Up@dawn 2.0

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Quiz Sep 21/22

Anselm & Aquinas, HP 417-419, 452-463 (ch IX, XIII); PW ch10

1. For what argument is Anselm chiefly known?

2. What did Anselm consider the relation between reason and faith?
==
3. What victory did Aquinas' influence secure?

4. Why does Aquinas reject the ontological argument?

5. In what way does Russell consider Aquinas "original"? Does Russell think Aquinas deserves hs "immense reputation"?

6. Why doesn't Russell think Aquinas belongs with "the best philosophers"? 
==
7. What do we rediscover in walking?

8. What did Emerson say he became while walking, instead of an egotist?

DQ

  • Is an infinite regress of explanation as bad as Aristotle and Aquinas thought?
  • COMMENT: "God is not the cause of sinning, but He leaves some in sin..." 460
  • If "no reason can be given why some are elected and and go to heaven and others go to Hell," why is this not an unreasonable belief? 
  • Is it ever acceptable to undertake a philosophical inquiry if you already know what your conclusion will be?
  • Do you think not existing is an imperfection? What, exactly, is made less perfect by its failure to actually exist? Can we think our way to an understanding of what must be real, and what is merely imaginary?
  • Can you infer from a (hypothetically-) necessary First Cause to an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God? Can you rule out the possibility that a First Cause might be malevolent or Satanic?
  • Bertrand Russell said he gave up belief in God when he encountered J.S. Mill's Autobiography account of not getting a satisfactory answer to the question "What caused God?" Is that a good question, and a good response?






Old post-

Podcast

1. (T/F) Anselm said God, "the being than which none greater can be conceived," must exist because otherwise He'd be imperfect (and not The Greatest).

2. The _____ argument says that merely having an idea of God proves God's existence.
3. What was Anselm's reply to Gaunilo?






4. Why did Aquinas think there couldn't be an infinite regress of causes?

5. (T/F) An objection to Aquinas' argument against an infinite regress of causes is that an Uncaused Cause is not necessarily God-like in relevant respects (power, knowledge, goodness.

6. Is "Nothing" uncontestably the best answer to "What caused the cosmos?"
Bonus:  In contrast to utilitarians like Bentham, says Anthony Kenny, Aquinas agreed with Aristotle that happiness is not a _______ but an activity or way of life.

DQ
1. Do you think not existing is an imperfection? What, exactly, is made less perfect by its failure to actually exist? Can we think our way to an understanding of what must be real, and what is merely imaginary?

2. Can you infer from a (hypothetically-) necessary First Cause to an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God? Can you rule out the possibility that a First Cause might be malevolent or Satanic?

3. Bertrand Russell said he gave up belief in God when he encountered J.S. Mill's Autobiography account of not getting a satisfactory answer to the question "What caused God?" Is that a good question, and a good response?






44 comments:

  1. (H3) IR? If you think about all philosophy really is just Infinite regress. I have to agree that it isn't the best thing though because then it becomes no better or worse than circular logic in the sense that no hope to an end or a resolution can be hoped for.

    ReplyDelete
  2. (H3) COMMENT? well that really seems to be more of a theologic than philosophic question. Logically if there is sin in the world, and God does not sin, than he does not cause people to sin but leave them to fall into it on their own. It could be argued that that is the result of our free will. Or you could take a modified Original Sin stance and argue that we inherit the "Sin nature" or the ability and tendency to sin from him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If we counted for the original sin, some would believe that Gid leaves us in sin. For the people who don't believe that the original sin damned us all, then they would say that free will determines the ability to sin or not.

      Delete
  3. (H3) elect? Personally I think it is unreasonable and, as Spock would say, "most illogical." It doesn't make sense that God would invest as much into humanity as Christianity widely claims only to randomly select who suffers and who doesn't. If he is going to do that then it must be asked why anyone must suffer at all?

    ReplyDelete
  4. (H3) argument for your answer. If your n a debate team or if your a politician than it is completely acceptable. As a philosopher of any kind though it seems like a pointless exercise, if the entire point of philosophy is to ponder the answers to question, what is philosophical about trying to ponder the question to the answer. Inevitably the phrasing of the question is irrelevant if you have the answer, jut as they color of your eyes are irrelevant as long as they see.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Samantha Eisenberg (H3)12:29 PM CDT

      I disagree. I think that philosophizing when you already have the answer isn't about necessarily finding the question. Especially in the case of religio . With religion we are given a set of stories and guidelines to live by and expected to blindly follow behind them. There is nothing wrong with taking those faith based guidelines and thinking about them in the way of reason in order to have a stronger belief in them. This would help give a better insight on what sin is, why it is bad, and what reason God could have in giving us there rules to live b . Its not finding the question that is of concern. Its finding the reason behind the answer.

      Delete
    2. H1
      I don't think Aquinas's reasoning to Christian results is horrible; his method of examining the route from question to Catholic answer. In science, the question is often, "We know that x does z, but we don't know why." They conduct experiments to understand the process; the end result is known, but it's the journey that is not understood. If a man who philosophizes is a Christian, it's not shocking that he comes up with Christian answers, the same way it's not shocking if an atheist philosopher comes up with atheistic answers.

      Delete
  5. (H3) Here is a question, was Aquinas's victory for Aristotle a good thing? Was his domination of church philosophy a good thing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (H3) I believe it was both a positive and a negative, no one person's philosophy should rule the church. The Bible should be the philosophy of the church.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Megan. Even though i am not a christian myself, i do believe that fokkowers of the church should follow the Bible and it should be the church's philosophy, not the philosophy of a single person.

      Delete
  6. (H3) Is it ever acceptable to undertake a philosophical inquiry if I already know what my conclusion will be?
    Most certainly. There's nothing wrong with going over what you know, or what you think you know, because you never know what you may stumble upon philosophically.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. In going through the process, you may stumble on a revelation you had not previously considered or knowm about.

      Delete
    2. H1
      Both of you make great points. I know that a greater knowledge and understanding of a thing changes your experience of it. Cooking has given me a greater appreciation for food, and writing a better appreciation for literature. Appreciation and comprehension are emphatically important.

      Delete
  7. (H3) It is a reasonable belief because we are aware that some people go to heaven while others go to hell, the reasons why depend upon your beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't believe that some people are already elected to go to heaven and some to hell. I believe that it has to do with our choices and whether we decide to lead a good life or not.

      Delete
    2. H1
      I agree with you Sean; agreeing with the notion of Free Will means that we can't also agree with the notion of arbitrary condemnation.

      Delete
  8. (H3) I believe you can take on a philosophical inquiry if you already know your belief if you desire to expand your mind.

    ReplyDelete
  9. (H3) I don't believe God leaves us in sin, He just allows us the choice to if we sin or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But, to be fair, if God created everything, couldn't He have created a system that is without sin altogether?

      Delete
    2. If God created a system without sin altogether, wouldn't humans just be mindless beings doing as theybwere told? The reason i ask this is because we woukd have no choice in what we do, we would have no free will.

      Delete
    3. Although God created everything, that does not mean that God created sin persay. Sin is simply the absence of God's goodness, similarly to how darkness doesn't exist but is simply the absence of light. (h3)

      Delete
    4. H1
      Everything bad is a perversion of something that is good (sex=good --> rape=bad, property=good --> theft=bad, etc). Sin isn't original or independent, it's just ruined good.

      Delete
  10. If "no reason can be given why some are elected and and go to heaven and others go to Hell," why is this not an unreasonable belief?

    We as humans cannot collect enough data to determine what leads God to make this decision. We can say it is God's choice without knowing the reasons for such choices.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. H1
      I agree that humans cannot understand many of God's choices, but I do not think that God would arbitrarily condemn people; he may know that Dude A will go to hell and Dude B will go to heaven, but I believe in free will, where they are the ones making the choices that decide their end destination. To condemn someone, and then condemn them for being condemned, doesn't make sense to my understanding of justice.

      Delete
  11. If "no reason can be given why some are elected and and go to heaven and others go to Hell," why is this not an unreasonable belief?
    (H3)
    Since every single human sins, none of us actually deserve to go to Heaven. We all fall short of the glory of God. So, if Go decided that no one that sinned deserved to go to Heaven, that would make sense. If God even just decided that He would pardon ONE person, that would be immensely graceful. However, God is inconceivably graceful and let His son die on a cross so that every single person can reach Him if they choose. The choice is with the person. The reason why God softens some hearts and not others, I cannot say. It is simply my hope to spread the good news and the love that I have received.

    ReplyDelete
  12. H1
    DQ: •Do you think not existing is an imperfection? What, exactly, is made less perfect by its failure to actually exist?
    I don't think that lack of existence means imperfection; all it means is that it's purely imaginary. Any person with an appreciation for fiction loves the freedom and creation of the imagination. If a book contains a perfect landscape, the fact that it isn't real doesn't suddenly mar that landscape.

    ReplyDelete
  13. (H3) In response to the comment in the discussion questions, I think what it is saying that God chooses who is worth saving, who can be saved. He doesn't tempt people into sin just to see if they will be strong enough to overcome it. I guess what it is describing is God's inclination to help those who help themselves, who are sorry for their actions and repent.

    ReplyDelete
  14. (H3) If no reason can be given by someone elected and go to heaven and others go to hell, why is this not an unreasonable belief? By that reasoning it would be an unreasonable belief. If people arbitrarily go to different places not based on merit in their past life, then creating a heaven full of "good" and a hell of "bad" it's pointless. However, those who believe that if you are good in this life you're rewarded in the next, believe it is reasonable. A different approach could be that just because there is no reason given doesn't mean there isn't one unknown to us. In that case it would be a reasonable belief.

    ReplyDelete
  15. (H3) I think it's acceptable to undertake a philosophical inquiry if you already know your conclusion because it finalizes your ideas, expands your perceptions, and possibly, during the inquiry, you will find new inquiries and different conclusions. The key is to keep an open mind, even if you have drawn your own conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  16. (H3) Possibly an imperfection of not existing is its changability, because it is not set in stone it can be adapted at will. Therefore it is continuously being revisied. Also it is susceptible to different people's perceptions. I think it's hard to know what is real and what is an illusion / imaginary. For the most part, we can only understand our own perception of the world and reality. I think if something does not exist it is more perfect than imperfect because it is not hindered by outside influences.

    ReplyDelete
  17. (H3) Should it be considered a "battle" between Aristotle and Plato? Can one agree with and appreciate two conflicting viewpoints at the same time? (page 452)

    ReplyDelete
  18. (H3) Which do you relate with more, discovery and contemplation from the "armchair" or getting out into the world? Why?

    ReplyDelete
  19. (H3) I think the question, "What caused God?", is a very interesting question. It goes back to a previous discussion question over the mystery of existence, that time and space were created at the same time but God preceded both. So if there was nothing before God, how did God come to be? This is why it is hard to wrap my mind around God; maybe believing in God is more about believing in an eternal good and faith that not knowing everything is possibly more acceptable than saying you know all.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Quiz Question:
    The sacraments are valid even when what?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Quiz Question:
    What does Divine Law direct us to do what?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Quiz Question:
    What are the seven arguments of Saint Thomas?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Quiz Question:
    Where did the education of the "angelic doctor" begin?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Quiz Question:
    Aquinas, unlike his predecessors, had a really competent knowledge of what?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Quiz Question:
    What does Aquinas say is his purpose?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Quiz Question:
    The existence of God is proved, as in Aristotle, by what argument?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Quiz Question:
    What is the unmoved mover?

    ReplyDelete
  28. (H1) Is it ever acceptable to undertake a philosophical inquiry if you already know what your conclusion will be?

    I believe that pondering upon a question that has already been answered may allow you to focus on other aspects of the question rather than the answer itself, such as the situation in which the question comes up and what the answer means in this situation. Although it does remove some of the philosophic spirit from the pursuit.

    ReplyDelete
  29. (H1) If "no reason can be given why some are elected and and go to heaven and others go to Hell," why is this not an unreasonable belief?

    The origins of this belief argued that those who are predestined for Heaven would naturally live a good and pious life while those who were destined for Hell would not. Going with the belief that we don't necessarily have freewill and are not free to make mistakes, then this can make quite some sense.

    ReplyDelete
  30. DQ: Is an infinite regress of explanation as bad as Aristotle and Aquinas thought?
    Answer: I don't think of it as bad. I think that it is true- we too blindly accept definitions and reasons, with no proof or justification.

    DQ: COMMENT: "God is not the cause of sinning, but He leaves some in sin..."
    Answer: I don't think God pushes one way or another- I think He allows for us to make our own decisions, and earn our own rewards and/or punishments.

    DQ: If "no reason can be given why some are elected and and go to heaven and others go to Hell," why is this not an unreasonable belief?
    Answer: I don't see it as unreasonable, but I think many reject the thought because they're afraid of not being able to control their fate, and that whatever they do on Earth is pointless.

    DQ: Is it ever acceptable to undertake a philosophical inquiry if you already know what your conclusion will be?
    Answer: Of course, because it is not possible to predict something with 100% assurance of accuracy. It is always possible to discover something new.

    DQ: Do you think not existing is an imperfection? What, exactly, is made less perfect by its failure to actually exist? Can we think our way to an understanding of what must be real, and what is merely imaginary?
    Answer: I think there are many things that are perfect BECAUSE they don't exist- world peace, no hunger, etc. It may sound harsh, but it's also true. The original concept of "too good to be true".

    DQ: Bertrand Russell said he gave up belief in God when he encountered J.S. Mill's Autobiography account of not getting a satisfactory answer to the question "What caused God?" Is that a good question, and a good response?
    Answer: I think any question about philosophy is good, and any response good if personally justified and reasoned.

    ReplyDelete