we are all computers.

“All human beings from birth onward live to the realm of sense more than to the Intellectual.”

The above was a quote said in class while discussing the Intellectual-Principle and how it is “wise without intermission and therefore beautiful of itself.” But my main point here is not to talk about the Intellectual-Principle ( I would if I thought I had a proper understanding of it) or about the sense (because I feel that everyone knows what the sense are and how to : feel, taste, see, hear, smell). My point in this blog is to discuss the accuracy of this quote. It is very much true that human beings are more in tuned with what is physically around us because those things are easy to understand. The things that are hard to understand, such as the intellectual, we tend to ignore because they intimidate us. They make us feel as if we are losing control of the situation. I believe that humans are more comfortable with the senses because they aren’t ‘lying to us’, ‘what we see is what we get’, and so on and so forth. Yet, what we don’t seem to understand is that everyone perceives things differently; this is why we have likes and dislikes. The senses, in a way, are not the most accurate. We cannot control our sense, but only perceive what they are telling us; we are just computers saving information onto our hard drives.

Epoche

I wrote this a while back and came across it when looking for my blogs. I read it and thought that it sounded pretty funny because I could actually see someone taking all these steps to think about something. And then I thought about the Skeptics and the concept of epoche (or suspension of thought).Critical thinking is a mental process in which an individual obtains information regarding a topic and makes a logical association between that topic and their own belief. This being said, one can compare the concept of critical thinking to gathering flowers for an ornate arrangement. This task is complicated because one must first decided for what event this arrangement will be made; for not all flowers are appropriate at all gatherings. In this way critical thinking develops. Critical thinking is complicated in that it has many varied parts to the process. The first step in critical thinking is to decide which topic you will be thinking about and what stances there are in the discussion of this topic. You must decide which view of the topic fits your style of thinking best. By doing this you have eliminated many of the inappropriate assumptions that you might develop if you would have analyzed the topic from randomized viewpoints contrary to your own. After this one must find which flowers would survive best in the surrounding in which they will be placed; whether this means a table in a vase or a wreath or some other sort of adornment. Then one must progress to the task of gathering the flowers for this presentation. They must be varied, because you do not want make the arrangement colorful and you do not want to discriminate against a specific species of flower. These flowers must also complement each other in order to make the arrangement fit some sort of order. When complete, the final arrangement must be pleasing to you, because if it is not, then there is no point in putting together this arrangement.

I wrote this a while back and came across it when looking for my blogs. I read it and thought that it sounded pretty funny because I could actually see someone taking all these steps to think about something. And then I thought about the Skeptics and the concept of epoche (or suspension of thought). It’s strange to think that there were individuals that at one time took the time to stop and think because it seems like now a day we just act on impulse and desire. I feel like the concept of stopping to think involves nothing more than just working the idea over in your mind as you are putting it to action.

Class Synopsis 4/27

Christianity had a favorable climate to establish its philosophy for several reasons, one of them being the universalism of the Roman Empire. Even a slave from the conquered barbaric peoples was considered Roman—this all encompassing principle provided a framework for the roots of the Christian dogma. Additionally, other Hellenistic philosophies created a need per se for a new philosophy. For example, Skepticism questioned the necessity and purpose of religion, of a god who through logos. Hence this gave the Apologists (those who defend) the opportunity to justify and legitimize Christianity through reasoning. The Apologists were fighting against the negative political atmosphere which showed Christianity as a perverse philosophy that advocated atheism.

Eclecticism which characterized the Hellenistic period, allowed the borrowing from each and every philosophy that which is good and incorporating it with one’s own belief. This attitude encouraged the rise of Christianity as a philosophy, not a faith. Essentially, Christianity was initially advocated as a philosophy (through the Word) which encompassed all philosophies, by claiming that Christianity contained the revealed the complete truth about knowledge (available for everyone). With Epicureanism the need for friendship was mirrored in the formation of the Brotherhood in Christianity, and the concept of discussing faults or wrong beliefs was transformed into Confession. More importantly the idea of a founder or Savior (a sage) of Christianity was Christ, like Epicurus for Epicureanism. Stoicism asserted that logos was found in everything (the universe is rational) and Christianity’s aim was to defend itself through logic. The final push came with Neo- Platonism when Plato’s demand for the supersensible above the material was satisfied by Christianity showing that Christ (the ineffable one) was the perfect God. Everyone had access to this personal relationship, this true path to transcendence.

Saint Justin Martyr (who was initially a pagan) became one of the first Apologists, studied various Greek philosophies. Aristotelian philosophy was too materialistic for him, Pythagorean philosophy was took too long to reach the truth (polymathea). Neo-Platonism suited Justin the best because the concept of the Ideals and universals (forms) was appealing. Contemplation (turning inward) was key to finding the good, the goal of human happiness (Eudaemonia) which is the ultimate goal of philosophia. But the problem of the immortality of the soul (in Platonism) is solved by Christianity as the Grace of God allows for the creation and maintenance of the soul. This is what convinces Justin to convert to Christianity and devote his life to spreading the Word.

Christianity was competing with Paganism, by showing that it was a monotheistic religion, not polytheistic (the pantheon of Roman gods). However, the Pagans believed that multiple gods could be worshipped by realizing that all were connected to each other (unity through plurality). This is not polytheism, but henotheism. Then the Christians were opposed against henotheism, but this is contradictory because the Trinity (Tertullian) has the three components of the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost which unite to represent Christ.

Class Synopsis 2/28/11 (Never Posted it to Blog)

On 2/28/11, we continued our discussion on Stoicism. We reiterated the importance of logos, or reason, within Stoic philosophy, which ultimately leaves us with a loss of the second sailing, a loss of the super-sensible. Everything, for the Stoics, is in everything. There is a unity within the world, which logos, is used to defend. Reason is able to defend certain principles through the use of the criterion for truth. We also discussed the importance of empirical evidence, but we made the distinction in saying that sensation is NOT a criteria for truth.

To begin class, we talked about sensation to presentation to concept. What makes for a good assent to knowledge is a cataleptic presentation, but there is also a non-cataleptic presentation. Whereas a cataleptic presentation deals directly with a real object, non-cataleptic presentation does not precede from any real object and/or fails to agree with other judgements of an object. To clarify what a 'presentation' is exactly, we talked about a presentation as something that the intellect does. Every thing, every experience, is conceived by the intellect in different ways. This can be done immediately or indirectly, through inference. In experiencing something, such as coffee, we have an immediate and direct relationship between our sensation and our intellect. Upon drinking coffee, we can come up with the concept of sweet. These concepts are immediate in the sense that we do not need to taste sweet twice in order to possess the concept of sweet.

Indirectly, however, our intellect works in three ways. In resemblance, our intellect can take the image of a singular man or woman and move to the concept of humankind in general. We may not have direct sensory experience of man or woman, but we can still have the concept of humankind. In composition, our intellect can put two immediate experiences together in order to form a new concept. For example, Dr. Layne said that we may have the experience of a fish and a different experience of a woman, but we can conjoin both fish and woman to conceive of a mermaid. Lastly, we talked about analogy, through which our intellect adds or subtracts something from a concept in order to create an entirely different concept. If you add height and weight to a human, for instance, one is able to conceive of a giant. We also talked about the concept of tabula rossa-that we, as humans, are born with a blank slate. We do not, therefore, have any innate concepts within us, they are merely imprinted on us at an early age.

Furthermore, we discussed language and thought within Stoic philosophy. Although we can conceive of universals, such as manhood, that does not mean that these universals are corporeal. Our language, although it refers to real things, is not corporeal in itself. Thus, the meaning of my sentence is not real, but the references that I make are very real. In order to be real, a body must be able to be act and to be acted upon. Being is always and solely corporeal. Thus, the meaning of our language is not real

To continue, we moved from logic to physics. Dr. Layne stated that the Stoic physics is through and through materialistic and corporeal. Being is body, so the soul, God, good, and wisdom are also body. Virtue is a body because it makes us act. Sadness, for example, calls me to act-I cry when I am sad. We can easily see the roots of medieval philosophy within Stoic physics in talking about matter and form. Body is, for the stoics, both matter and form. Form, for the stoics, is the active principle of nature, whereas matter is the passive principle. Although we can logically distinguish form from matter, one can not exist in the world without the other. These two principles of matter and form are the basis for the Stoic physics as a pantheistic monism. We talked about how, because form is in everything, God is in everything and is everything. As previously mentioned, God is corporeal, and God's being as corporeal explains how everything is in everything-rendering a complete and total mingling of bodies.

To conclude, we continued to talk about God and nature. Phusis, or nature, implies both matter and the intrinsic agent of form which gives purpose and telos to all things. Here, we are able to see a complete rejection of Epicureanism. The stoics believe in a complete teleology, that all beings are innately moving towards their goal or purpose. God, who is phusis, is also logos, thus he is our principle of intelligence, and his pneuma, or spirit, extends through the universe with different intensities. I'm not entirely sure what that means, because this is where our class ended, so… hopefully we will learn more on Wednesday.

Synopsis

Class Synopsis for 5/2/11

Today in class we talked about Augustine, and more generally about Hellenistic cultural influence on Christianity. The question, “what is the motivation of Christian Aplogoists” was raised, and the notion that the conversion of Hellens into Christians might have politico-ideological undertones was something we should be contemplating. Who do you need to convert to make your religion as widespread as possible? The politicians of a certain land! This need to be in constant discourse with the intellectuals of a certain community arose a few times throughout the lecture. What is the point of being an apologist if not to corroborate the universality of Christianity? By seeing the logos in Socrates we find an affirmation of Christianity, through the use of rhetoric no doubt, but still in this we find how Christianity is not exclusive but all inclusive—the only religion.

We started to talk about the distinctions between MONOTHEISM and HENOTHESISM. We find this difference come from the contrasting of a definite one (monotheism) and one in plurality (henotheism). Within all Hellenistic philosophy there is a sense of a ONE, and the way we reach this one typically takes into account the unification of plurality—finding an indefinite one. This underlying affinity towards a one was appropriated into Christianities rhetorical attack against the polytheism they claimed Hellens believed in, which clearly has problems. The Greek desire for unity, which we can see in their conception of the gods as all being a part of Zeus, or the idea that all comes from chaos—we get a unity amongst plurality.

Exegesis of text was one important aspect of the Hellenistic tradition adopted by Christianity. Importance of exegesis as a spiritual exercise manifests itself in the homilies of today—the synthesis of the Old and New Testament to show the unity between the two and ultimately the unity of Christianity. The homily is for intellectual exercise, but in our contemporary society people tend to experience a priest going off on tangents about abortion or the death penalty. Once this breakdown of intellectual exegesis occurs we start to run into the problems of the contemporary Christian—lack of faith. It seems to me that such a simple understanding of scripture can only relinquish the community into a group of solipsistic fundamentalists.

We then turned to Augustine and mentioned some of the influences of Hellenistic philosophy on his own writings. The notion of confession is one such idea that has Epicurean roots. Pleasure of the moment through confessing your deeds, the idea of being clean again and eternally in the present moment is one such idea that influenced the way Christians now view confession. Christianity added the feeling of guilt to be a motivating force behind confession. Guilt of the present moment—the sinfulness of the human being—marred by sin is another idea that has roots in Proclis and the fall from the One. Confession for Augustine is a spiritual exercise.

The story of Augustine stealing peaches was an example used to show a typical human impulse that we all can relate to when we think of our own self. We have all probably had a moment where we did something we knew we shouldn’t do, but the very act of doing the wrong thing was what we desired instead of the end result itself. The idea that Augustine stole the peaches not to fulfill his need to eat, but as a need to fulfill his desire to do “hood rat things” as Latarion Milton would put it. This notion of doing things for the very reason you know you shouldn’t be doing them is an interesting phenomenon, and one that I think we still are grappling with in today’s society. Community helps bring out the face of the other—puts me into my falleness. Is this not Sartre’s conception of Bad Faith?

Augustine originally believe that good and evil both had a presence in the world until 383 where he had a shift in his belief and came to understand evil as a privation of good—something contingent and deriving it’s existence from the good. Evil is a privation of good and the good presupposed evil. The good remains—projects itself out in the world and allows for evil, but a return to the good breaks from this evil. Evil is possible in man through his ability to turn away from the good and to direct his life in ways that go against the good, such as stealing those peaches.

Happiness is wisdom for Augustine. Possesion is not external but the only thing we posses is our autonomy—our self. Here we find a Stoic influence, which tells us that the world outside of me is not me, the only thing I posses is my inner soul. WE ARE COMDEMED TO BE FREE! Conflict between freedom and necessity doesn’t truly exist; we are necessarily free.

Osama's Death

A lot of people are celebrating over Osama Bin Laden's death, but why are people thinking that this is okay? I, personally, believe that Osama deserved to die, but the cheering does not make sense to me. I do not want to talk about the politics of the issue. I want to hear why you think it would be okay to cheer over a human death or President Obama's comment, "justice has been done."

Tertullian--kind of a jerk

Throughout my readin of Tertullian, I gritted my teeth in frustration. He unjustly attacked Socrates, God of philosophy, in an abrasive and fallacious manner.

In part I, Tertullian argues that we must turn to God, rather than to philosophers, for information about the soul. He proceeds to use an ad hominen circumstantial fallacy to discredit Socrates' arguments in the Phaedo. What an ad hominen circumstantial does, essentially, is argue that since the opponent has a certain inclination to argue in a certain way, his argument is invalid, all the while ignoring all the points of the opponents actual argument. Tertullian states that, "Socrates' constancy itself must have been shaken, as he struggled against the disturbance of the excitement around him," continuing on to write, "It is therefore not to be wondered at . . . in the face of death itself, [he] asserts the immortality of the soul by a strong assumption such as was wanted to frustrate the wrong (they had inflicted upon him). So that all the wisdom of Socrates, at that moment, proceeded from the affectation of an assumed composure rather than the firm conviction of ascertained truth." Wow. . . So basically, since Socrates was going to die, and because he was pissed off at people for sentencing him to his death, he was naturally inclined to argue that the soul is eternal. In fact, his whole argument is basically just a response to his desire to get back at people. . . This made me so mad. Socrates is the man.

The irony lies in the fact that this same tactic could so easily be reversed on Tertullian. People like to believe that life will continue after death, and that there is a nice place called heaven where Jesus, who saved us all from eternal damnation, is waiting with an open bar for all. Since Christian theology paints a pretty nice picture, i.e., since people like to believe in Christianity, then by Tertullian's own reasoning, Christianity is a hoax.

Furthermore, Tertullian's insistence that faith is the only path to truth is a questionable assertion at best. He argues this by claiming that all truth belongs to his religion, and therefore, is the product of this religion. God is the product of all truth, and therefore all those who have said something true were influenced by God. This is seriously messed up. This is like saying that the Native Americans lived in the United States. Tertullian is retroactively giving his religion credit for the achievements of thousands of years of "pagan" progress. Furthermore, how can faith possibly be more reliable than reason? To make any sort of determination, Tertullian must use reason. One cannot arrive at a conclusion, not even a conclusion that reason is inferior or insufficient or useless, without using reason.

Tertullian was writing rhetoric. He was fanatically and irrationally marketing a religion that deserved better.