Comments on Surviving Phalaris: The World Has Changed Us

Rick Koerber knows as much about economics as a do...

2010-10-09T00:30:40.372-06:00

Rick Koerber knows as much about economics as a dope smoking musician.

"There is no need for God, and that all reali...

2010-09-21T19:41:01.178-06:00

"There is no need for God, and that all reality is self-generating."

It's difficult to wrap my head around that one. Just how does reality self-generate? Nothing made it?

Also, this is a very dualistic statement for "all reality" to not be synonymous with God. The definition of God is too narrow.

Anyway, I'm no longer certain what "truth" means. You say, "Finding truth would be the end of philosophy, and of science, and of art, and probably of religion too. Certainly, the one who finds truth also finds an end to those things, at least insofar as anything new can be said."

I don't see how this is the case. I imagine it would mean precisely the opposite: you find the truth, and you find that it is endlessly creative, and thus there is always something new. Maybe you find an answer to one thing, but it raises more questions?

Most of what I wrote about competing discourses is...

2010-09-19T21:09:12.262-06:00

Most of what I wrote about competing discourses is right out of John Milbank's writing, at least pretty close to what he has said. You're right that it is well-put. I really have enjoyed reading Milbanks ideas. He is very, very thoughtful. This discussion has helped to clarify some of the things I have read about it lately. It is rather dense material and sometimes requires a lot of attention to put all the connections together.

Anyway, what you said about the "sine wave" is similar to my idea about the eternal progression of causes. My thinking on that point was not influenced by Radical Orthodoxy this time, but by Georg Simmel. He said some things to that effect.

As for Hawking contributing anything to theology or philosophy, I suppose that would be mostly accidental. I don't know what his views of philosophy are, but it seems that the only really philosophical scientist of any consequence (in modernity) was Einstein. Well, I really don't know my scientists very well, so I could be wrong there. But it seems that Einstein was familiar with philosophy. I know that Feynman couldn't really see the point in it.

Anyway, I see Hawking's contribution more as a sort of conclusion to modernity. It is a final phase of victory, which may last for some time; but it really represents the highest achievement after which there can only be eventual decline.

So, we've had one of science's most revered luminaries finally take sides and declare once and for all that there is no need for God, and that all reality is self-generating. Not that Hawking is the first to take sides, but scientists like Dawkins appear more akin to atheist cranks. In other words, we know them for their anti-God rhetoric and nobody seems to know what other contributions they have made. On the other hand, Hawking is first famous for his work in physics and now he says he has gotten to the bottom of it.

As to your last comment, I agree and also disagree. It goes back to one of the first ideas I wrote in my essay about making up one's mind. Some people always need to be searching for truth, I guess. Others only search because they expect to find something. Mr. Turnbull, whose book you lent me, was quite critical of those who found the truth. He had good reason to be critical: Finding truth would be the end of philosophy, and of science, and of art, and probably of religion too. Certainly, the one who finds truth also finds an end to those things, at least insofar as anything new can be said. But, such a person is also made free to become a person in that context. It's a type of "settling down," if you will.

What is the difference between the man who never finds truth because he never expects to find it, and the man who never finds it because he never looks? Either way, there is no truth (nihilism). It really comes down to the value that one sees in truth.

Thank you for the clarification. That made things ...

2010-09-18T18:22:28.088-06:00

Thank you for the clarification. That made things considerably more ordered in my mind.

You say, "The postmodern era ... neither object, nor subject is privileged. All truth is based on one's perspective, equal to all others. All discourses are strategies of power, seeking to assert themselves. Why believe in any one of them? Everything is equally true and false, until one destroys or subsumes the others."

I think that's really at the center of things, and well-put; however, when you say that one will rise to "destroy or subsume" the the others, I view this as a simplified assessment of a singular peak event in the progression of a sine wave.

Also, I find it interesting that Hawking can contribute some insight on the matter of a conceivable god that some might view as damning to the beliefs of others who, on the contrary, find it supportive. This seems to illustrate the discourses mentioned above.

I think on the matter of truth, the only clearly faulty position is one that fails to continue to seek (and nihilism is an example of just such a position).

Well, these are good comments. On second thought...

2010-09-17T16:43:14.771-06:00

Well, these are good comments.

On second thought, I don't think that nominalism and conceptualism were first hypothesized to cause the sequence of phenomena that produced modern secularism and atheism, as well as postmodern nihilism. That was what my earlier comment seemed to say.

In fact, I think that the discussion is historiographical in nature. In retrospect, it is in searching for the causes of secularism and so forth, that we get back to nominalism and conceptualism and discover the connections there. They weren't first predicted.

We didn't first say, well, this is what will happen with nominalism, etc., and by the way, it seems like we were right. Rather, we looked back and said, look, it seems like this is what happened because of that.

Of course, these phenomena are all part of the Western philosophical tradition and the western culture. I'm not at all familiar with other philosophies at this point, but it does seem that Western culture is doing its best to overcome those. If these tendencies arise in other cultures, I'm betting you can still trace it back to Western thought. Certainly you can see how Communist philosophy, with its atheism, has shaped places like China.

It isn't completely conceptualism or nominalism that lead us to the fully conceivable god, but rather univocity of being that will have that tendency. If God exists as man exists, then if we can comprehend man, we can also comprehend God. A formal conceptualism then steps in to measure God against what we can say about man and the universe that man inhabits. Hawking just put the cap on that development, when, just last week? :)

So, conceptualism and nominalism provide the necessary philosophy to say that God might not even be substantially real at all, but unnecessary and therefore merely imaginary. For conceptualism, God is first seen, etc.

Radical Orthodoxy seems to break things into three periods: The pre-modern, before epistemology became widely significant through the ideas of nominalism et al; the modern period, and the postmodern period.

I think the pre-modern era has been referred to as the "High Medieval" period, in which objects are still privileged in themselves. I would say that the Enlightnment probably brought an end to that, but I need more study.

The modern era is still ending, and it is described as basically conceptualist in nature. There is a "system of truth based on universal reason, which tells us what reality is like," as Milbank puts it. It comes down to subjects being privileged, because it is based in reason. This is found in secularism and the scientific method (which is definitely epistemic).

The postmodern era has been dawning for some time, and in this new period there are "many possible versions of the truth, inseparable from particular narratives." So, in this period, neither object, nor subject is privileged. All truth is based on one's perspective, equal to all others. All discourses are strategies of power, seeking to assert themselves. Why believe in any one of them? Everything is equally true and false, until one destroys or subsumes the others. I've done some paraphrasing there. But this is where you run into nihilism, and also where Radical Orthodoxy seeks to operate in order to finally overcome modernism.

Anyway, that's my interpretation of it thus far. I hope you can see how my essay fits in with those ideas. It was a lot of stuff all at once, and lots of connections.

"Your point about conceptualism is taken, how...

2010-09-17T11:07:53.221-06:00

"Your point about conceptualism is taken, however the 'tendency' exists, and I suggest the historical interpretation of must be correct. Because the tendency was reasonably there, and because we can interpret the actual progression through history to match that hypothesis, we can say that this is a true interpretation."

By "history", I assume you mean Western history? I doubt the same holds true for history in its entirety.

I'm also uncertain how conceptualism could lead to GOD becoming conceivable, or even what such a thing means. I can conceive of many things, but in no case is my mortal conception the equivalent of the thing. I find myself often having to conceive of a temporary placeholder for something I realize I can't fully conceive of. But I may misunderstand conceptualism.

Dave, Regarding modern scientific evolution theor...

2010-09-16T16:07:56.724-06:00

Dave,

Regarding modern scientific evolution theory (which I don't remember very well from biology, but I'm sure your explanation is correct): I have referred to Darwinism and not evolution, which is something else.

The Darwinism I refer to is sometimes called social Darwinism, which has its roots in Darwin's ideas, in which also biological evolution is most significant.

What is most important to my argument is the fact that social Darwinism is competitive in nature.

I also use the the term "individual" here to mean a distinct entity considered univocally with others, whether it is God vs. Creation (creation is now winning the debate), or between individual institutions (economic vs. justice), or between businesses, or even individual people.

My argument doesn't suppose the literal survival of the single fittest individual person, only the domination of the strongest from among others. Otherwise, why would I claim that this sole surviving person would bring the new truth? To whom?

Clearly social Darwinism takes the analogy of natural selection and applies it to individuals, groups, and so forth.

So, my intent is not to apply rigorous biological evolution to the social scene. I don't think there are enough points of analogy to make a complete comparison. The main point is that, in the leveled milieu, people compete with each other for social and intellectual domination. Egalitarianism does not bring freedom, but tyranny.

Radical Orthodoxy contends that, although this violence between individuals (whether people or groups) existed primitively, because of their ontological unity of being, they considered it an aberration and something that was to be overcome. I can't explain it as eloquently as the literature, however.

Your point about conceptualism is taken, however the "tendency" exists, and I suggest the historical interpretation of must be correct. Because the tendency was reasonably there, and because we can interpret the actual progression through history to match that hypothesis, we can say that this is a true interpretation. It isn't the necessary outcome, like you said, but it is the de-facto outcome. We would not have secularism, nihilism, or atheism, unless we considered God as something wholly conceivable--which could then be disproved.

But, I can't argue in detail with you on that point, as I am only briefly acquainted with the arguments of Radical Orthodoxy. I am certain that there are many more aspects that must be considered in this tendency from unity toward disparity and competition.

Univocity doesn't necessarily suggest monism. Univocity yields the understanding that things exist apart from each other, as separate substantial objects, but that they exist in the same manner. It's a precondition for objectivity. I "am" and you "are" beings in the same ontological sense, but our substances are separate. Univocal means something along the lines of "equivalent." So, when I say that God exists in a univocal sense, I am saying that He exists in the same way that I exist, and not in an analogous sense. If I say that God is good, and that you are good, in the univocal sense, that means you are both good in the same way. Radical Orthodoxy disputes that interpretation.

In fact, Radical Orthodoxy accepts a monistic reading of platonic philosophy, and that we can only speak of God through analogy (a Thomistic theology).

I haven't read up on Plato's "Noble Lie," but I interpret economy as one consequence of univocity and nominalism. If all values exist conceptually (nominally) in the same way, then economy can subsume anything of value. So, it reveals the hideousness (in terms of humanity) of the epistemic oriented philosophy taken to its conclusion.

I think you may misunderstand evolution (Darwinism...

2010-09-16T15:24:29.301-06:00

I think you may misunderstand evolution (Darwinism): it is not about the survival of the fittest *individual*. It's more akin to an allegiance of alleles, wherein the survival of representatives is important, but the survival of one specific individual is insufficient.

Survival of the fittest individual does not work from an evolutionary standpoint, and it's a common misconception (I didn't properly understand the concept myself until I took Vertebrate Zoology).

Also, I'd like to point out that with conceptualism and nominalism, the value of things tending toward nihilism is only one possible direction, but not the necessary outcome.

Furthermore, I noted that John Duns Scotus' concept of GOD apart from His self-existent creation is markedly dualistic, and yet he's ironically notable for his doctrine of "univocity".

Wiki was of some help here for me:

"[Gilles] Deleuze claims that being is univocal, i.e., that all of its senses are affirmed in one voice. Deleuze borrows the doctrine of ontological univocity from the medieval philosopher John Duns Scotus. Deleuze adapts the doctrine of univocity to claim that being is, univocally, difference. 'With univocity, however, it is not the differences which are and must be: it is being which is Difference, in the sense that it is said of difference. Moreover, it is not we who are univocal in a Being which is not; it is we and our individuality which remains equivocal in and for a univocal Being." ...

... Here Deleuze at once echoes and inverts Spinoza, who maintained that everything that exists is a modification of the one substance, God or Nature. ... For Deleuze, there is no one substance, only an always-differentiating process, an origami cosmos, always folding, unfolding, refolding. Deleuze summarizes this ontology in the paradoxical formula "pluralism = monism".

Lastly, your essay reminded me of Plato's "noble lie." Does the economy count as one, or is what all such lies are told for?