Posted on 09/24/2003 11:25:56 PM PDT by betty boop
Thank you, Hank; both for your insights, and for the 'ping.' Thank you Betty-Boop and Alamo-Girl as well, not to mention the rest of you who have managed to incorporate more thoughtful insight into 40+ entries than I have seen in many books that I have read
Much to think about and ponder.
Yes! It is absurd, too, because it implies, because we cannot not know everything, we cannot know anything.
Now, as a Christian, I find much in Aristotle entirely consistent with Christianity.
It is. I am not a Christian for the very reason that most (apparently not you) reject the rationality of both the Bible and Aristotle. (Please do not assume anything because I choose not to call myself a Christian, which today is the equivalent of Augustinianism -- a blend of Bible truth, Platonic mysticism, and Manicheian paganism.)
So, whether our senses are ultimately reliable to detect every possible phenomena seems to be a differnt question than whether they are reliable enough to do what I think both Plato and Aristotle were concerned about (and what the point of Christianity is to a great extent): live the right kind of life.
That's right, at least for the Bible and Aristotle, not for Plato.
Hank
Yes, and the only one that worries about it. It is one of the "blessings" of the rational nature.
One of the hallmarks of human rational nature are the unique emotional expressions which are mostly involuntary. "Man is the only creature that blushes, or needs to," Mark Twain said. Man is also the only creature that smiles, frowns, laughs, and weeps. He is also the only creature that worries, hopes, hates, or experiences nostalgia, guilt, (its cousin, regret), and pride.
While the animals do seem to exhibit bahavior indicating some emotional reactions we share, like fear, enthusiasm, and joy, all other emotional experiences are uniquely possible to man because he has a rational nature. The animals do not worry or hope, because they are unable to conceive of the future. They do not experience nostalgia or regret, because they connot conceive of the past. They do not experience guilt, shame or pride because they have no concept of values. The irrational creatures neither laugh or weep because concepts of humor and pathos are impossible to them.
No man has ever prevented his death by thinking about it, although some might have caused them that way.
Hank
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. - 1 Corin 1:19-25
bigcat, of course the senses are indispensable to us just to get around in daily life. And we humans trust them with a lot. (Even though there are times when, say, our "eyes play ticks on us.")
What I wanted to draw attention to however (perhaps the QM analogy was not the best way to do it), is the fact that there are real things that are not available to sense perception. Things like ideas, mathematical theorems, the laws of nature, theories of all descriptions, consciousness, emotions, the feeling part of sensory experience, time, etc., are real though perfectly intangible.
Eric Voegelin had a rather amusing term for such like: "non-existent reality." This sounds like an oxymoron; but it really isn't when you think about the class of "objects" that it describes. They are "real," just as the short list of things in the above specifies real things; but they do not have existence as physical objects available to sense perception.
People who want to make sense perception (understood as extended via increasingly sophisticated observational instruments) the criterion of what is real tacitly deny reality to a huge part of human experience and existence.
Such a definition of reality is really quite absurd. It results in a grotesque reductionism of nature and especially of human nature.
Certainly Truth itself is not available to sense perception. Nor is the idea of "living the right kind of life." And it seems that Plato, Aristotle, and Christianity all agree that you can't do the latter without having a conception or standard of the former.
So if it were true that these aren't "real things," because intangible and therefore unvalidatable by the senses, then what would be the point of human life?
These are all items in the world. None of them are inner, although the psychic and the physical are often considered inner and outer. Inner is a third existentiall mode besides the psychic things. Teilhard, of course, thought there were only inner and outer, butsometimes confused psychic matter with inner.
Alamo-Girl, thank you so much for your magnificent essay at #17! It was moreover such a splendid and profoundly meditated witness to the glory of the Lord. Thank you so very much!
It is so interesting that knowledge of man and knowledge of the world are so often interrelated and interdependent. Witness Plato's "man the microcosm."
WRT to the above italics: I guess we'd call this an instance of the "anthropological principle" at work. While many scientists take a dim view of any "anthropomorphism," I think it's silly to tsk-tsk the anthropological principle. For all the knowledge that exists of man, God, and the universe is human knowledge, in the sense that the human mind (exclusively [except for God, of course] as far as we know) is the knower of it. Why would anyone want to insist that man is so insignificant, unimportant, on the great scale of the physical universe that it cannot be said that the presence of homo sapiens sapiens and his activity in the cosmos is other than perfectly trivial, and of little importance?
Man may well be much more important to the evolution of the cosmos than we now realize. So if people believe it's silly that the YECs and IDers could construct theories about the origin of the universe based on the issue of "first-mortal" vs. "first-ensouled" -- well, maybe they could benefit from a little more modesty about what it is they think they know.
Fortunately, God sets more store by man then most men do! :^) We ought to be profoundly grateful for that, and love and honor the Lord as He wishes us to do.
An ancient and a modern heresy that the church again must combat is the view that death is natural. Such a view regards death as the last act of life, and as such, death is something over which we dispose. Such a view could not be further from the biblical understanding.The Bible begins, not with a living man as though man lived self-evidently, but the Bible begins with the Creator, who speaks into existence man, who is made to exist by being made to live. Life is, therefore, a gift. Life, therefore, is not, so to speak, 'natural' to us. It comes to us from the outside, from God, so that even that which most "belongs" to us, namely our life, is itself not out own proper possession.
Precisely in our being made alive, our relationship with God is both begun and revealed: He is our creator and we are His creatures. To live is to be created. For this reason, Irenaeus could write that "the glory of God is a living man," for in the life of man the living God who makes by making alive is manifested. This "making alive," however, also reveals a will to make alive. It is God's will that man live.
While this is implicit in the creation story itself, it is made explicit in the Wisdom of Solomon: "God created man for incorruption . . . and made him in the image of His own eternity" (2:23). When, therefore, the early church spoke of God's creating, it spoke of God creating ex nihilo, "from nothing," and by that phrase the church meant that God creates purely by His will and command. A living man is the direct expression of the will and command of God.
From "Death and Martyrdom: An Important Aspect of Early Christian Eschatology" by Dr. William C. Weinrich
yes, gore3000 -- when it came to moral philosophy, that was Plato's main point. Confrontation with the idea of our own death, and the expectation of judgment for the quality of our life -- of our "existential level," so to speak -- was for him the great spur to the ordering of the soul by "virtue," according to the divine paradigm -- i.e., truth, love, wisdom, justice, beauty. As Christianity bids us to live in God's law of love.
Thank you so much for writing, gore -- I so enjoy your posts.
Wonderful, Fester! I've pretty much come to the same conclusion myself....
Of course, it's probably fairly easy for a person of materialist or objectivist persuasion to consider his life -- virtually indistinguishable from the body -- as just another of his personal "possessions," to be done with according to whatever he pleases. Therefore on this view, there's nothing fundamentally "wrong" with, say, suicide, prostitution, or substance addiction.
Please do ping me when you post the Weinrich article!
Thank you so much for writing.
C.S. Lewis once said, if you want to know if the cat is in the cupboard, all the reasoning in the world will not tell you. You have to look in the cubboard.
So if the question is, "where is the cat?" and you look in the cupboard and see her, declaring, "she's in cupboard," isn't that the truth?
If I want to know what the truth concerning the meaning of justice, neither my eyes or any other perception will tell me, but if I want to know the truth of what something looks like, only my eyes will tell me.
Otherwise (except for the Voegelin stuff) I think your analysis is correct. Concepts, even concepts of fictions are every bit as real as rocks and trees, but not real in the same way, and that way must be spedified if what we say about them, as real, is to be true.
Hank
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.