how is it that He created beings with a built-in defect, the propensity to do evil?
In my attempt to answer these questions, I'd like to just take a step back and examine the premise itself. God is "perfect" and "good". One of my old religion teachers pointed out that some concepts require an understanding of antitheses. For his example, imagine a world in which all people are the same height. Where would the concept of "tall people" and "short people" be in such a world? In other words, sometimes we need an understanding of two opposites in order to have complete knowledge of the concept.
So if we apply this concept to our original question, maybe God created beings with a propensity to do evil (knowing full well they would do evil acts) in order to exemplify His perfection. If we apply the concept of opposites, it's possible we may never have understood perfect goodness without a knowledge of perfect evil. The problem I see with this argument is that God's own perfect nature requiring Him to create imperfection to fulfill His role as the perfect being places a limit on God's options. i.e. If He wanted to make the universe, he would have to allow evil so the universe could understand His goodness. But as Christians believe He will eventually eradicate evil, and for now we are only proving God's point by demonstrating the extent of evil. But "does the end justify the means?" I'm no theologian, but there's always the quote "God works in mysterious ways."
On an interesting side note, can you even imagine what a world without imperfection would be like (before you learned of imperfection anyway)? I think it was Siddhartha Gautama (later known as the Buddha) who was supposedly raised in a palace and never allowed to see imperfection until one day he leaves the palace and sees certain 4 imperfections in the world. He then says "the world is full of suffering, suffering is caused by desire," and yada yada yada. He then went waaaay overboard and tried to live a life of poverty. My point being, even a guy who never experienced suffering actually tried out suffering like a pair of shoes once he found out it existed just so he could better appreciate the concept. Supposedly anyway.
As for free will, my take is that history is charted on one timeline because God knows every choice we will make before we make it. But from our perspective, there are as many possibilities for history as there are choices. And even though our choices are in fact limited by external factors (ex: genetic limitations, social limitations, etc.), everyone has at least some choices they can make. To use a metaphor, imagine yourself standing in front of an open fridge trying to decide what juice to have for breakfast. You have orange juice and apple juice but you want pomegranate juice. Now even though your choice of juice is limited by what's immediately in your fridge, you still have choices available within the context of the fridge. So even though your total choices are limited by external factors (you don't have the juice you want in your fridge), from your perspective you still have choices available to you. And from your perspective, you can say God knows I'm going to pick orange juice, but I still feel like I'm able to pick apple juice all the same.
As always, please feel free to post comments, agreements, contradictions, etc. on either argument-- why does God allow evil or free will.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
If Consciousness=Self
To my understanding, Locke's view on the "self" is that he believes we have a body, a consciousness/mind, and a soul. The soul is eternal and unchanging, but the consciousness is subject to change. Because the "self" is also subject to change (of which there are numerous examples: a) physical- my hair was long, I got it cut, now it's short b) immaterial- I used to be an atheist, now I believe in God), he identifies the self as our consciousness.
One thought that popped in my head regarding the issue brought me back to my freshman year of college. During that year, I had roommates who would keep me up late at night because they had afternoon classes, but I had class at 8 a.m. every day. This of course led to a massive sleep debt. Anywho, the point of this sidenote is that when I would be in class trying to pay attention to lecture, I would often doze off. And the reason they call it "nodding off" I'd imagine is because you intermittently raise your head after each realization that you are gradually starting to lose consciousness. Interesting thing for me is that when I would be considered more asleep than awake, I could swear I was driving a car at night in my "dream". Then my head would snap up and I'd instantly remember I was in a classroom with a professor talking up front. So what would that say about myself when I was asleep? If my consciousness is myself, wouldn't that mean that I have a separate self that exists while I'm sleeping? Or that myself for a time ceases to exist in its normal state? While sometimes I like to think there's a "me" who lives a separate life while I sleep and that I live my life while he sleeps, I highly doubt this to be the case.
The notion that the consciousness is the self also presents a problem for people like sleepwalkers or people with multiple personality disorders. Let's say a sleepwalker killed someone in their sleep. They were unconscious of the act, but their body still committed the offense. So in this case, should their whole "self" be held accountable for an act committed outside of consciousness? Fortunately that's what the insanity defense is for and we don't force responsibility on unconscious crimes. In the same scenario for a case of multiple personalities, my guess is that Locke would say each personality is a housed in the same body and therefore shares one consciousness, though I suppose our legal system would make provisions so as not to fully punish that body for the acts of a more aggressive personality. 'Course, I know next to nothing about politics, so I could be wrong.
One thought that popped in my head regarding the issue brought me back to my freshman year of college. During that year, I had roommates who would keep me up late at night because they had afternoon classes, but I had class at 8 a.m. every day. This of course led to a massive sleep debt. Anywho, the point of this sidenote is that when I would be in class trying to pay attention to lecture, I would often doze off. And the reason they call it "nodding off" I'd imagine is because you intermittently raise your head after each realization that you are gradually starting to lose consciousness. Interesting thing for me is that when I would be considered more asleep than awake, I could swear I was driving a car at night in my "dream". Then my head would snap up and I'd instantly remember I was in a classroom with a professor talking up front. So what would that say about myself when I was asleep? If my consciousness is myself, wouldn't that mean that I have a separate self that exists while I'm sleeping? Or that myself for a time ceases to exist in its normal state? While sometimes I like to think there's a "me" who lives a separate life while I sleep and that I live my life while he sleeps, I highly doubt this to be the case.
The notion that the consciousness is the self also presents a problem for people like sleepwalkers or people with multiple personality disorders. Let's say a sleepwalker killed someone in their sleep. They were unconscious of the act, but their body still committed the offense. So in this case, should their whole "self" be held accountable for an act committed outside of consciousness? Fortunately that's what the insanity defense is for and we don't force responsibility on unconscious crimes. In the same scenario for a case of multiple personalities, my guess is that Locke would say each personality is a housed in the same body and therefore shares one consciousness, though I suppose our legal system would make provisions so as not to fully punish that body for the acts of a more aggressive personality. 'Course, I know next to nothing about politics, so I could be wrong.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Time and Reality: A sci-fi perspective
Over the last week, I've been re-watching a sci-fi anime called RahXephon that to this day stands out in my mind as one of the most interesting pieces of fiction I've ever encountered. Aside from a colorful art style and beautiful music befitting its musically-based motifs, its story is engaging on both emotional and intellectual levels. And though it is vastly confusing, I seem to glean something new from it each time I watch it. Since philosophy confuses me in much the same ways, I feel it's only appropriate that I blog about some of the ideas presented.
A brief overview of the story is as follows: The story begins in a setting in which Tokyo is supposedly the last stronghold of life left due to some unknown tragedy that wipes out the rest of the world. Ayato, the main character, is living a routine life going to high school until one day foreign high-tech planes begin attacking the defense forces. Amidst the turmoil, Ayato is kidnapped by a mysterious older woman named Haruka who promises to tell him "the truth about this world." But Haruka's plane is supernaturally forced into a strange chamber housing a giant robot, the RahXephon. Ayato is unconsciously drawn into the robot, and the two are transported into another dimension.
Ayato later learns that his world is a fabrication called "Tokyo Jupiter," which is an alternate dimension in which time flows at one-sixth the flow of time outside of the enclosure (it is so named because it is a giant sphere resembling Jupiter that surrounds Tokyo). Tokyo Jupiter as it turns out was created by the Mu, a race of blue-blooded humans who appeared out of nowhere about twelve years ago (so Ayato was in Tokyo Jupiter for only 2 years). Ayato also comes to learn that Tokyo Jupiter was created by his mother, the leader of the Mu, as a means to brainwash him, who though half-Mulian, half-human, is unique in his "qualifications" to pilot the RahXephon (though there are other characters within Tokyo Jupiter kept in this brainwashed state).
Though Ayato himself doesn't learn of it, there are side characters that flesh out the more complex parts of the story. To start from the very beginning, thousands of years ago there was a Mulian named Bahbem who invented the "RahXephon system," which was a machine whose purpose was to alter quantum theoretical probabilities using the RahXephon, a machine that produces waves to alter said probabilities. Some of the terms used are "instrumentalist" = pilot and "singing" = (waves the robots produce, usually to fight). But his first instrumentalist, Quon, made some mistake and as a result, the universe began to pluralize (multiply), and so the Mulians were forced to appear in the dimension of the humans. But with the universe's ever-increasing expansion, it would only be a matter of time before its mass would collapse on itself. And the only way to reverse the effect is for "Ollin" = (means "change"), the instrumentalist to find "Ixtli in Yollotl" = one with a divine heart who has found his/her true face (in this case one who can manifest himself in all things and in time itself). The instrumentalist would then be able to "tune the world" by "suffusing the world with sound". This would, in effect, return the multiple worlds to one.
Of course, the tension comes in because the Mu want the world to be tuned to become one for the Mulians, hence they try to brainwash Ayato. Naturally, the humans don't want their existence denied either, so they bring him out in order to show him both sides, enabling him with the choice to decide which world to create. Interestingly enough, though Quon also has a RahXephon supposedly equal to Ayato's and though they are both required to resonate with each other other in the tuning of the world, it is Ayato's choice to decide the nature of the new world (I wonder if it's gender related. "Man has dominion," mayhaps? Hm....)
This time after finishing the series, I was reading a commentary on the musical theme permeating the throughout the story. The premise is built upon the notion that if time could be considered a thing, then that would imply that its energy could be altered (the role of the RahXephon). The commentator noted that, unlike visual images, auditory signals rely heavily upon a proper chronological order. Pictures out of order can still make some sense, but imagine jumbled syllables or a song played in fragments-- it would make no sense at all. So to finish up, I'd like to relay a quote from the commentary that contains interesting thoughts to contemplate:
"The world is suffused with sound - fragmented sound at that... If it being fragmented is unpleasant, then it must be put in proper order. The RahXephon is a world-tuning machine that [the director] created to do just that.
A piano that is out of tune is a meaningless thing. If one is to just live, then that is no particular inconvenience. But when giving meaning to the world, no, seeking meaning in the world, the work of tuning, ordering events in chronological order, become necessary. Just as syllables must be in proper chronological order in order to correctly grasp the meaning of words.
The work of tuning the world and time is none other than ordering the chaotic events in the world in chronological order in order to glean meaning from them.
And whether that work is being done correctly or not should be determinable by whether the sound can be heard correctly and with meaning. That would be the easiest method of confirmation...
In other words, we could say that we are equipped with the functionality to tune time, but it makes you think that perhaps it is life itself that makes time flow." -- Chouhei Kanbayashi
There is also a movie version for anyone interested but pressed for time (also an anime), but with a 2-hour time constraint, some story elements were changed that I feel don't reflect the original intentions. So I highly recommend the TV series for anyone interested in checking it out.
A brief overview of the story is as follows: The story begins in a setting in which Tokyo is supposedly the last stronghold of life left due to some unknown tragedy that wipes out the rest of the world. Ayato, the main character, is living a routine life going to high school until one day foreign high-tech planes begin attacking the defense forces. Amidst the turmoil, Ayato is kidnapped by a mysterious older woman named Haruka who promises to tell him "the truth about this world." But Haruka's plane is supernaturally forced into a strange chamber housing a giant robot, the RahXephon. Ayato is unconsciously drawn into the robot, and the two are transported into another dimension.
Ayato later learns that his world is a fabrication called "Tokyo Jupiter," which is an alternate dimension in which time flows at one-sixth the flow of time outside of the enclosure (it is so named because it is a giant sphere resembling Jupiter that surrounds Tokyo). Tokyo Jupiter as it turns out was created by the Mu, a race of blue-blooded humans who appeared out of nowhere about twelve years ago (so Ayato was in Tokyo Jupiter for only 2 years). Ayato also comes to learn that Tokyo Jupiter was created by his mother, the leader of the Mu, as a means to brainwash him, who though half-Mulian, half-human, is unique in his "qualifications" to pilot the RahXephon (though there are other characters within Tokyo Jupiter kept in this brainwashed state).
Though Ayato himself doesn't learn of it, there are side characters that flesh out the more complex parts of the story. To start from the very beginning, thousands of years ago there was a Mulian named Bahbem who invented the "RahXephon system," which was a machine whose purpose was to alter quantum theoretical probabilities using the RahXephon, a machine that produces waves to alter said probabilities. Some of the terms used are "instrumentalist" = pilot and "singing" = (waves the robots produce, usually to fight). But his first instrumentalist, Quon, made some mistake and as a result, the universe began to pluralize (multiply), and so the Mulians were forced to appear in the dimension of the humans. But with the universe's ever-increasing expansion, it would only be a matter of time before its mass would collapse on itself. And the only way to reverse the effect is for "Ollin" = (means "change"), the instrumentalist to find "Ixtli in Yollotl" = one with a divine heart who has found his/her true face (in this case one who can manifest himself in all things and in time itself). The instrumentalist would then be able to "tune the world" by "suffusing the world with sound". This would, in effect, return the multiple worlds to one.
Of course, the tension comes in because the Mu want the world to be tuned to become one for the Mulians, hence they try to brainwash Ayato. Naturally, the humans don't want their existence denied either, so they bring him out in order to show him both sides, enabling him with the choice to decide which world to create. Interestingly enough, though Quon also has a RahXephon supposedly equal to Ayato's and though they are both required to resonate with each other other in the tuning of the world, it is Ayato's choice to decide the nature of the new world (I wonder if it's gender related. "Man has dominion," mayhaps? Hm....)
This time after finishing the series, I was reading a commentary on the musical theme permeating the throughout the story. The premise is built upon the notion that if time could be considered a thing, then that would imply that its energy could be altered (the role of the RahXephon). The commentator noted that, unlike visual images, auditory signals rely heavily upon a proper chronological order. Pictures out of order can still make some sense, but imagine jumbled syllables or a song played in fragments-- it would make no sense at all. So to finish up, I'd like to relay a quote from the commentary that contains interesting thoughts to contemplate:
"The world is suffused with sound - fragmented sound at that... If it being fragmented is unpleasant, then it must be put in proper order. The RahXephon is a world-tuning machine that [the director] created to do just that.
A piano that is out of tune is a meaningless thing. If one is to just live, then that is no particular inconvenience. But when giving meaning to the world, no, seeking meaning in the world, the work of tuning, ordering events in chronological order, become necessary. Just as syllables must be in proper chronological order in order to correctly grasp the meaning of words.
The work of tuning the world and time is none other than ordering the chaotic events in the world in chronological order in order to glean meaning from them.
And whether that work is being done correctly or not should be determinable by whether the sound can be heard correctly and with meaning. That would be the easiest method of confirmation...
In other words, we could say that we are equipped with the functionality to tune time, but it makes you think that perhaps it is life itself that makes time flow." -- Chouhei Kanbayashi
There is also a movie version for anyone interested but pressed for time (also an anime), but with a 2-hour time constraint, some story elements were changed that I feel don't reflect the original intentions. So I highly recommend the TV series for anyone interested in checking it out.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
What's the Problem?
Today in class we introduced Hume as the greatest skeptic of all the philosophers. According to Hume, there is no way to know anything for sure because the nature of the source of our impressions is impossible to determine. Which I agree with, but what I want to know is... what's the problem with not knowing. If I may borrow a phrase from one of Professor DeVitto's previous posts on my blog, what's wrong with a "provisional sense of 'knowledge' "?
As was mentioned in class, we can say that the odds of hitting a billiard ball and nothing happening are highly negligible. So why not follow the idea of rationalism in which we attempt to verify the consistency of our ideas of reality-- for example, every time we hit the billiard ball it moves (the criticism of course being "how do you know it will move next time?"-- which there is no way to know). Why not apply the principal of induction and say that since the ball always has moved, then it always will move (only for cases in which the probability of an event occurring is determined to be 95 % or greater... for more info on the origin of this statistical practice see my first blog). Then Reese's idea can be applied where as long as a 95 % occurrence is observed, it can be called a fact (for the sake of "discourse") while the word "fact" would refer not to the truth of a phenomenon, but rather to our consistent understanding of said phenomenon in lieu of the ability to discern the truth behind it.
That's just my take on the issue. Any thoughts?
As was mentioned in class, we can say that the odds of hitting a billiard ball and nothing happening are highly negligible. So why not follow the idea of rationalism in which we attempt to verify the consistency of our ideas of reality-- for example, every time we hit the billiard ball it moves (the criticism of course being "how do you know it will move next time?"-- which there is no way to know). Why not apply the principal of induction and say that since the ball always has moved, then it always will move (only for cases in which the probability of an event occurring is determined to be 95 % or greater... for more info on the origin of this statistical practice see my first blog). Then Reese's idea can be applied where as long as a 95 % occurrence is observed, it can be called a fact (for the sake of "discourse") while the word "fact" would refer not to the truth of a phenomenon, but rather to our consistent understanding of said phenomenon in lieu of the ability to discern the truth behind it.
That's just my take on the issue. Any thoughts?
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Language in Philosophy
One of the ideas that was mentioned during class lecture was the role language plays in the field of philosophy. Since I don't think the idea received enough attention during class, I would like to reflect further upon its implications.
As I understand it, the founding philosophers originally set out not to identify what reality is, leaving that task to science, but rather (as Professor DeVitto might say) to "clarify" reality. That is to say that while science employs mathematics as its language to quantify natural phenomenon (for more info see my previous post), the early philosophers sought to determine a language with which to describe reality. Hence the descriptions of reality progressing from water to fire to air; all were attempts to confine the concept of reality to one term. Of course, these multiple attempts were made because they wanted the best possible comparison when deciding emerging terminology.
Now I'm sure some readers at this point are wondering "why go through all this effort just to create a terminology?" When creating a language, sounds are arbitrarily assigned to a concept (let's say b-oo-k is meant to represent a stack of paper with writing bound by a spine and a cover), and the assignment is generally recognized by the language's speakers (most people have this image upon hearing the word "book"). But early philosophers didn't want to arbitrarily name reality, they wanted to describe it using existing words (which of course represent other ideas). And why go through all that trouble, one might ask? As far as I can tell, establishing a terminology to describe reality allows people to use words with universally understood meanings for discussion of ideas. In other words, the philosophers wanted to "clarify" how reality should best be described before discussing other philosophical dilemmas that require an understanding of the nature of reality to be appreciated (of which I'm sure we too will discuss in future lectures-- using of course the language we learn to accurately describe reality).
I apologize if I'm not making any sense. After all, these are only my impressions. Would anyone like to verify, disagree, add to, or comment?
As I understand it, the founding philosophers originally set out not to identify what reality is, leaving that task to science, but rather (as Professor DeVitto might say) to "clarify" reality. That is to say that while science employs mathematics as its language to quantify natural phenomenon (for more info see my previous post), the early philosophers sought to determine a language with which to describe reality. Hence the descriptions of reality progressing from water to fire to air; all were attempts to confine the concept of reality to one term. Of course, these multiple attempts were made because they wanted the best possible comparison when deciding emerging terminology.
Now I'm sure some readers at this point are wondering "why go through all this effort just to create a terminology?" When creating a language, sounds are arbitrarily assigned to a concept (let's say b-oo-k is meant to represent a stack of paper with writing bound by a spine and a cover), and the assignment is generally recognized by the language's speakers (most people have this image upon hearing the word "book"). But early philosophers didn't want to arbitrarily name reality, they wanted to describe it using existing words (which of course represent other ideas). And why go through all that trouble, one might ask? As far as I can tell, establishing a terminology to describe reality allows people to use words with universally understood meanings for discussion of ideas. In other words, the philosophers wanted to "clarify" how reality should best be described before discussing other philosophical dilemmas that require an understanding of the nature of reality to be appreciated (of which I'm sure we too will discuss in future lectures-- using of course the language we learn to accurately describe reality).
I apologize if I'm not making any sense. After all, these are only my impressions. Would anyone like to verify, disagree, add to, or comment?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)