tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-66744855886200435522024-02-21T11:14:44.335+00:00FilosofiaUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6674485588620043552.post-59731634059842911622011-02-18T22:11:00.001+00:002011-02-18T22:15:41.038+00:00Zeno of Elea - Motion Is Impossible<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="" imageanchor="1" style="clear:right; float:right; margin-left:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="160" width="152" src="" /></a></div><br />
Let me just say before we start that I don't agree with Zeno. Motion is impossible? This is some different definition of motion than the one we use in everyday life, yes? But I also have to say that, although I don't agree with him, Zeno's famous paradoxes have always held an irresistible fascination for me.<br />
<br />
Zeno apparently did believe that all motion is impossible, and that therefore it follows that what we see or experience as motion must necessarily be an illusion. I have no idea how Zeno died, but it's just possible he died of starvation. Since motion is impossible, a trip down to the local food store would have been an adventure that was fraught with cosmic impossibility. Therefore it would hardly have been worthwhile to make the attempt. So we can thus imagine Zeno wasting away, while the steak and fries waited a short distance from his doorstep, philosophically unreachable.<br />
<br />
Not much is known about Zeno. None of his writings have come down to us, and we only know of his existence from the writings of other philosophers, some of whom may have been opponents. He was said to be a pupil of Parmenides, who was himself a philosopher who believed the world was stuck.<br />
<br />
Zeno's most famous paradox concerns Achilles and the Tortoise. The two agree to have a race. Because Achilles is an athlete, he gives the tortoise 100 metres start. Achilles runs 10 times as fast as the tortoise, so you would expect him to easily overtake his opponent.<br />
<br />
But not so, says Zeno.<br />
<br />
BANG! goes the starting gun and both runners are off. Achilles runs 100 metres, to arrive at the place where the tortoise began. But the tortoise is now 10 metres ahead. So Achilles runs 10 metres, but the tortoise is still 1 metre ahead, so Achilles runs 1 metre, only to find the tortoise is still 0.1 metre ahead.<br />
<br />
And so on. You get the picture. This proves the athlete can never overtake the tortoise, and so we have a paradox. Therefore, motion is impossible.<br />
<br />
I like this paradox. The great thing about it is that you know it can't be right, but you can't really fault its logic. Many have tried. Most counter-arguments fall into some absurdity or logical trap. Or, even worse, bluster! To refute it is not as easy as you might think it would be. That's one reason why I like it so much.<br />
<br />
Once I asked a Math professor to give a refutation of Zeno's Paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, upon which he started to drone on about infinite seqeunces with a finite limit, and Leibnizian calculus. This may indeed have been very dull, but probably it was about as close as you will ever get to a refutation of Zeno.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6674485588620043552.post-10351334006341874842010-11-03T18:29:00.000+00:002010-11-03T18:29:59.167+00:00We Create Our Own UniverseThe information we receive from the universe is in the form of millions and billions of pieces of sense-data. This is clearly too much data for us to process without confusion. So we filter out that which we do not require.<br />
<br />
Thus the world "out there" that we experience is partly given, and partly constructed by our brain's filtering process.<br />
<br />
So then, if I choose to ignore the colour red, for example, does that mean there will be no reds in my universe?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6674485588620043552.post-80912507237488164112010-11-02T20:06:00.000+00:002010-11-02T20:06:56.632+00:00Democracy - Is It Good or Is It Bad?<span style="color: lime;">This is a philosophical article, not a political one. I detest politics, and I wish to have nothing to do with the subject. The argument here is purely theoretical.</span><br />
<br />
If you were to ask people in the street, probably over 90% would say democracy is good, but would they be right? Are they expressing a considered opinion, or have they been mentally conditioned (brainwashed?) to accept democracy without question?<br />
<br />
Democracy, or "majority rule", is the accepted method in the so called "free" countries of the West. One of the most devastating arguments against democracy is to point out which television shows get the highest ratings, that is, are chosen by the majority. They are usually among the worst and most pointless shows. This tends to cast doubt on the wisdom of a system which bases its policy on the choices of the majority.<br />
<br />
And of course, we have to remember that the majority doesn't actually <b>rule</b>. What the majority does is <b>vote</b>, it is still a minority that does the ruling.<br />
<br />
Democracy was invented by the ancient Greeks, but in their system you could not vote if you were a woman, or of a different race, or if you were a slave, or you were young, or you didn't own land. So it was rule by what we would call a minority. However, the "show of hands" was the key element that made it democratic. They used to gather in the forum, and discuss policy at great length, and then decide. Even though the electorate was "intellectual" (meaning they didn't watch TV soaps) they still managed to come up with some abysmally idiotic and disastrous decisions.<br />
<br />
Have you noticed how many of the most totalitarian communist states describe themselves as "Democratic Republic" or "People's Democratic Republic?" What do the people living in them think of that? Do they inwardly rebel against the misnomer? Or perhaps they are led to believe that their country really does have a democratic system? We in the West tend to smile at their naivete in falling for such a simple trick.<br />
<br />
But if you examine closely some of these states, you will see that in fact they do have elections, in which candidates run for office, and one is voted for by people in his local area, and takes a seat in a parliament. Surely this is democracy? Is this democracy or not?<br />
<br />
Some would say no, it is a sham, because people's votes can never change the system, because the totalitarian government stays in power, regardless of the change of faces of the deputies, which is merely a cosmetic change. So it's not <b>real</b> democracy, is it?<br />
<br />
So we infer that the people living under those regimes may well be under a delusion that they live in a democratic state.<br />
<br />
It was when I reached this point in the argument that a sudden thought occurred to me. We who live in the "free" democracies of the West are different because we really do have a free democracy, don't we? But if it was in fact a totalitarian regime <b>disguised</b> as a free democracy, how would we know?<br />
<br />
In other words, how can we, in the "free" democracies, ever know for sure that we are not in exactly the same situation in relation to the ruling power as are the inhabitants of the "People's Democratic Republics?"Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6674485588620043552.post-84996224205696964532010-11-01T18:35:00.000+00:002010-11-01T18:35:49.182+00:00The Uniformity of NatureThe Uniformity of Nature is a presumption that the future will be like the past. If it is conceded to be a true reflection of reality, it can form the basis of inductive reasoning. Thus, we can make plans to get up and go to work tomorrow morning, because we can make the reasonable assumption that today will be the same as yesterday, or at least as much like it as to render it unnecessary to consider the differences. Actually in this example, it would be more accurate to say that tomorrow will be the same as the corresponding day last week. But the principle is the same.<br />
<br />
When one considers this presumption closely, there seems no particular reason why it should be so. Why should nature not undergo complete and radical changes every five minutes? When the laws of nature and even the names of the days of the week change beyond all recognition? Someone might argue that, if this were to happen, we would notice it happening. However, that argument does not stand, because if our brains and sensory capacities, being part of nature themselves, underwent the same radical changes, our perception of reality might well have the same relational connection to natural events and processes as they have before. So we would be unaware that anything had happened.<br />
<br />
There's another objection also. It is called Goodman's Paradox of Induction. I make no claim to understand it fully, but essentially it says that although we experience Nature as a uniformity over time, it is undeniably true that individual, particular objects do undergo changes. Now if we examine an object and then try to predict its state of being at some future specified time, there is equal support for the hypothesis that at that time it will be the same as now, or the hypothesis that it will be different from now.<br />
<br />
Therefore the presumption of the Uniformity of Nature is not really as helpful as most people would like to think, since the only time it is fulfilled is when it works, and it is unfulfilled when it doesn't. Which leads the philosopher to the following aphorism:<br />
<br />
Don't bother trying to predict the future.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6674485588620043552.post-55832200625696054512010-10-31T18:14:00.000+00:002010-10-31T18:14:20.469+00:00Hermeneutics is Not EasyToday I was intending to say something more about the debate on free will versus determinism, but I got sidetracked by a discussion about hermeneutics. Then I was asked by a "dear friend" to postpone the treatment of free will/determinism until some later time.<br />
<br />
The "hermeneutics" difficulty was caused by the attempt to understand what exactly it was in the first place, since the definition I found merely said it was the science of textual interpretation. I would have said that every time we read anything, we are involved in interpretation, so that the question arises as to how we can ever speak of a "separate" science or discipline of hermeneutics. How can we isolate an activity as being distinct from that which we do all the time?<br />
<br />
Besides, and once again, we find the word used to mean several different things. In theology, it refers to the interpretation of sacred texts, many of which are about as obscure and cryptic as it is possible to be, and furthermore, since they are usually old, they are subject to the suspicion of falsification either by deliberate means or by copyist's errors. This seems a reasonable definition of hermeneutics as a distinct activity.<br />
<br />
But apparently, the word "hermeneutics" can also be used to describe the attempt to interpret human behaviour and the workings of human institutions.<br />
<br />
As if that were not bad enough, it is also in some accounts mentioned as being used by existentialists to denote the activity of examining the purpose of life.<br />
<br />
It could be argued that this overloading of a single word with so many different meanings is such as to render it almost useless, particularly as the meanings themselves are anything but sharply defined.<br />
<br />
Perhaps my time would have been better employed if I had, after all, concentrated on the free will/determinism debate. If it had not been for the intervention of my "dear friend" I would have done so today. But I shall return to it, perhaps tomorrow.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6674485588620043552.post-67074135111907208762010-10-30T17:59:00.000+01:002010-10-30T17:59:27.922+01:00Is A Single Definition of Reality Too Much To Ask For?<div style="color: #6aa84f;"><b>Reality</b>: if regarded <span class="IL_AD" id="IL_AD2">from the</span> empirical perspective, this refers to the ordinary world of nature; if regarded from the transcendental perspective, it refers to the transcendent realm of the noumenon.</div><div style="color: #6aa84f;"><span style="color: black;">from <a href="http://www.philosophy-dictionary.org/">http://www.philosophy-dictionary.org/</a></span></div><div style="color: black;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #6aa84f;"><span style="color: black;">I just found this definition of "Reality"</span><span style="color: black;"> and it's just about as helpful as it could possibly be. Did I say helpful? Of course I meant unhelpful. I don't mean this as a criticism of whoever was the anonymous lexicographer who wrote it. Only that it is not one definition, but two masquerading as one. It seems ironic that this should be so. We associate the world reality with solidness, lack of ambiguity, and all those other straightforward qualities</span><span style="color: black;"> - and yet</span><span style="color: black;"> it seems we are not to have the luxury of a single cosy definition.</span></div><div style="color: #6aa84f;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #6aa84f;"><span style="color: black;">Which one to choose? Most people I guess would choose the first. Naturally I would choose the second, and more especially because of that very reason. If most people choose a particular way of viewing reality, that seems an excellent reason to reject it. After all, if you look around, it hasn't done them much good, has it?</span></div><div style="color: #6aa84f;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #6aa84f;"><span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: black;">The re</span><span style="color: black;">al world is the world that exists beyond appearances. The observer is the creator of the universe. That is an axiomatic statement. If I had to climb down from that position, I would only descend as far as to say that the observer is the <b>co-creator</b> of the universe.</span></div><div style="color: #6aa84f;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #6aa84f;"><span style="color: black;">Who is the partner in this co-creation? This is difficult to answer, not because there is any difficulty in formulating the notion, but because most of the words used to describe it are so heavily loaded with historical accretions of meaning as to render them almost useless for rational debate. Many of my readers will remember the ruckus that ensued after I used the word "God" in this context. For this reason I always avoid using the word whenever possible, unless my interlocutor demonstrates a clear understanding of its use in a Berkeleyan sense.</span></div><div style="color: #6aa84f;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #6aa84f;"><span style="color: black;">Well, not <b>exactly</b> a Berkeleyan sense, although not far away.</span></div><div style="color: #6aa84f;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #6aa84f;"><span style="color: black;">But such a situation is all too rare. </span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6674485588620043552.post-64488874671890545432010-10-29T18:54:00.000+01:002010-10-29T18:54:24.822+01:00What is Dialectic?<div style="color: #38761d;"><b>dialectic</b> (n): discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation.</div><br />
This is a very famous philosophical technique. I say philosophical, but it would be more accurate to describe it as a <b>literary</b> technique, since it is used by philosophers for the writing of philosophy, rather than for actually doing it.<br />
<br />
It's famous because it was used by Plato all the time in his many books, which have since become the cornerstone, or perhaps you could say, virtually the entire edifice, of Western philosophy.<br />
<br />
Plato's main character, Socrates, disputes with a selection of rival philosophers, and invariably wins. For this he uses the so-called "Socratic technique" although it could just as aptly be called the "annoying technique." He cunningly questions his opponents, pretending to be ignorant, in order to reveal fatal flaws in their thinking.<br />
<br />
One wonders how these people fell for it every time.<br />
<br />
And after Socrates had begun to work his method, the opponent all too often surrendered meekly, but was then forced to go the distance.<br />
<br />
For example, in the Republic, Glaucon, after making a fairly bright start and putting across his opinions at great length, gets reduced, in the latter two-thirds of the book, to a rather pathetic figure, whose only contribution is, "Yes, Socrates," "No, of course not, Socrates," or "Undoubtedly, Socrates." It's true that Socrates views and analysis are definitely of the killer variety, but you would hope that Glaucon could have put up a bit more of a struggle. After all, this was his one chance in history to be in the spotlight.<br />
<br />
Of course, it's always possible that he really did exactly that, but Plato, being naturally biased towards his teacher, censored it out, after Glaucon had provided the raw material which Socrates could then rip to pieces.<br />
<br />
Philosophy, like history, is written by the winning side.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6674485588620043552.post-79026378545865734412010-10-28T18:39:00.000+01:002010-10-28T18:39:28.481+01:00Why Bother With Meta-Ethics?<b style="color: #6aa84f;">meta-ethics</b><span style="color: #6aa84f;"> Branch of philosophical ethics concerned with the meaning of moral propositions and the grounds upon which moral judgments are to be justified. Meta-ethical theories typically offer an account of moral language and its uses together with an explanation of the logical relations between assertions of fact and value.</span> from <a href="http://www.philosophypages.com/">http://www.philosophypages.com/</a><br />
<br />
For me, the addition of the prefix <b>meta-</b> to virtually any word is always going to cause a lot of excitement. It presupposes that we will be transported from the everyday world to take up at least a temporary residence in a far more interesting realm that exists beyond the appearance of the humdrum life of our daily routine.<br />
<br />
I would like to live there forever.<br />
<br />
Meta-ethics is an enormously important subject. One might even say THE most important of all branches (or meta-branches) of philosophy.<br />
<br />
For how many times every day, every hour, every second, do we see two or more fools arguing about what is good, what is bad, what is right, what is wrong, and never realizing that their entire discussion is utterly futile. Why is it futile?<br />
<br />
Because they have not taken the trouble to notice that each of them has a different interpretation of those words, good, bad, right, wrong, and so they will perpetually be, by definition, arguing at cross purposes. Their arguments will never meet, they will never <b>engage</b>.<br />
<br />
However, this foregoing fact is not always enough to prevent the disputants from engaging, in the sense that they come to blows over their absurd excuses for argued debate. And we've seen that happen often enough too.<br />
<br />
We are of course not talking here about politicians, who are nearly all crooks, and of whom the majority (close to all of them) are beneath contempt. At least we are talking about people who have some measure of sincerity, albeit of the foolish kind.<br />
<br />
Notice how we gave simple words as the examples - good, bad, right, wrong. People mistakenly believe it to be the complicated words that give trouble, but this is not so. In fact, it is almost always the simple words that give trouble in this context, because everyone believes they know what those words mean.<br />
<br />
Even if, all too frequently, they don't.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6674485588620043552.post-13363163839233297212010-09-24T06:31:00.000+01:002010-09-24T06:31:34.953+01:00Nature or IdealismI had been involved in many distractions, and was either unable or let's just say reluctant to write. School has of course taken up a great deal of time and of attention but there have been some adventures also. Perhaps I will get around to relating some of them at some later time, but not now I think.<br />
<br />
It really is a question of how the writing goes when once it begins. With this kind of writing exercise or should I say project, one never knows at the beginning how it will turn out in the end. Decisions are made as and when they occur. For example, I have just been thinking that it might be a good idea to avoid as much as possible the use of punctuation, which tends to interrupt the flow of the message, and lead to a jerky prose style. However, naturally, one should never deliberately flout the rules of good grammatical style for a mere idea.<br />
<br />
This leads on to the main point of this article. The conflict between nature and idealism. As many of you will know, I am a firm believer in nature over idealism. Of course, this needs to be explained, and again, of course, this is partly what this blog is all about, in its totality.<br />
<br />
The reason it needs to be explained is because the words nature and idealism have almost as many different meanings as the number of people who use them. Fortunately however, there are not too many people who actually do use such words, because most people do not think. I mean they do not think at all. They react, they do as they are told, they follow the herd. This is an observable fact.<br />
<br />
Back to the dichotomy. Nature/idealism. Actually, some one might argue that instead of nature it should be named naturalism, but I hate that word, I detest it. So nature/idealism. Now those readers who have any kind of background in the religions which revere the Book, that is, the Bible, as it's often called, will be aware that the foundational creation myth in that tradition is that of a Garden, wherein mankind, embodied in the persons of Adam and Eve, lived a life of pure joy and simplicity and innocence in a beautiful natural garden that was tended and cared for by God. However this was not to last, because of the introduction of ideas. Their idealism, their belief that they could think for themselves, their independence was what caused all the problems that came later. So mankind's idealism is the cause of all the world's woes. The placing of an idea above the teachings of nature.<br />
<br />
As Europe descends once again into civil war, this time maybe the last and most enduring one of all, and America is on the brink of ceasing to exist as a nation, and these things happening as a result of the crass incompetence, treachery and stupidity of politicians in what are fondly believed to be "democratic" countries, it is a legitimate question to ask, is it not now time for each and every person to make the decision in their own life to return to nature, and to abandon once and for all the destructive adherence to ideas and ideologies which has led us to the situation we now are in.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6674485588620043552.post-53258521318921696242010-05-17T08:21:00.004+01:002010-05-17T20:17:43.207+01:00Freedom of Choice - Does It Exist?I was asked to write something about the subject of "Freedom of Choice." I have taken rather a long time to get around to doing it, though, so I guess the original request is now forgotten, but here it is anyway.<br /><br />This whole question of Free Will and Determinism has been discussed many times throughout the centuries since it was first debated and codified by the great philosophers of Ancient Greece. So I won't waste time rehearsing the different arguments pro and con. These can easily be found by googling Free Will Determinism. All I will say is that I believe the Ancient Greek thinkers were wrong since they based their argument on a false premise. No, I need to change that. The Ancient Greeks were not wrong, since they were talking about the <span style="font-style: italic;">appearance</span> of things (how it seems to us that things are) but those who <span style="font-style: italic;">followed</span> the ancients, who <span style="font-style: italic;">interpreted</span> their thinking, are the ones who got it wrong, and distorted the sublime Greek view into the mundane "flat-earth" reduction that we have today as our basis for our viewpoint of reality. It is this distortion which causes the pathological problems which are all too often the accompaniment to any examination of the debate, and indeed many or even most of the ills of our society (wars, economic disasters etc) are the result of this wrong-headed thinking about free will.<br /><br />In one sense, then, there is and <span style="font-style: italic;">can never be</span> any free will. By the same token, there can never be any determinism either. It's like when you see a character in a play on stage or in a movie. The character appears to have free will, as he or she makes choices, but in reality the character's choices and words and actions are completely fixed and determined beforehand by the writer of the script. Every time the play or movie is run, the words are the same.<br /><br />So there is no free will, only determinism? No, because the choices have been made by the writer. The character has their every move determined by the writer, and the character is in a sense, a projection of the writer. The writer is wearing a mask. This is the <span style="font-style: italic;">persona</span>. The mask is assumed by the writer, who thus creates his/her own reality.<br /><br />Thus, everything that we do or be or are, is the determined result of our own free choices. But it is only a cause of confusion when or if we ourselves absurdly to choose to confuse the <span style="font-style: italic;">ego</span> self (the persona) with our <span style="font-style: italic;">real</span> self (our inner being).Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6674485588620043552.post-3894802141936328762010-05-15T19:19:00.002+01:002010-05-15T19:26:52.592+01:00Comments in ChineseI've been getting quite a few comments on this blog recently that are written in Chinese. This seems strange to me, because the blog posts are written of course in English, so you would expect the comments to be posted in the same language.<br /><br />Not that I mind really. People are entitled to post in any language they want, so I don't wish to curtail that freedom. It just seems odd.<br /><br />Presumably whoever it is doing the commenting is able to read English, so it begs the question of why they don't comment in kind.<br /><br />Am I missing something?<br /><br />I could put it into Google Translate, but I can't really be bothered. Besides, the experiences I've had in translating Chinese into English have usually left me feeling none the wiser for taking the trouble. I'm told that the Chinese language is somewhat pictorial, and the rendering in English looks very strange.<br /><br />Is it spam? Maybe...Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6674485588620043552.post-86191209929278007432010-04-12T08:46:00.004+01:002010-04-12T09:20:22.350+01:00The Power of AuthorityMany of us do not have a clue what to think.<br /><br />Not so very long ago there was a widespread belief that the Moon was made of green cheese. Then this was dispelled when American astronauts went there, at enormous expense, and brought back some rock. So we believed that it was not made of green cheese after all, but of rock. Because they brought the rock back, that was a proof.<br /><br />Simple, isn't it?<br /><br />Well, not quite. I don't know about you, but I've never actually seen the rocks they brought back with them. I've seen pictures of them. That's not quite the same thing, is it? And even if I did see them, how do I know that these rocks I see were in fact the ones that came from the Moon? Or even that there were any at all?<br /><br />This brings us to the Power of Authority. You could ask, why should I disbelieve that the rocks are real? Well of course, they are real rocks, but the question is, are they real moonrocks? Perhaps I should not disbelieve they are real. After all, they were brought back by NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, a respectable organisation of the United States government. They would not lie to me, would they? Why should they lie?<br /><br />This argument is very powerful. Why indeed should I be skeptical? The scientists at NASA have a professional duty to tell the truth about their findings, so why should they lie?<br /><br />But I think we now see that the situation is not as simple as we may have imagined. Because my acceptance that the rocks in question actually came from the Moon, hinges on one thing only. My trust in the organisation NASA and its team of scientists. Their integrity. Only on belief and trust, not on proof in any rigorous sense of that word.<br /><br />Nothing has been proved to me by science. I have not been given access to the Moon rock, to conduct any analyses of it. And most of us would be unable to perform any analysis even if we had. So we accept the authority of the scientists.<br /><br />Accepting the authority of the government and of the scientific community is something that we are all constrained to do, for that reason. And it works fine, doesn't it?<br /><br />Until we find out that those authorities have told us even so little as only one lie.<br /><br />As soon as that happens, then everything the government and the acientists have told us is thrown into doubt. The Power of Authority is lost.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6674485588620043552.post-53813722962244040592010-04-03T18:34:00.007+01:002010-04-03T21:42:28.568+01:00The Decline of Religion in the West - Should We Be Worrying About It?Anyway, to the actual discussion of a religious theme.<br /><br />I was struck recently by a discussion, or more accurately, a whole raft of discussions of the type which surface from time to time, in which some people were lamenting the decline in the moral compass and the ethical leadership of the church (or Church, depending on how you want to describe it).<br /><br />The argument goes that, at least in the West, the breakdown of social and moral values is a result of the failure of the church, not only to keep its congregations in their seats, but also to offer clear guidelines of behaviour etc to the ignorant populace (that's us) based on the revealed truths of scripture and the wisdom handed down by tradition.<br /><br />It's a great shame the church does not get its act together, because if it did, there would not be so much trouble in the world.<br /><br />According to another school of thought, there is a slightly massive flaw in the above argument.<br /><br />If we suppose God to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all those other all-things that have been attributed in the past, then, in one sense, it doesn't matter at all what we do or think or say, because it will all work its way into God's Divine Plan anyway. And even if it didn't, at any point in history, God can simply say, "Right OK, that's enough. Stop whatever you're doing, because from now on, we're doing it my way!"<br /><br />So there's no mileage to be gained in worrying about declining congregations or declining moral values in society, since it's not up to us anyway. The True Believer, then, can just get on with the business of rejoicing about the fact that, however things may look, the world we see is the absolute perfection of the best of all possible worlds.<br /><br />Followers of the first view would respond that maybe that is so, but that's not what God intended us to do at all. We're supposed to work towards bringing about the Kingdom of Heaven through the exercise of our own free will, and if that means we have to worry a bit, that's just the way things are.<br /><br />Of these two factions, I have to say I lean rather towards the second one (don't worry about it), but only because I enjoy just having a good time rather than getting into a major stress all the time. But I do accept that's not a particularly defensible philosophical viewpoint.<br /><br />As to which one of the above two factions is correct, I don't really have a clue, so I'll leave it for you to decide.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6674485588620043552.post-5604204036118643882010-04-03T17:51:00.009+01:002010-04-03T20:18:18.068+01:00Philosophy of Religion - Meta-Discussion Following Extreme HibernationThe Official Line is that I've been hibernating, in case you wanted to know. And yes, I know that the -hiber- part of the word hibernating gives the unmistakable clue that it takes place in the winter, and it's now well and truly into spring, at least in my part of the world.<br /><br />I guess I'm just a late riser.<br /><br />Hope you all didn't miss me too much. And if you did, well, your waiting is now at an end. I'm writing again. As to how long I'll continue to write... that's, as they say, in the lap of the gods.<br /><br />Speaking of which, and as it's almost Easter Day, I thought I would have another go at a religious theme for a blog post.<br /><br />I have to say that I approach this task with a deal of trepidation, because the last time I tried this, I found myself in the centre of a massive storm debate on BlogCatalog where there was lots of ranting and raving (not, I hasten to add, by me) and accusation piled on accusation etc etc between the proponents of Creationism on the one side, and those of Evolution on the other. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing was about the extent of it, if memory serves.<br /><br />Anyway, what happened was that the discussion got so huge and ponderous and rather personal amongst some of the combatants, that the moderators at BlogCatalog lost patience with the whole business and zapped the entire thread into instant oblivion! Such is the internet. Now you see it, now you don't.<br /><br />Of course, this led to some people posting on other threads about how the hosts were abusing their power, suppressing free speech etc etc but by this time everyone was more or less played out and exhausted so they didn't really get anywhere with their protests.<br /><br />If I remember rightly, it all started with me writing a re-hash of the <a target="_blank" href="http://filosofia08uk.blogspot.com/2008/10/ontological-argument-for-existence-of.html">Ontological Argument</a> of St Anselm or some such old philosopher of the Middle Ages,and posting the question, "Does God Exist?" A fair question you would have thought, but apparently too emotive for modern minds to wrestle with and at the same time avoid the kind of explosions which can bring an entire community to the brink of civil strife.<br /><br />You might have imagined it to be such an impossibly and hopelessly dull subject, completely disconnected with anything much in the real world (or should I say, the "real" world) that nobody much would have been tempted to join it, at least with any great degree of enthusiasm. But apparently this was not the case, and a more exciting and indeed violent debate could hardly have been wished for.<br /><br />Until its sudden destruction. A metaphor for our times, perhaps?<br /><br />But I digress.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6674485588620043552.post-71121633031776673292009-09-13T19:27:00.000+01:002009-09-13T19:29:41.066+01:00What We Can Learn From A GooseI've just been for a walk in the park. While I was there I sat for a while at one of the picnic tables, and decided to spend some time watching the geese and the ducks.<br /><br />Not much was happening. They were all sitting dozing or preening on the grass near the water's edge. The geese (as I discovered later from Google - I'm not very well-versed in types of animals!) were Canada geese and the ducks were all Mallards. They are extremely tame and accustomed to the proximity of humans so I was able to sit quite close to them without alarming them.<br /><br />It occurred to me that some people might think of them only as a rather pleasant choice for lunch, but then wiser counsels prevailed when I remembered that there is a very high quality supermarket within 100 metres of the spot, where you can get duck or goose or anything you want, ready to cook. That would seem the obvious choice, at least for most of us who live in the so-called "civilised" world, for whom the thought of having to kill and pluck their own goose would be quite a gruesome prospect.<br /><br />While I was pondering on this, I noticed something I had never known about before. As you are probably aware, the Canada goose has very dark, almost black, colouring on its head, and the eye, which is also dark, does not make a great contrast with the rest of the head. However, when the goose shuts its eye, for example to doze off, the situation changes quite dramatically. It is the lower eyelid that moves, which looks strange enough, but the astonishing thing is that the eyelid is a pure white colour. This makes a marked contrast with the rest of the face. I can think of no reasonable explanation for this, except maybe that it is for the protection of the goose against predators. Perhaps when the eye is shut it looks like it is open, which might possibly make a predator hesitate for a minute. I just don't know.<br /><br />I noticed also that the Mallard duck has the same eyelid arrangement, although not so strikingly as the Canada goose.<br /><br />This led me on to thinking about what it must be like to actually BE a goose or a duck. I spend a lot of time wondering about what it is like being something or someone else, so this is not completely surprising. I would certainly miss being able to scratch my ear (do geese have ears?), or ride a bicycle. And when was the last time you heard about a goose logging on to the World Wide Web (though they DO have webbed feet - ha ha sorry about that one!) But anyway, a goose would not miss those delights, never having experienced them.<br /><br />However, if you were a goose, you would have one truly amazing skill that maybe would make up for your lack of opposable thumbs. You would be able to FLY - under your own power and control! And you would be able to land on water! Think of that. Now, be honest, wouldn't that be absolutely awesome?<br /><br />Why am I writing this? Well, as I am a philosopher I think it is great if we can learn something from any experience, so here are some things I learned, and maybe they will be useful to you as well.<br /><br />1. Canada geese have pure white upside-down eyelids.<br /><br />2. It is worth taking the time and trouble to REALLY look at things.<br /><br />3. We probably focus too much on the things we cannot do, especially when we compare ourselves to other people. Instead we would do better to focus on the amazing things we could do, if we only tried.<br /><br />4. If you want to survive in this world, it is a good idea to try to avoid being tasty when eaten. If you cannot manage this, then try to live somewhere where they have a decent supermarket nearby.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6674485588620043552.post-21400938770263989102009-07-16T07:16:00.003+01:002009-07-16T07:44:44.417+01:00Moral Philosophy Can Get You Into TroubleMy favourite branch of philosophy is metaphysics. For those who do not know, metaphysics can probably without too much oversimplification be described as the study of how our perception and knowledge of the universe comes to us. Physics is the study of the physical world - how it works, what it is made of. Metaphysics looks at what is behind the perceived reality. Or more accurately, what is<em> beyond</em> it, since the prefix <em>meta</em> literally means beyond.<br /><br />There are many different theories of metaphysics, some of them quite weird. Most people are not in the least bit interested in metaphysics. And I have to admit that even though I like the subject, I can not really blame them for thinking as they do. Some of it is quite difficult to get your head around. Triviality can be so much more fun, and more immediately satisfying.<br /><br />So when you interact as a philosopher with other people, you find yourself straying more and more into the realms of <em>moral</em> philosophy. Such questions as "Is it ever right to tell a lie?", or "Should we allow children in Africa to starve?" are more interesting to most people than, for example, "Does our perception of the world subsist in <em>a priori</em> or <em>a posteriori</em> data?"<br /><br />For me it is absolutely clear which are the most interesting questions.<br /><br />Besides, moral philosophy can often get you into trouble. People tend to read their own agendas into what you are saying. This happens particularly in discussions on the internet. People try to "read between the lines", in other words, they try to find out what your underlying, unspoken reason is for saying what you say, or for bringing up a question. Maybe you are even doing that now? Maybe you are thinking, Why is filosofia talking about this? What is her ulterior motive?<br /><br />Usually people conclude that you must be trying to sell them something, and that you are at any moment going to start your "pitch". Or even worse, especially in moral philosophy, they sometimes think you are going to start trying to convert them to your religion. Even more if you actually happen to mention the words religion or god, which, after all, are sometimes likely to crop up when discussing issues of morality.<br /><br />It then can happen that a person replies in the discussion, not to what you actually said, but to what they <em>thought</em> you said, which can lead to some amusing and quite heated, but ultimately pointless, exchanges.<br /><br />I usually say to people, let's try to just concentrate on the words that are said, and not look for hidden meanings all the time. But a lot of the time it does no good. People think you mean something by it.<br /><br />So that's why I prefer metaphysics.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6674485588620043552.post-45040754264838287912009-07-13T12:51:00.005+01:002009-07-14T20:00:19.941+01:00What Are You Like?Some have asked me what I am like, by which they no doubt mean the kind of surface attributes and "facts and figures" that are considered so important by many people. The question is a foolish question. A person's true identity is their inner self, which they may choose or not choose to show. It is revealed to a great extent in what they say, in their philosophy, if you like.<br /><br />The Philosopher is able to maintain control over revelation. Thus the Philosopher is able to allow us to see only so much of her true nature as she wishes us to perceive. The rest of us, to a greater or lesser extent, allow our true self to be perceived by default.<br /><br />Those who ask about superficial qualities reveal instead their own superficiality.<br /><br />But I can reveal that when I was young, I was like Alice. There are many different images of Alice, so you may have invoked in your imagination one of the images an artist or film-maker of the past invoked in HIS imagination. But there was a REAL Alice, and she it is, and there is a picture for you to see.<br /><br />Now we must be clear that this blog is about philosophy, yet I have been talking about books. I do not intend this blog to become a book blog, but I have to mention a book sometimes. Besides, my last post was about "NOT a book" so in the interests of balanced reporting, we must now have a post about a book. More accurately, two books, since we want to have books in credit, not overdrawn. As they sometimes are from the library. No, that's not overdrawn, but overDUE.<br /><br />Therefore for those who want to know what I am like, I will tell you about two books (novels) which I think are beautiful in their different ways. They are not necessarily my favourite books but they could be. They are certainly not my exclusive books, but they might suffice at a pinch. They will show you that which I think is beautiful, but they are two among many beautiful things.<br /><br />If you are in any way a similar person to me, then you will probably love them. But you know I don't do book reviews? So you have to read them to find out anything at all about them, other than that you can trust me you can read them confidently.<br /><br />And also this clue: <em>One of them is about someone who is like me, and the other one is about someone who I like</em>.<br /><br />They are:<br /><br /><strong>In A Good Light</strong><br />by <strong>Clare Chambers</strong><br /><br /><strong>The Crimson Petal and the White</strong><br />by <strong>Michel Faber</strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6674485588620043552.post-23503548297846452782009-07-12T19:07:00.003+01:002009-07-12T19:23:45.799+01:00This Blog Did NOT Come From A BookSome readers have said they are reminded when they read this blog of a book called Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder. In the book, a 14 year old schoolgirl called Sophie one day begins to receive letters from a man she has never met before, teaching her about philosophy. They begin a secret relationship and the book develops from there.<br /><br />If you think I am going to tell you the whole story you are mistaken. You will just have to buy the book and read it for yourself!<br /><br />The time has come to say that I myself have never received any secret letters about philosophy. Not from anyone, male of female, old or young. So I am not like the girl in the book, at least in that respect. But I do love philosophy. (In some ways, the previous sentence contains a redundancy, since the word philosophy means love of knowledge [or wisdom], and so the sentence is saying, I love love of wisdom. But you know what I mean!)<br /><br />The other thing I need to say is that I had not even read the book, before someone mentioned it in a comment on this blog. That's funny isn't it? I have since read it and found it enjoyable. The reason I had not read it was because I believed it to be yet another of the seemingly endless number of novels set in World War Two. Which I have already had quite enough of at school.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6674485588620043552.post-24588065707538963762009-06-09T17:46:00.003+01:002009-06-10T12:41:34.080+01:00Within or Without The RulesThis is intended to be a very short post, since I have no idea how long the WiFi network (of which I am currently a parasite) will remain up.<br /><br />I would like to present my heartfelt and sincere apologies for my recent indolence and silence, which has prompted some commenters to speculate on the possibility of my actual lack of existence (as opposed to the virtual lack of existence which is of course the birthright of the true Philosopher.) Thank you for your kind and fascinating comments. Some of these appeared during my lengthy absence, and I have only now had the opportunity to publish them. I hope you will forgive the fact that they were in Googlesque limbo for so long.<br /><br />As some of you may know by now, my place of residence is the United Kingdom. Recently we have witnessed a political corruption scandal involving members of the national parliament. All the major parties were implicated in the scandal, not only the government representatives. Many of my readers will have learned that I have little interest in politics, and even less in economics, so let it suffice to say briefly that the corruption involved MPs expenses claims. There were some outrageous examples, such as one member who put in a claim for the taxpayer to refund the expense of having his moat cleaned (yes, moat - as in castle!)<br /><br />Some of the culprits argued that the claims they put in, while morally unacceptable, were nonetheless within the rules. Of course these rules had been made by the MPs themselves. The idea behind them is that the MPs should be allowed to claim the expenses for a second home, since their own home may be a long distance away from Parliament.<br /><br />Anyway, if you want to know more about the facts, you only have to consult some of the recent newspaper stories on the issue, on the relevant websites. The reason I mention it is because what struck me most about the scandal was that the public seemed surprised that politicians should descend to such degrading money-grubbing behaviour. Is that not indeed what the word "politician" means?<br /><br />People who live in other countries will no doubt marvel at the fact that the British seemed to be so totally unaware of this basic fact of life. Not only that, but the British seem to have very short memories too. There have been corruption scandals aplenty throughout UK history, on a par with those of almost every other country in the world. Could it be that the British are just too trusting of those who have power over them, or do they just enjoy living in a dream world of wishful thinking?<br /><br />So now we come to the question: If some contemplated course of action is within the rules, does that mean it is always right? And if it is against the rules, does that mean it is always wrong?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6674485588620043552.post-53334331585373671302009-01-19T12:45:00.005+00:002009-01-19T13:03:31.858+00:00How To Get The Best Out Of Internet ForumsI've been spending quite a lot of time on forums lately. I'm beginning to wonder why, really. They are a monumental waste of time, if you stop to think about it. But at the same time they are kind of addictive.<br /><br />I don't know about you but i'm a serial forumist. What does that mean? Well it means that I join a forum and then start to get deeply involved with its discussions. Spend hours of each day on that one forum, to the exclusion of all else, even other forums. Then I seem to get a backlash where I begin to detest that one and all it stands for. Then I find another one and the same cycle begins again. See what I mean, serial forumist.<br /><br />Or perhaps the phrase should be "serial monoforumist" to distinguish me from the other kind. The "polyforumists". These are the people who will probably go on to be extremely successful in later life. They can organise themselves so that every day (in every way) they visit each one of a systematic portfolio of different forums, make a small but deeply significant contribution, and then leave. I am of course full of admiration and envy of these people but I haven't got the smallest chance of ever emulating their feats of endurance. I would just find it dreary in the extreme, going through all those links, waiting for each one to open, etc etc. And then forcing yourself to leave just when things are getting interesting! No, I wish I could, but it's just not me.<br /><br />Now tell me, what type of forumist are you?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6674485588620043552.post-304002940320250182008-12-29T19:30:00.005+00:002008-12-29T20:17:20.856+00:00Should Rich People Give Away Money, and How Much?Many wealthy people give vast sums of money away to charity. From a moral point of view, are they doing something worthy? Should we applaud them and praise them for this?<br /><br />There is no doubt that the large amounts given away by such people as Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet (who I've never heard of, but someone said he gives lots away) or historical figures such as Carnegie or Rockefeller, can go a long way towards relieving the suffferings of the poor, and providing them with opportunities in life. And these acts of charity get a lot of attention from the media. But we are here concerned with the moral aspect. How worthy are these acts of charity by these fabulously wealthy men?<br /><br />I want to try a philosophy thought experiment. Before I do, maybe it should be said that, often, a wealthy person can trade off a charitable gift against a tax break, so his loss is not really as much as it seems. But to keep things simple in the thought experiment, let's allow the rich men to have their tax break and just look at it in simple terms?<br /><br /><strong>A Thought Experiment</strong><br /><br />You have ten dollars. I have ten billion dollars. We each give $1 to charity. Our contributions are exactly the same amount. From a moral point of view, which is the most worthy?<br /><br />Yours. You may need all your $10 dollars to feed your family, so $1 is a big sacrifice. I will not miss $1, I won't even notice it.<br /><br />Again, you have ten dollars. I have ten billion dollars. You give $1, which is 10% of your total wealth. I give one billion dollars, which is 10% of my total wealth. So we have given the same proportion of our wealth away. I have given away ONE BILLION DOLLARS, a staggering amount of money! From a moral point of view, surely now, my contribution is more worthy than yours? Or at least, it's equally worthy, isn't it?<br /><br />No. Because you have only $9 left to feed your family, but I have $9 billion. I think I'll probably manage OK on that.<br /><br />Again, you have ten dollars. I have ten billion dollars. How can I make a contribution to charity that will, from a moral point of view, be the equal of yours?<br /><br />Could it be that, in order to equal in worthiness your contribution of one dollar, I have to give $9,999,999,991?<br /><br />Yes, because, in a charitable contribution, what really counts is not how much you give, but how <strong><em>much you have left</em></strong>. If I am left with only $9, I will feel the same pain and worry as you, so only then will I have made the same sacrifice as you.<br /><br />So the acclaim that is given to rich men by the newspapers and the network news channels, when they give away minute portions of their fortunes, is totally misdirected. I'm not saying they should not give money away; I think it's good that they do. I'm not saying either that they should leave themselves with only nine dollars. What I'm saying is that it needs to be put into perspective. When they make these admittedly huge gifts, they should not praised and acclaimed as though they were especially virtuous and worthy men, as though the size of their giving made them automatically worthy of praise.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6674485588620043552.post-52954303672480167342008-12-28T17:48:00.007+00:002008-12-28T18:26:19.286+00:00Patience Does Not Seem to Be One of the Seven VirtuesHere are some random thoughts that have arisen from the discussion that started on my <a href="http://filosofia08uk.blogspot.com/2008/12/patience-is-it-really-virtue.html">previous post</a> about whether or not patience is a virtue, as the saying goes.<br /><br />First thought: As I hinted in the other post, the word virtue comes from the Latin <em>vir</em>, meaning a man. So, for the ancient Romans, the good qualities of a person that we now call virtues were those qualities which go to make a good man. Women, of course, had no place in society, no vote, no rights, and they were legally deprived of citizenship, being subject entirely to the whim of their father or husband. So the qualities were those of an honourable man, and that is why the word has come to us as "virtue".<br /><br />The notions of honour in Roman society were actually quite similar to those of the Samurai, which many people in the present day seem to admire, often at the same time criticising the honour system of the West, which comes to us from the Romans. But that's another matter altogether.<br /><br />In the first few centuries of the Common Era, when Christianity was spreading fast across the Roman Empire, it began to be accepted that there were just seven virtues. They were:<br /><br /><strong>Prudence<br />Temperance<br />Justice<br />Fortitude<br />Faith<br />Hope<br />Love</strong><br /><br />The last three were considered to be religious virtues, and the first four were called cardinal virtues. Why cardinal virtues? Because there were those who enjoyed the idea of a system, and would look for all kinds of correspondences in everything. So they associated each of the four virtues with a point of the compass, North, South, East, and West. The four virtues also were associated with the elements Earth, Air, Fire, and Water. Also each of them was associated with three of the star-signs of Astrology, and further with certain of the cards in the so-called Major Arcana of the Tarot pack.<br /><br />I mention these purely as historical curiosities. If anyone wants to believe that these associations are valid, you are more than welcome to, but personally I think they go just a little bit too far!<br /><br />The last one of the "religious" virtues, Love, needs some explaining. It used to be known as "charity", but this came from an over-literal translation in the King James Bible of the word <em>caritas</em>. This word means love, in a <strong>caring</strong> sort of way, note the similarity. Our word charity means alms-giving, and this sense of alms-giving is not really present in the Bible passage in question, which is from 1 Corinthians 13. This is the passage that a lot of people get read out at their wedding.<br /><br />It's not only that last one that needs explaining though. All the others, in one way or another, need to be examined carefully if we are to decide whether or not we are leading the virtuous life by keeping to them...<br /><br />The thing is, I'm running out of time on this post, so if anyone else would like to start the ball rolling, so to speak, feel free!<br /><br />Maybe could start by wondering why is it that PATIENCE does not appear on the list?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6674485588620043552.post-41273439023892884932008-12-26T19:49:00.004+00:002008-12-26T20:38:23.735+00:00Patience - is it really a virtue?Patience is a virtue,<br />Possess it if you can,<br />Seldom found in woman,<br />Never found in man.<br /><br />I found this quote on Google. It's anonymous, as far as I know. Sounds ok, doesn't it? But is it true?<br /><br />Most of us nowadays, when we consider doing something, like buying a product, joining a club, trying a new diet, or maybe cultivating virtue, tend to ask ourselves: What's in it for me? (Be honest now!) So perhaps we should look at exactly what virtue means before going any further...<br /><br />The word <strong>virtue</strong> comes to us via Old French, from the Latin <em>virtus</em>. This word in Latin means manliness or courage, and it in turn is from the word <em>vir</em>, which means a man. Our word <strong>virile</strong> is from the same source. The word <em>virtus</em> also has the meaning of "effectiveness" and we see this use in the word <strong>virtual</strong>. As in "virtual reality", giving the sense of something that has the effect of being real.<br /><br />Ok so far? For the Romans, someone who showed manliness or courage was automatically a good sort of person, so the word <strong>virtue</strong> came to be applied to those qualities that a courageous and manly fellow would have.<br /><br />If you look at the quote at the top though, it seems that patience is a virtue that men don't have at all.<br /><br />Looking a bit further into this, if you look at the word <strong>patience</strong>, you find something even more interesting. It again comes from Latin, <em>patientia</em>, with the original meaning of "endurance". If we look a bit closer we find that the word <strong>passion</strong> comes from the same root word. Also the Greek word <em>pathos</em> (suffering) is from the same root meaning, and this one comes into words like "sympathy" (suffering together). The word <strong>passion</strong> tends to have a sexy sort of meaning for most people today, but in former times, it meant suffering. So for example, there was the Passion of Jesus on the cross, meaning the suffering.<br /><br />I found another quote, this time from someone called Lyman Adams (who I have to confess I never heard of before), which goes, "Patience is passion tamed." This seems a bit absurd now. Rather like saying "Green is green".<br /><br />Here's another quote I found. "Patience can't be acquired overnight. It is just like building up a muscle. Every day you need to work on it."<br /><br />(I think that's enough quotes for one day.) But the question is: Why should you bother to acquire patience?<br /><br />Well first, there are many situations where you just won't get what you want right this instant, or even this year. So why stress about it? Have patience! <br /><br />Sometimes, to keep a good relationship going, you need to practise the art of forbearance, not getting angry with your partner or parents or children, even when you have good cause to. Have patience!<br /><br />Or when you see the events in the world not really going the way you think they should? Do whatever you can, and hope for the best to come. Have patience!<br /><br />All these situations have got something in them for you to gain if you have patience in them.<br /><br />So what do you think? Patience really is a virtue then?<br /><br />Just one more quote, and this is the last one, I promise!<br /><br />"Patience is something you admire in the driver behind you, but not in the one ahead."Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6674485588620043552.post-18798341852124737812008-12-25T12:37:00.004+00:002008-12-25T12:46:01.738+00:00Attributes of God - A Philosophical DiscussionSomeone asked on a blog discussion forum: "What are the attributes of God?" Needless to say, I joined the discussion, and the following is a partial attempt at an answer to the question.<br /><br />To make sure that no-one misunderstands, I should just say that I'm not here arguing in favour of any religion over any other, and I'm not trying to evangelise or convert anyone. I'm treating the question NOT as a religious one, but as a philosophical one.<br /><br />As usual, it starts with semantics.<br /><br />The word "attribute" refers to a property or characteristic of an object. Many people would argue that the question is meaningless, since God is necessarily beyond all attributes. They would then refer to God by saying all the things that God is not. For example, God is not green, blue, red etc etc, and also God is not colourless and so on. The problem with this approach is that it's a bit negative, as it doesn't say what God actually is.<br /><br />It seems logical to assume we can say (if God exists at all) that God is alive. Some would also say that God is love, although there is a problem with this, due to the slight double meaning of the verb "to be" which can be used to refer to an attribute, or to an identity. If it's the latter meaning, then you can also say "Love is God" which has far-reaching effects in terms of one's religious belief. Best I think to use the phrase with care.<br /><br />The reason why it's necessary to try to avoid attributing any properties to God, is that these will impose a limitation on God, reducing God to the level of a created being. (Of course, it wouldn't actually reduce God, but would reduce our conception of God, or in other words, it would lead to the creation of an idol.) The important point is that God is free from all "earthly" limitations.<br /><br />The interesting part of all this for me, is that the God who is followed by Christians, a very large proportion of the population (and many of them do not seem to be aware of this), chooses voluntarily to accept limitation, in order to share in the sufferings of humanity, by being born on earth in the form of a man, Jesus, an act which is being celebrated all over the world on this very day!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6674485588620043552.post-5972468251078817842008-12-20T18:26:00.005+00:002008-12-20T19:36:09.212+00:00Relativity and Quantum Theory - How to Fit Them Together<a href="http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:b3ZqYmH41-OyHM:http://lh4.ggpht.com/_MGy71evn0TQ/RKolm602ABI/AAAAAAAABC8/iUosI6jtkSE/space002.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 150px; height: 113px;" src="http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:b3ZqYmH41-OyHM:http://lh4.ggpht.com/_MGy71evn0TQ/RKolm602ABI/AAAAAAAABC8/iUosI6jtkSE/space002.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>Many people take the view that quantum theory is somehow weird or impossible, and why do they do this? Because the theory predicts that sometimes a particle will act like it's a wave, or conversely, a wave will act like a particle. This would seem to be a good reason to think of it as a weird theory. That is, until we look a bit closer at what is going on.<br /><br />By the way, we should get rid of the unfortunate inference that people sometimes draw from the apparent weirdness of quantum theory: that because it is a bit strange, it is somehow all right to associate it with any weird speculation you feel like having. Before you know it, you have imported all kinds of stuff which properly belongs in the fairground or the travelling show.<br /><br />Anyway, to summarise the situation of physics, or at least to try in a few words, we are used to the idea of energy travelling from one place to another as a wave form. Anyone who has been to the seaside will know about this. The energy of the sea is transmitted as waves. And what are they waves of? Why, of water, naturally. The water is what scientists call the medium of the waves. The waves cannot exist independently. This is important. To talk of a wave without it being a wave "of" something, is like asking what has happened to my fist when I open up my hand. Or, what is the sound of one hand clapping?<br /><br />A long time ago, scientists found that light and heat and other forms of energy, like radio waves, exhibited wave-like properties. Or, in other words, properties that were best explained by thinking of them as waves. These forms of energy are called electromagnetic radiation. But they asked, what is the medium of these waves? The waves of the sea wave in water, sound is a wave in air, so...?<br /><br />They came up with a substance called the "ether", a mysterious substance more subtle even than air, which necessarily had to exist even in a vacuum (to carry light waves across space). They tried for years to detect the ether, without success. But the ether HAD to exist, or what could the waves exist in?<br /><br />Finally the famous experiment of Michelson and Morley proved beyond any doubt that the ether did not exist. A crisis ensued in the scientific community until Einstein, inspired in part by Michelson-Morley, published his theory of relativity. However, this in some ways made the crisis even worse. At around the same time, the quantum theory was being developed, which showed that electromagnetic radiation consisted of quanta, or bundles of energy, which in a way corresponded to the peaks and troughs of the waves, but instead of being continuous like waves, they were discrete (separate). In fact, in some situations, the behaviour of these quanta of energy was almost like that of particles.<br /><br />Obviously this was a problem. How could energy be, at the same time, a wave AND a particle?<br /><br />But it got worse. Some particles of matter were discovered that behaved exactly like energy bundles, and vice versa. Among the many problems this caused was that relativity predicted that matter cannot travel at the speed of light. But if you have a particle that behaves like it is light, you have a contradiction.<br /><br />I've over-simplified this a lot, of course (because I don't really feel up to writing an entire book tonight) but essentially this is how it was. The two theories, relativity theory and quantum theory, while both true and complete universal theories, nevertheless contradict each other. Einstein, who had worked on the development of both of them, dreamed that one day they would be reconciled in a single Unified Theory, and he hoped to find it, but he never did.<br /><br />Now to come to my point in writing this. Many people have become confused by experiments like the Double-Slit experiment (in a well-known film) into believing that the observer somehow has an influence on the outcome. This has led many to believe that all you need to do is wish for it, and you will have gold beyond your wildest dreams of avarice. They are encouraged by reports (for example, in this very blog right here) of Schrodinger's unfortunate Cat, where the observer decides the cat's fate.<br /><br />These people are taking it all too simplistically. It just does not work like this. The true reason for the contradiction is much more to do with the inadequacy of the models, than with the observer choosing what they want to happen. Note well that Schrodinger, when he opens the box, is a necessary part of the experiment, but he does not CAUSE the cat to die or live.<br /><br />Those who have read Hegel (maybe not many people, I suppose) will perhaps recognise in the opposition of the two theories the workings of the Dialectic, that mysterious truth of metaphysics, which inevitably will lead to the higher Synthesis in the course of time.<br /><br />In the meantime, it's probably best to be patient, and ever so slightly sceptical, and to allow that, as yet, however it may seem, we actually know very little about the universe.<br /><br /><em><strong>"It is better to confess you know nothing than to pretend you know everything."</strong></em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1