withallyourmind.net

LORD ! what a busy, restless thing
Hast Thou made man !
Each day and hour he is on wing,
Rests not a span ;
Then having lost the sun and light,
By clouds surpris’d,
He keeps a commerce in the night
With air disguis’d.
Hadst Thou given to this active dust
A state untir’d,
The lost son had not left the husk,
Nor home desir’d.
That was Thy secret, and it is
Thy mercy too ;
For when all fails to bring to bliss,
Then this must do.
Ah, Lord ! and what a purchase will that be,
To take us sick, that sound would not take Thee !

As I mentioned in an earlier post, one of my goals for the summer is to read slowly through some good philosophy books and take some fairly detailed notes to see if it will aid retention. I recently started on Michael J. Loux’s Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction, and here are my notes for the introduction. I hope they will be of use to someone!

I.Introduction
   A.’The Nature of Metaphysics: Some Historical Reflections’
       i.The name ‘metaphysics’ comes from a (later-given) title of one of Aristotle’s treatises, which had two focuses.
           a)The main focus was on God as unmoved mover/first cause.
            b)The second was a ’scientific’ study of being qua being.
               â€œSo metaphysics considers things as beings or existents and attempts to specify the properties or features they exhibit just insofar as they are beings or existents” (3).
               â€œ…central to metaphysics…is the delineation of what Aristotle calls categories.”
            ii.Medieval philosophers continued in the Aristotelian tradition, holding to the dual role of metaphysics – the delineation of the categorical structure of reality, and examining the existence and nature of God.
       iii.17th and 18th century rationalists expanded metaphysics to include subjects such as the distinction between mind and body and freedom of the will that Aristotle included as parts of the natural/physical sciences. However, they still divided the metaphysical enterprise into two types.
           a)General Metaphysics – examines being as being
           b)Special Metaphysics
               Cosmology – study of being as it is found in changeable things
               Rational Psychology – study of being as found in rational beings
               Natural Theology – Study of Divine Being
            c)Whereas Aristotle’s metaphysics was conservative and sought to remain faithful to our prephilosophical conception of the world, rationalist metaphysics became increasingly more speculative and ‘far out’ (see, for example, Spinoza and Leibniz).
        iv.The highly abstract nature of rationalist metaphysics left it open for attacks by empiricist thinkers who claimed that since most of assertions made by rationalist metaphysicians were not justifiable by sensory experience, they were literally meaningless.
       v.Kant provided a further challenge to metaphysics
           a)In Kant’s view, knowledge is gained by the interplay of innate cognitive concepts and the raw data of sensory perception. The data are the effects on our subjective sensory faculties by the world external to those faculties, which are then structured and organized by our innate concepts. The result is knowledge. However, since everything involved in the formation of the knowledge is subjective, we cannot know the world as it really is, but only as it appears to us.
           b)Although much of the traditional metaphysics makes use of human intuitions and innate concepts, the results cannot be considered knowledge on Kant’s view unless those concepts are applied to and organize sensory perceptions. Kant calls the traditional metpahysics transcendent metaphysics, and claims this is a failed enterprise. Instead, he recommends critical metaphysics, which seeks to “identify and characterize the most general features of our thought and experience” (7).
               Traditional metaphysicians will reply to this Kantian approach (and those spawned by it) that it is somewhat self-defeating since on the view we will only have conceptions of our conceptions, and so on, and that there are (and are presupposed in our very talk) relations between our thoughts/words and what they refer to, and these allow us to grasp, although imperfectly, the referenced reality.
   B.’Metaphysics as Category Theory’
        i.This book’s aim is to introduce metaphysics from an Aristotelian viewpoint, but only as the study of being qua being (in other words, the rationalist science of ‘general metaphysics’).
       ii.Much of contemporary metaphysics consists in asking the question “What is there?” - to list and categorize the things that make up our ‘official’ ontology.

Here are the notes in PDF format.

I read this story on CNN.com last week which details a recent study showing that lesbian women respond differently to sex hormones than heterosexual women, and was particularly attentive to the story writer’s claim that “the findings add weight to the idea that homosexuality has a physical basis and is not learned behavior.” My first reaction was oh great, another person taking advantage of ’science’ and his/her media position to spread his/her own (or group’s) position on some controversial issue as if it were a generally accepted fact. Turns out I was right. As detailed on WorldNetDaily, one of the reserachers involved in the study responded to the above quote by saying that “it is incorrect and not stated in the paper,” and that the researchers specifically offered learning as a hypothesis to explain the similarities. Read the whole story here.

(HT Tom Gilson)

The previous post, as I’m sure most have surmised, does not represent my views concerning slavery. The argument was offered to point out the absurdity of what falls from the lips of certain politicians, especially around election time. How many times have we heard the candidate explain that he/she personally is against abortion, but does not think it is appropriate to impose their personal views on others. John Kerry, for example, admitted that he believed life began at conception and that abortion is wrong, but he could not impose his own views on others. So, let’s get this right…I believe that the fetus is a human life and it is immoral to take an innocent human life. However, if you think it is moral, that’s okay!

To believe something is to take that proposition as being true. A belief is not some nebulous entity which has no meaning. For example, if I believe that it is raining outside, I will take an umbrella to protect myself from the rain. I believe it really is raining. If one believes that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, he really believes that it is so. Do these politicians and other ordinary Americans realize the absurdity of their statement? “I believe this is immoral, but if you want to believe it is moral, go ahead. It would be wrong for me to impose my sense of morality on you.”

I know of no one (there may be some) who would agree with my argument concerning slavery. If it is immoral for one human being to own another human being as property, it is immoral. It’s not moral for me and immoral for you. If you believe it is immmoral for me to torture children for fun, but I believe it is moral to do so, am I justified in my actions? According to Kerry, (by the way, there are Republican politicians to make similar statements so this is not anti-Democrat) I have no right to stop someone else from doing something I feel is immoral if they feel otherwise. So…let’s bring back slavery!

No, let’s not! Let’s be honest about our beliefs. And if we believe something, let’s stand up for it. Those who take the abortion stance previously discussed either lie about their beliefs or must be willing to allow any action by any individual as long as he thinks it is moral.

I personally am against slavery. I believe it is wrong for one human being to own another human being as property. I do not believe that someone of a particular race should be able to subjugate someone of another race simply because they look different. I think that slavery is a demeaning practice and debases and devalues humanity.

However, I do not feel it is my responsibility to force my views on others. If others feel that people of a different color are not really humans or are somehow inferior to other humans, who am I to impose my morality on them? I think that it is wrong for the government to pass laws forbidding slavery. Any religious convictions I have about such matters should be kept private and not be voiced in the public arena. Our legislators and politicians should not force their opinions on American society. What do you think?

Here is an interesting argument from the Maverick Philosopher that materialists have no place in their ontology for truth. (HT Dangerous Idea)

from Divine Songs for Children:

‘Tis the voice of the sluggard; I heard him complain,
“You have wak’d me too soon, I must slumber again.”
As the door on its hinges, so he on his bed,
Turns his sides and his shoulders and his heavy head.

“A little more sleep, and a little more slumber;”
Thus he wastes half his days, and his hours without number,
And when he gets up, he sits folding his hands,
Or walks about sauntering, or trifling he stands.

I pass’d by his garden, and saw the wild brier,
The thorn and the thistle grow broader and higher;
The clothes that hang on him are turning to rags;
And his money still wastes till he starves or he begs.

I made him a visit, still hoping to find
That he took better care for improving his mind:
He told me his dreams, talked of eating and drinking;
But scarce reads his Bible, and never loves thinking.

Said I then to my heart, “Here’s a lesson for me,”
This man’s but a picture of what I might be:
But thanks to my friends for their care in my breeding,
Who taught me betimes to love working and reading.

It’s been a busy couple of days and the next couple will be just as busy as I will be in Atlanta at a niece’s wedding. I thought I would take a quick moment to note how much we appreciate the comments of our readers. One of the most exciting and fulfilling parts of having a blog is interacting with our readers. I know we have many readers who, for the most part, read and enjoy (I hope!). Of course, all are welcome to do so. However, if you happen to disagree with a post, have questions regarding a post, or strongly agree with a post, and you have a substantive comment to make, we hope you will join us in conversation.

A couple of days ago, Jeremy linked to a number of lectures which discuss the Da Vinci Code. Mark D. Roberts has an excellent list of FAQ’s and his answers to those here. By becoming familiar with his answers, one will be well-equipped to discuss the Da Vinci Code with anyone.

On April 26th a debate took place in Seattle Washington between Dr. Peter G. Ward, noted University of Washington astro-biologist and co-author of Rare Earth, and Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, philosopher of science, Director of the Center for Science & Culture and author of Darwinism, Design & Public Education. The audio of the debate, which I look forward to listening to is available here. Tom Gilson at Thinking Christian has nice commentary on the previous debate between Meyer and Ward here. Among Tom’s commentary is the following:

It’s (ID) about a positive statement that probabilities preclude certain biological features having developed through mere chance plus time plus selection. It’s also about a positive inference from design to intelligence as a source of that design–an inference we make in every other facet of life. Now, if those views are questionable, then that’s where ID should be countered, but not by the sneering dismissal that says, “you’re just giving up because you think it’s hard to figure out.