(I'll try to be objective and not let my atheism shine through the cracks too much.)
We discussed Augustine's philosophies today, including God's supposed omnipotence, why He allows evil, and his (A's) opinion on the "Original Sin." Most questions were answered according to Occam's razor: that is, the hardest questions have the simplest answers.
We also went over fate versus randomness. If God has a thorough plan for all of us, no matter what we do, we will be unable to deviate from the course, right? Or is everything chance / coincidence? And is the ability to change course really skewing you off the line, or just onto another? Bad things do happen to good people, and vice-versa, so this hardly justifies a caring God. In the end, we all had differing opinions on the matter, as though our classroom were a miniature representation of the planet.
(Side anecdote: In Chinese and Japanese legend, God ties people together via an invisible red string of fate that makes the fettered ones unable to depart too far from each other's sides, or lives, try as they might.)
It came down to the matter of free will. If humans are animals, too, what separates us from the beasts? Though it can be argued some beasts are intelligent for their kind, they generally do not compare to the free will and consciences we humans possess. While we both act on instinct, we (so far as we have discovered) are the only ones capable of imaginations, logic, and reasoning skills. Can we be so sure dogs don't think? Maybe we're just intrinsically prideful.
And that is all for today.
Being also an Atheist (although leaning Agnostic), I found myself in a difficult position to both understand exactly how these men's theories legitimately and logically fall into place in the task of proving God's existence. Maybe future readings will aid me in that.
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli
FQ: To Macchiavelli, in what circumstances is murder and other gruesome acts justified?
DQ: In what ways do you believe Machiavelli's philosophy is applied to modern-day politics?
It is quite difficult to find application for Augustine's theories if one doesn't believe in God, and if one does it is still an iffy argument as the free will argument can be debated ad infinium. And though animals have a degree of free will, it is dictated by instinct, much like ourselves.
ReplyDeleteFQ:Why does Machiavelli claim the effective Prince has to "learn how not to be good"?
DQ:How did he effectively show his views toward his pupils, would that view work today among others?
The theories of Augustine is obviously based on the belief in a god. If you don't believe in God then you wouldn't really understand this. But even when you believe in God it would be easy to try and question some of the principles that Christians are told to believe. That doesn't mean you can't believe it, because it is of powers that we do not have and can not fully understand.
ReplyDeleteFQ: Why would politicians today not admit to reading "Prince" when they have read the book?
DQ: Have leaders in America taken the concepts of "Prince" and used them, but in a way that is not obvious to the public in order to not loose control of their position?
FQ: Who was the only leader to impress Machiavelli? or What does M believe success depends upon?
ReplyDeleteDQ: Do you think Machiavelli was perhaps suffering from paranoid schizophrenia (detached from reality and withdrawn into self-Encarta Dictionary)?