Back after a short hiatus

The lack of posts lately will be remedied shortly.  This semester has turned out to be ridiculously busy for me and unfortunately my blogging was necessarily scaled back to focus on my other studies.  Fortunately,  I almost at the top of what was an enormous amount of work, hence a few blog entries that are long overdue are also underway.

 Some brief notes/thoughts

-  I am going to have to continue my intended series comparing scholastic to analytic philosophy at another time.  I don’t know when that time is, so I will edit that last post and leave it as a stand alone entry.

-  I notice that a few posts I wrote last summer have some fresh comments.  I typically don’t respond to posts older than a month or so, mainly because I don’t want to get involved in more discussions/debates than I can handle.  I may start turning comments off older posts in the future, say after 4 weeks, but I have not made my final decision.  As it stands, I am all for the comments to continue on my old posts, but I probably will not jump back into them. 

-  I just got back from the annual meeting for the North Carolina Philosophical Society, where I presented a paper.  I will probably blog about my experience there for my next entry.

-  My current research is on the historical influences on David Hume.  The three main influences I am looking at are occasionalism, nominalism, and the ontology of an idea (in a Lockean sense).  I am mostly focusing on the influence of a Lockean idea for my upcoming paper.  Expect a blog on this as well.

-  I will be taking two courses in Mannheim, Germany this summer!  Specifically, they are two German language courses that will be held at the University of Mannheim.  I got accepted into a summer program there a few weeks back and am really really really looking forward to that!  This should boost my speaking/listening comprehension of the language significantly.  Visiting the graves of a few of my heros will definitely be on my itinerary. 

Is Contemporary Analytic Philosophy a Continuation of Scholastic Philosophy? Part 1.

Is Contemporary Analytic Philosophy a Continuation of Scholastic Philosophy? Part 1.

Yes and No.

I am fascinated by a lot of work in contemporary analytic philosophy, especially analytic metaphysics and philosophy of mind. I also enjoy reading other areas of analytic philosophy and studying its history. Its clarity and precision is nearly unmatched. I think in many respects, the closest predecessor to analytic philosophy is the medieval philosophy of the scholastics. Quite a few philosophers agree with me (an aspiring philosopher). While analytic philosophy is not identical to scholastic, it may be the same kind of philosophy.

So in what respects are they similar? What respects do they differ? Are the differences significant enough to not view analytic as being a continuation of the scholastic tradition?

In the opening chapter of ‘Aquinas On Mind’, Anthony Kenny lays out a compelling case for analytic philosophy bearing more in common with medieval than with the classics.

- Most contemporary analytic philosophy is done in universities by professors and students. Ditto with the scholastics. In fact, the university itself originated as a medieval institution.
- Disputations. Medieval students were expected to defend topics they disagreed with in settings that featured the equivalent of a moderator. The students applied strict rules of argumentation. At the end, the strengths and weaknesses of each side were presented by the instructor.
- The presentation of works was rigorous, voluminous, and precise with the scholastics. Ditto with analytics.
- One language. With the scholastics they communicated via Latin across Europe. Within the analytic tradition, communication is in English. This lead to progression and development in work across boundaries and between universities.
- Sciences born out of it. While this properly started with the classical philosophers, much work done by scholastics developed into sciences later on. The same with analytic philosophers (neuroscience, cognitive science, etc)
- Emphasis on logic. The scholastics taught logic early and developed sophisticated logical systems. Again, ditto with analytic philosophers.

I would also add that a lot of what the scholastics studied is studied by analytics in similar fashions. This includes philosophy of language, logic, time, metaphysics and more. . Many questions discussed by scholastics concerning philosophical theology are again discussed today.

I will address where they differ in the next post.

My wishlist

Hey all you readers of my blog.  Because I am incredibly humble, smart, sophisticated, etc (think of any good adjective and it can be applied to me)…  I have a wishlist of books at amazon.com that I am interested in reading.  The problem is- I don’t currently own them.  If you enjoy what you read at my blog, and want to keep the content pouring in, I would really appreciate it if you expressed this enjoyment by purchasing one or two of the books on the list and having them shipped to me.  Amazon.com will provide the address.  You will thank yourself later if you do.  I will thank you also. 

Which Summa Separates the Men from the Boys?

So which is the more difficult Summa to engage with, the Summa Theologica or the Summa Contra Gentiles? I have always leaned towards the latter as being the more sophisticated work by Aquinas, but lately I am starting to rethink my position. My original view had various reasons including:

- A big appeal to authority. Several contemporary philosophers I admire today have said the SCG is the more difficult Summa to read. Rob Koons wrote a review of Norman Kretzmann’s commentary on SCG 1 that insisted that the SCG was a graduate seminar while the ST is for an undergrad to read. After reading the first two books of the SCG, I agreed.
- The audience. The intended recipients of the SCG were philosophically sophisticated Muslims who were well versed in Aristotle and medieval Muslim philosophers (Averroes, Avicenna, etc). The ST was meant for students.
- The task. This reason has less to do with the difficulty involved in understanding the SCG, but instead the difficulty involved with writing it. The first three books of the SCG require Aquinas to demonstrate God’s existence, nature, as well as mankind and angels without recourse to special revelation. Of course, Aquinas verifies his natural theology by showing it’s coherence with Scripture, but he doesn’t argue from Scripture.

Now I am leaning more towards the ST as being the more difficult text. The obvious reason is the size. The ST is easily two or three times as long as the SCG. I have other reasons though.

- Aquinas is working with an intended audience that has read a significantly larger body of material. The students must know Peter Lombard, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Boethius, Bonaventure, Albert, and a wealth of others. As a 21st century reader of the ST, I have to read a lot more background material to accurately understand a lot of what is written in the ST. I used to disagree, because I thought, prima facie, that I understood more of what I read in the ST. I am becoming more and more aware of what I do not understand in it though.

My reasons are fewer for my new view, but that doesn’t render my new view as less important. What does everyone else think?

(BTW- I am a huge fan of both Summa’s. The SCG has some fantastic arguments to think through and I constantly reread parts of it)

Tis the Season for Bibliophiles

While I typically hold the consumerism that dominates the holiday season with disdain, I must confess that there are some things I do look forward to that is a result of it. Those things being books. I am a full-fledged bibliophile, and because of this condition of mine, I usually get many books for Christmas. I also usually get gift cards to Borders and Barnes and Nobles, which means even more books. And receiving books is something I always look forward to! The other benefit of the holiday season is I also have time to read the books I receive or already own.

This year has not been any different.

I received:

- ‘Fear and Trembling’ by Soren Kierkegaard
- ‘Confessions’ by Saint Augustine

With gift cards I bought even more:

- ‘City of God’ by Saint Augustine, the Cambridge University Press translation
- ‘An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding’ by David Hume, the Oxford University Press translation
- ‘Philosophical Writings: A Selection’ – Duns Scotus.
- ‘Hebrews: A New Translation with Commentary’ by Craig Koester. This is the Anchor Bible Commentary
- ‘Surprised by Joy’ by C.S. Lewis.

I read:

- ‘Physics’ and ‘Metaphysics’ by Aristotle
- ‘The Brothers Karamazov’ by Fyodor Dostoevsky
- ‘Types in Hebrews’ by Sir Robert Anderson

And am still reading:

- ‘Jesus and the Victory of God’ by NT Wright
- ‘Discourse on Method’ by Rene Descartes

I’m hoping to finish the last book before next week.

Would I Survive in the Wild?

Would you survive in the wild? Your Result: Yesiree!….   You could live in the wild if you wanted to! You know what to eat, do, and stay away from! You could get shelter, food, water fast and easy-and the right treatments to injuries, snake bites etc…You know the outdoors like the back of your hand!!
Wouldn’t last 2 minutes!…..
Most likely you’ll survive….
Not to sure…
Maybe……..
Would you survive in the wild? Quizzes for MySpace

Books Read in 2006

These are the books I read in 2006. I recommend most of them.

- The Brothers Karamazov By Fyodor Dostoevsky
- The Return of the King By JRR Tolkein
- The Two Towers By JRR Tolkein
- God & Time: Four Views Ed. By Gregory E. Ganssle
- Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views Ed. By James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy
- Eternal God: A Study of God without Time by Paul Helm
- Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time by William Lane Craig
- De Anima By Aristotle
- Physics By Aristotle
- The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy By Daniel Frank and Oliver Leaman
- Linguistics and Philosophy By Etienne Gilson
- The Presocratic Philosophers By G.S. Kirk, J.E. Raven and M. Schofield
- Aspects of Time By George Schlessinger
- Thomist Realism and the Linguistic Turn By John P. O’Callaghan
- Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction By Michael Loux
- Some Questions About Language By Mortimer Adler
- Introduction to Philosophy By Norman Geisler
- Come, Let Us Reason By Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks
- The Republic By Plato
- On being and essence By Thomas Aquinas
- Summa Contra Gentiles Book One: God By Thomas Aquinas
- Summa Contra Gentiles Book Two: Creation By Thomas Aquinas
- Philosophy of Language By William Alston
- Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction By William G. Lycan
- Philosophy of Psychology: A Contemporary Introduction By Jose Bermudez
- The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order By Samuel P. Huntington
- Priceless- Straight-shooting, no-frills financial wisdom By Dave Ramsey
- How to Speak, How to Listen By Mortimer J. Adler
- How to Read a Book By Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren
- Psychology By Hockenbury
- The Practice of the Presence of God By Brother Lawrence
- The Four Loves By C.S. Lewis
- God in the Dock By C.S. Lewis
- Bible: Job through Songs of Solomon By God
- Bible: Matthews through Acts By God
- Bible: Isaiah through Malachi By God
- Reaching Out: The Three Movements of the Spiritual Life By Henri J.M. Nouwen
- Chosen but Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election By Norman Geisler
- Systematic Theology 4: Church and Last Things By Norman Geisler
- Basic Bible Interpretation: A practical guide to discovering Biblical truth By Roy B. Zuck
- Types in Hebrews By Sir Robert Anderson
- The Imitation of Christ By Thomas Kempis
- Thoughts in Solitude By Thomas Merton
- New Seeds of Contemplation By Thomas Merton
- The New Testament and the People of God By NT Wright
- A New Kind of Christian By Brian McLaren
- Augustine to Freud By Kenneth Boa

A Bibliography of books that contribute to my present philosophical beliefs.

I am only recommending books that have contributed to and support the philosophical beliefs I presently hold. There are many fine books out there that I disagree with but still highly recommend. This list, on request, is based on books that align with my various views and support them as well.

11 Days and Counting…

I have way too much on my plate that I am trying to accomplish by 12.31.2006 at midnight (or a few hours before as I will be at a party). ¾ of what is on my plate is because of my own doing of course, and I won’t be completely heartbroken if I don’t accomplish all this in the next two weeks.

To Read/Finish Reading:
- Jesus and the Victory of God by NT Wright – only 80 pages into it
- The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky – only 200 pages into it
- Types in Hebrews by Sir Robert Anderson – about halfway done
- Physics by Aristotle – 30 pages to go!
- Metaphysics by Aristotle – Haven’t started yet. Will start tomorrow.

Reading Goals by January 8, 2007 (When Spring Semester Starts)
- Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle
- Begin Discourse on Method by Descartes
- Begin City of God by Augustine
- Begin Enneads by Plotinus

Writing – To Begin/Finish
- Finish revising my paper on Wittgenstein and Thomistic Theory of Meaning to submit for acceptance at a conference in February. Deadline- January 10, 2007
- Continue Reading/Outlining for paper I want to submit/present next fall or early 2008 on contemporary Presentism and Aristotle’s metaphysics of the present.
- Begin working on a follow up paper on Wittgenstein and Aquinas that deals with a different section of ‘Philosophical Investigations’ (Comments 37-43)

Ongoing commitments
- Prepping for the Sunday school class I am teaching on the book of Hebrews at my church for the adult education. This requires 2-3 hours of prep a week for a one hour class.
- Saving the world from my arch-nemesis as he plots another devious plan to take over Earth

Other Goals
- Finish reviewing German for next German class.
- Necessary paperwork needed and get funds for my trip to Germany next summer
- Apply for scholarship for trip to Germany and for fall semester

Not to mention my work responsibilities. I love the relaxation winter vacation brings!

Analytic Propositions and First Principles

So what are the differences between the two? I’ve been thinking through this as I have been reading some A.J. Ayer lately.

Ayer, in his book “Language, Truth, and Logic” divides propositions into two kinds- Analytic and synthetic. Synthetic propositions are basically empirical propositions that can be verified in principle scientifically. For instance, while it is not yet verified that there are ice cream factories on Jupiter, the conditions needed to verify it can be established. Synthetic propositions truth value can only be determined with a degree of probability.

Analytic propositions are definitional, or tautological. For instance, “A bachelor is an unmarried male.” They are essential in anyone’s belief capital and essential for any discipline. What first distinguishes analytic propositions from synthetic propositions is that analytic propositions are known with 100% certainty. This is because they are definitional. There are no conditions in the future that would render them false. Instead a change in definition is what would make them to be false. The other thing that distinguishes analytic propositions from synthetic propositions is that one cannot deduce anything about reality from analytic propositions. In a sense, they really do nothing to contribute to ones knowledge. This is also because they are definitional. They are helpful in building a system with synthetic propositions, but they don’t really add to the system.

This is where first principles come in. Most Aristotelians that I know of make a further distinction between a mere definitional proposition and a first principle.

I’ll clarify. There is something about the nature of reality that makes a first principle to be what it is even though one cannot deduce to a first principle so to say.

For example, take the law of contradiction, which Aristotelians hold to be a law of logic (as does everyone else).

A is not non-A

To expand, something cannot be and not be in the same sense.

Is this merely definitional? Is it merely true based on the way ‘be’ is defined? I propose that it is not.

There is something different about ‘A is not non-A’. It just doesn’t seem to be the same species as ‘All bachelors are unmarried males’.

There is something about reality itself that makes ‘A is not non-A’ to be a first principle and something about the first principle of ‘A is not non-A’ that makes reality to be the same way.

Something really cannot be and not be in the same sense. So that first principle states something about existence itself.

One can learn about reality from it. Or at least it can be shown that one is crazy if they do not know the first principle. One cannot really defend a first principle though. All one can do is show that you can’t deny it without using it.

What does everyone else think?