Chapter 8 – The
Scholar: Thomas Aquinas
Augustine: “I was
held fast, not in fetters clamped upon me by another, but by my own will, which
had the strength of iron chains… the new will which had come to life in me… was
not yet strong enough to overcome the old (will), hardened as it was by the
passage of time. So these two wills within me… were in conflict and between
them they tore my soul apart.” (pg. 220)
This quote sticks out to me because I often struggle with my
own will, much as Augustine did. Right
now, I am working on quitting smoking, so I am torn between the old will (of
smoke a cigarette) and the new will (of learning to be without
cigarettes). It’s hard to be in constant
conflict with yourself but it happens to us all the time. We wrestle between two opposing forces,
created in our own minds, as we struggle to become the best versions of
ourselves. This quote is important because it points out that even the wisest
among us, the philosophers, still struggle the way the rest of us do. Being torn between two opposing wills is the
human condition.
H. L. Mencken: “A
philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a cat that isn’t there. A
theologian is the man who finds it.” (pg. 223)
I love this quote, not just because it’s funny and because
it pokes fun at theologians, but it is a worthwhile ponder when it comes to the
existence of a higher power. Philosophy
tries to discuss the things that can only be felt through the mind’s eye from a
flawed human perspective, but theology tries to quantify these invisible
theories into a series of events that one can see, touch, smell and feel. In my opinion, God can only be felt
internally, which, is why I believe so many people struggle with the
concept. But theology tries to solidify
philosophical (abstract) concepts into solid doctrine.
Rene J. Muller: “Science
has not killed God – quite the contrary. It is clearer now than ever that what
we can learn from science is limited to what is abstract and quantifiable.
Because of what science has achieved… God is needed now more than ever.”
(pg. 224)
As a firm believer in God and science, I love this quote
because it hits home to me. From my
point of view, both science and faith can exist in the same sphere because
neither opposes the other. Science
explains a lot of things, but we cannot know everything. God can fill in the blanks where science
cannot. I have only rarely questioned my
own belief in God, but in those moments, something has happened to make me
understand God in a whole new level through science.
Chapter 9 – The
Rationalist: Rene Descartes
Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali: “Thus, I know that ten is more than three. Let us suppose that someone
says to me: ‘No, three is more than ten, and in proof of that I shall change
this rod into a serpent’: and let us suppose that he actually changes the rod
into a serpent and that I witness him doing so. No doubts about what I know are
raised in me because of this. The only result is that I wonder how he is able
to produce this change. Of doubt about my knowledge there is no trace.”
(pg. 252)
This quote is amazingly spot on because it describes how the
natural mind would react to something so bizarre as turning a rod into a
snake. I wouldn’t personally care about
their argument that three is more than ten so much as I’d be completely
bewildered by the rod turning into a snake.
It would completely distract me from the argument about the numbers.
This is less a philosophical argument than one about human reasoning. I highly doubt that any person with
reasonable knowledge would question their knowledge instead of questioning the
magic of turning a rod into a snake.
Rene Descartes: “It
were far better never to think of investigating truth at all, than to do so
without a method.” (pg. 253)
I chose this quote because it made me think. I do not know if I have an actual method for
thinking about the truth. I just think
to myself. I do have parameters, but I
am not sure if parameters are a method.
This quote really challenges me to determine if I have a method for
studying philosophy or if I just do it with my own biases. It challenges me to think of a method for
studying rather than just doing it as a flight of fancy. Is a method needed,
though? Do we need to create a method to
study or can we just let the mind wander?
I honestly don’t know the answer to these questions, even though my gut
tells me no.
Susan Bordo: “Nature
became defined by its lack of affiliation with divinity, with spirit. All that which is god-like or spiritual –
freedom, will, and sentience – belong entirely and exclusively to res cogitans (the thing that thinks).
All else – the earth, the heavens, animals, the human body – is merely
mechanically interacting matter.” (pg. 272)
This quote is powerful because it separates what theologians
consider to be parts of God (freedom, will and sentience) from the parts we can
know with our five senses. Bordo
separates that which can be quantified from that which cannot. I personally do not feel that the heavens are
“mechanically interacting matter” but I’m willing to give it space in my
brain. Perhaps she is talking about the
universe, rather than God. From that
perspective, I can see the argument and agree with it.
Chapter 10 – The Skeptic:
David Hume
Jean-Paul Sartre: “The
world of explanations and reasons is not the world of existence.” (pg. 282)
I love this quote, even if others hate it. Our world is full of so many unknowns, from
the workings of our brains to the exact makeup of entities in the
universe. We cannot possibly understand
every little bit of our world and to attempt to do so is an exercise in
futility. In my life, I have experienced
that explanations and reasons are just not part of our world. There is a lot that can be explained but the
absolute silliness and illogical parts of our world cannot be ignored.
Thomas Reid: “Suppose
that a (plain) man meets a modern philosopher and wants to be informed what
smell is plants is. The philosopher tells him that there is no smell in plants
nor in anything but the mind; that it is impossible there can be smell but in a
mind; and that all this hath been demonstrated by modern philosophy. The plain
man will, no doubt, be apt to think him merry.” (pg. 284)
This quote is totally bizarre, but I love the thought it
provokes. Thinking about our five
senses, a neuroscientist will argue that none of them are anything but impulses
in the mind, which is what the philosopher here is arguing. But to the average person, senses are so much
more beautiful than electrical impulses in the brain. I would think that someone who is apt to be
merry would enjoy the electrical pulses of the five senses, but I could be
wrong. Maybe it is better not to enjoy
but to discuss and philosophize.
David Hume: “Accurate
and just reasoning is the only catholic remedy, fitted for all persons and all
dispositions; and is alone able to subvert that abstruse philosophy and
metaphysical jargon, which, being mixed up with popular superstition, renders
it in a manner impenetrable to careless reasoners, and gives it the air of
science and wisdom.” (pg. 291)
This quote is interesting to me, as a person who believes in
God. This quote goes directly to the
heart of the atheist argument, that it is better to know reason than believe
superstition. I do my best to understand
such arguments, but I generally can’t accept them because most are not based in
logic. Unlike other arguments this one seems
to be saying that it is better to know science and wisdom than to accept vague
answers. I like that a lot. You cannot just discredit one without
suggesting a replacement. One needs to accept that theology cannot explain
everything; but neither can science.
-------------------------
Grade: 10/10
Professor Comments: The students attending Central Arizona College and taking a Philosophy class come with convictions about the world in which we were born. Some students include a deity into the convictions about the world, other students are uncertain about a deity, and other students reject the concept of deity. I am sure you have your own convictions, some of which you share in your essays. Each student approaches the study of philosophy with a mind searching for wisdom. That very concept of a search demands an openness to explore the concept of deity. In chapter 8, Soccio, our textbook author, reviews Thomas Aquinas' five proofs of God using reason. [The subject matter of philosophy is NOT religion that requires faith in what is unseen, rather it is using reason.] Soccio's revisits two proofs, motion and cause, writing "God's existence is possible or probable (p. 232)." Then on page 233, writing "don't be too quick to reject Thomas's proofs." Soccio points out that the basic elements such as methane, ammonia and hydrogen need a cause. Asking, "where did the matter and energy come from?" Science has not accounted for the existence of basic elements/matter and the energy putting them in motion. From pure reasoning (not faith), what is the source of the existence of matter and the energy needed for its motion? Ponder your convictions? Using reason, ask yourself, how do you answer these questions?
No comments:
Post a Comment