Readings in Analytic Philosophy

I have totally “foobar’d” this blog as it was running at sandiferclassroom.com.  So, I have restored a (hopefully temporarily) backup here.

To make up for the few posts I’ve lost in the restore, here’s something to ponder: Substitution Into Intensional Contexts

HINT: view source, my precious.

Here’s a very cool Candide cover.

–via 37 Signals

Could have used this while working on my Master’s thesis….
Bibme

The fully automatic bibliography maker that auto-fills. It’s the quickest way to build a works cited page. And it’s free. Search for a book, article, website, or film from our database, or enter the information yourself. Add it to your bibliography. Download your bibliography in either the MLA, APA, or Chicago formats and include it in your paper.

That’s ok. Philosophers don’t care about making it in the real world; so, why would they care about making it in some made-up Jim Henson world?
Just kidding, just kidding…

Actually, this really isn’t a form of the Liar’s paradox (at least as it is presented in the movie Labyrinth — which is what this cartoon is alluding to). The guard at the door, who is giving the instructions could be lying, in which case, all bets are off, and there would be no inconsistency — the guard is just a liar!

You remind me of the babe!

A Short Imagined Monologue from Mike Jones entitled Professor Richard Dawkins Speaks at Fair Hills Kindergarten Regarding Santa Claus, December 2, 2006

Unsurprisingly, the response to this has not changed since I was a lad: he does it with the aid of Christmas Magic. Indeed—Christmas Magic, that wonderful, majestical force. A single drop of it allows a man to fly around the world in a sleigh led by nine tiny reindeer. Fascinating, isn’t it? Now, before I continue on, let me first make it clear that I am not claiming that the existence of Santa or wonderful industrious elves or Christmas Magic is impossible. I cannot prove that they do not exist any more than I can disprove the existence of fairies or leprechauns. What I can tell you is that statistic probability and science can provide us with a clear look at the truth, and if we are willing to be honest with ourselves as a result of this data, then we will quite quickly see that there simply is no scientific foundation for any of the aforementioned phenomena.

Ooh and here’s another one…
And They Say You Can’t Get Any Jobs With a Philosophy Degree

Hi, my name is Devin. I just graduated with a degree in philosophy and welcome to the Halloween Store. I’m here to help you with all your Halloween needs. I studied the analytic tradition of philosophy with an emphasis in moral theory … Oh, what? That over there? That’s a Frankenstein mask. The low prices aren’t the only things that’ll scare you. What I found particularly compelling were Hume’s metaethics. I, for one, agree with his emotivist stance on the nature of moral judgment and believe that any assertion of rationality as part of that process is only an ad hoc attempt to somehow “independently” justify the moral conclusions we’ve already reached, but, to answer your question, we’re all out of capes, sorry.

Daily Lit has a very small selection of philosophy texts that they can email to you in sections over a certain number of days. Plato’s Republic, Aristotle’s Poetics & Descartes’ Discourse on Method among other titles are available to subscribers completely free of charge. One cool feature is that there is a “send me the next section” button at the end of every email, so you can continue reading if you have time.

Stephen Colbert debates the existence of God with Richard Dawkins, author of the book ‘The God Delusion.’

Thomas Metzinger is the Director of the Philosophy Group at the Department of Philosophy at Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz. His research focuses on philosophy of mind, especially on consciousness and the nature of the self. In this lecture he develops a representationalist theory of phenomenal self-consciousness. A Foerster Lectures on the Immortality of the Soul presented by the UC Berkeley Graudate Council.

Still continuing to clean out my undergrad study notes…
Here are some brief notes on Averroes, Avicenna, Moses Maimonides, Roger Bacon, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas & William of Ockham.

Averroes

Double Truth Theory: there exists two truths equally true and existent at the same time
The truth of the Philosopher and the Truth of the Theologian.

Demonstrative Truth – Categorical Logic; had only by the very few
Rhetorical Truth – There is no process; truth is established by conviction (by hearing it)

There is one truth; Thank God if you can learn the truth by means other than faith.

If truth contradicts with the word of God, interpret the scripture allegorically.
This will stimulate the person the search further. {such as in the case of boring passages – Levitical code, genealogies}

Avicenna

*earliest of the great Arab philosophers
*the average life span was 39, therefore writing and learning was done earlier

The 3 Types of Soul: Vegetative, Animal & Rational

Essay on the Secret of Destiny: Allah would not punish people so, but we go on telling people that to keep them from doing that activity. But can we justify allowing people to continue thinking a certain way, simply because they need it?

Moses Maimonides

The perplexed – the Jews of the day wondering how one can be a person of the age and live according to the text.

At this time the past was seen as the same as the present.

Moses is a major reason that Jewish fundamentalism isn’t that big.

We use the terms the Prophets because the Prophets used them.
God cannot be referred in human terms.
God is one and thus unique and nothing we can think of can be like God.

Does prayer change things?
What is prayer? Communion or Communication with God?
The finite isn’t capable of the infinite.

High Middle Ages

Roger Bacon

Broke away from the conception that time will continue forever with God coming down to the earth.
Placed emphasis on the end of the world and thus the importance of every moment.
Took seriously the elements of this world as objects of philosophical reflection.

Analytic Truths – math, theoretical

The point of math is that we might investigate the world in which we live.

Synthetic Truths – about nature, time, observation

Is there an absolute separation between analytic and synthetic truth?
Bacon says that unless you experience something, you will not learn it.
This isn’t what we know today as “science”.
How do we determine what is true? – we can only say what isn’t – negatively put

Bonaventure

The apocalypse is already out there; we just need to relate to the end (of time).
He is the originator of the notion of blank slate.
God has left traces of himself in this world.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

Summa Theologica

The Nature and Extent of Sacred Doctrine

*Science is a system of knowledge.
*What is the relationship between theology and philosophy?
*Does doctrine have to be consistent? Should doctrine be examined with logic?

We are given the truth by revelation. If there are apparent differences between faith and reason, side with reason. There are those who don’t have time to systematize or are too slow or are morally incapable of seeing the truth by reason. By faith, these people assert sacred doctrine.

Reason can deal with faith matters. Reason is the handmaiden of theology.
Why has God given us 2 ways to the truth? -Because he is graceful. Faith and reason are now on the same level. This is now the Breaking point for theology and reason. The two are now separate, whereas before Aquinas they had been held together. Metaphors are legitimate ways of dealing with doctrine. God is not limited to dealing abstract things.

The Existence of God

The principle of motion must be grounded in God. The first mover must be unmoved.
There must exist…
1.a First Mover
2.an Efficient Cause
3.a Necessary Being
4.Gradations of things to be Found
5.Intelligent governance of the World

Humans understand these things to be God. {Aquinas might be implying that each one of these things (1st mover etc.) must be God because otherwise God would have created that thing, caused that thing, been that thing etc.} At the boundaries we come to, we use the word God to describe what is there. Aquinas realizes that we cannot fully represent God, but we can know something about him but even that knowledge is imperfect. God is more than the sum total of what we can say about him.

Univocally (one voice): “Good” has only one meaning. Substance is form plus matter. Attributes apply to the substance.

Equivocally: to have two different meanings. The only way to know what the second unknown meaning of a word might mean is through analogy. Thomas is to good as God is to Good. If you know 3 of the terms, you can deduce the 4th one.

The relationship between mind and body is the intellect. Our soul is the intellect. Humanity is characterized by the mind. (mind, body, soul are all one)

There is no necessity. There is only God’s grace. Lots of chance involved.
Is this a function of knowledge or a function of reality? Humanity has the power to not choose at all. There appear to be 2 answers but there is merely one answer with modification (+-5 = (25)^(1/2))

Happiness is the end toward which we tend: the Beatific Vision. The end now becomes an intraworldly experience. The Biblical notion was that the end will come after death. For Christianity, happiness is not an end.

We can see God (Beatific Vision, not revelation, where God reveals himself to a human); usually only had by the saints. There are gradations of being and thus gradations of happiness. Aquinas notes that we can have this intermediate happiness that is within our own control. Now the Christian can be involved in the joys of this world.
Beatific Vision is when God calls us to see himself and the things of this world.

Natural Law

is built into the universe
not every Natural Law is moral, but most are
the human soul should be ruled by the intellect
Practical reason is when everyone just knows how things should be
Human Law should be a derivative of Natural Law

Just War should have
• just authority (someone in charge)
• just cause
• just intentions

William of Ockham (1285 – 1349)

• Reason says we do have choices.
• By analogy we can determine what might happen.
• The testimony of the saints says God foreknows future contingent statements.
• These two statements cannot both be true. But both are true.

Ockham’s Razor: cut off every causal explanation except the necessary and sufficient cause that will result in the effect
-birth of science?
-God is shoved out of the day to day operations of the world (deism)
-before this all causality was programmed into the history of the world
-fideism: faith is not available to reason
-Father of positivistic theology

Universals do not exist. Everything is its own universal. Pure Nominalism. 1st linguistic philosopher. Language arises from convenience.

Radical Empiricism – sense experience is all there is.
-Intuitive cognition: apparent to the mind (always true)
-Constructive cognition: abstraction from the experience of the past (contingent – not always true)

Mind has intuition as a new function.