Dr. Herbert started by reminding us that the statue of Michael, the leader of God's army, is symbolic of a moral danger. This danger is that when we assume we are aligned with God, we could easily be mistaken. When someone thinks that they have the authority of God Almighty on his or her side, one can easily rationalize terrible and violent things.
Remember, the tenor voice in Briten's song is asking for reconciliation. He asks God to "give us peace". It is unclear whether "us" refers to soldiers or all of humanity. This ambiguity tends to ward off the kind of moral absolutism and self-righteousness as described above. Hence it seems that Britten is more morally complicated than the cathedral.
Dr. Herbert then draws our attention towards the back of the old cathedral, where a phrase is engraved on the walls on the burned-out cathedral: father forgive. The question is then, who is to be forgiven? One possibility is that the Germans should be forgiven for the bombing of the original church. In this case, the message is to ask God to forgive them, the others--the Germans. This establishes a distance between the victims and violators, the good and the evil, the English and the Germans. In this case, the English are on the side of God and the Germans are evil. Another possibility is that God should forgive all of us. Indeed, English troops certainly bombed German cities and buildings. In another sense, all are equally sinners and guilty in the eyes of God. All humans are fallen and imperfect. This establishes a unity between two former enemies and aims at reconciliation.
Herbert seems to suggest that we have a need for moral absolutism. He thinks we will not be satisfied without the authority of an absolute moral judgment. However, he notes that we should be humble about our ability to know whether a moral judgment is right or wrong. We do not have direct access to the divinity. Hence, we can never be certain that we know what God wants of us. This means that even if there is an absolute moral standard, we can never be certain that we know what this standard is.
We then talked about the end of Britten's "War Requiem". "Libera me" has a soprano solo where she asks for God to save her from eternal damnation and judgment. There is dissonance and a lot of loud, surprising noises. Then there is a dialogue between an English tenor and a German Baritone. They both share how similar their lives are in spite of the fact that they were enemies during WWI. The baritone and tenor solos end by being joined by an overly sweet boys' choir. Dr. Herbert claims that this is done to provide a contrast with the very end of the piece of music. There is total harmony between the boys and the soprano solo until the very end, when the boys break out of harmony. Then, at the very end, when all voices since "Amen, amen", there is first dissonance among the voices, and then a harmonious resolution made in a forced way. So although there is resolution, it is only glimpsed, just as we have limited access to God.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Monday, November 26, 2012
Two Final Images for Perspective: Works from Masaccio and Raphael
Masaccio's The Holy Trinity is many times the height of a normal person. It is a fresco on the wall of a church. We have many familiar figures. We have not only the trinity but also Mary and John. At the time, the figure of John was taken to be any of three biblical Johns. The two figures who sit below Mary and John are donors, or patrons. They have paid for this fresco in order to exhibit their piety and devotion. In the painting, the donors are looking at each other. In real life, the donors would also have been viewing themselves viewing Christ. Below the patrons is a tomb with a skeleton. Above the skeleton reads, "I was once what you were and what I am you will also be".
Sorry, guys. The vanishing point in this image is on the steps where the donors are standing. It is in the middle of the fresco, on the steps in between the donors. Let's take this as a sign of how difficult visual analysis is.
The image relies on perspective, although Dr. Herbert notes that the perspective is not consistent. For example, if Christ were to be elevated as much as depicted, the underside of the cross should be more visible. Another fact about this image is that it may have been used as an altar.
The last image we look at for studying perspective is Raphael's Transfiguration. There are two scenes depicted. In the top half, we see Christ conversing with Moses and Elijah after his clothes become dazzling white while on a mountain top with Peter, James and John. Jesus's appearance was transfigured, and then a voice from a large cloud proclaims, "This is my Son, the Beloved: listen to him!". Jesus then ordered them not to tell anyone until the crucifixion. In the bottom half of the image, we see a crowd of people (including the other disciples) waiting for Jesus and his apostles. A man has come to have Jesus heal his son of epilepsy. In addition to the apostles, we see a book, meant to represent academic knowledge.
There is also an unidentified woman in the foreground. Dr. Herbert notes that for a contemporary of Raphael, this woman would have looked like a stereotypical woman from Ancient Greece. She is meant to represent old knowledge. She points to the earthly problem of epileptic boy rather than focusing on Jesus (like everyone else). She is a perfect representation of a secular, worldly woman.
Contrast the perfectly painted woman with the figure of Christ. His image is blurry and seemingly disproportionate. Dr. Herbert points out that the image of Christ makes more sense visually if we take two alternative perspectives on the image. First, if we look at Christ from the perspective of a church-goer, for example, then the shadows on Christ's cloak make more sense. Second, if we look at Christ from the perspective of God (from above), then things such as Christ's hairline makes more sense. Thus Christ is to be viewed from both above and from below. Dr. Herbert notes that the young boy in the image actually seems to gesture to both above and below.
This image was used as an altarpiece. The Catholic argument, says Dr. Herbert, is that Jesus actually IS the wine and bread used in Eucharist. Bread and wine may not resemble Christ. But it is through grace that these things have the essence of Christ.
Sorry, guys. The vanishing point in this image is on the steps where the donors are standing. It is in the middle of the fresco, on the steps in between the donors. Let's take this as a sign of how difficult visual analysis is.
The image relies on perspective, although Dr. Herbert notes that the perspective is not consistent. For example, if Christ were to be elevated as much as depicted, the underside of the cross should be more visible. Another fact about this image is that it may have been used as an altar.
The last image we look at for studying perspective is Raphael's Transfiguration. There are two scenes depicted. In the top half, we see Christ conversing with Moses and Elijah after his clothes become dazzling white while on a mountain top with Peter, James and John. Jesus's appearance was transfigured, and then a voice from a large cloud proclaims, "This is my Son, the Beloved: listen to him!". Jesus then ordered them not to tell anyone until the crucifixion. In the bottom half of the image, we see a crowd of people (including the other disciples) waiting for Jesus and his apostles. A man has come to have Jesus heal his son of epilepsy. In addition to the apostles, we see a book, meant to represent academic knowledge.
There is also an unidentified woman in the foreground. Dr. Herbert notes that for a contemporary of Raphael, this woman would have looked like a stereotypical woman from Ancient Greece. She is meant to represent old knowledge. She points to the earthly problem of epileptic boy rather than focusing on Jesus (like everyone else). She is a perfect representation of a secular, worldly woman.
Contrast the perfectly painted woman with the figure of Christ. His image is blurry and seemingly disproportionate. Dr. Herbert points out that the image of Christ makes more sense visually if we take two alternative perspectives on the image. First, if we look at Christ from the perspective of a church-goer, for example, then the shadows on Christ's cloak make more sense. Second, if we look at Christ from the perspective of God (from above), then things such as Christ's hairline makes more sense. Thus Christ is to be viewed from both above and from below. Dr. Herbert notes that the young boy in the image actually seems to gesture to both above and below.
This image was used as an altarpiece. The Catholic argument, says Dr. Herbert, is that Jesus actually IS the wine and bread used in Eucharist. Bread and wine may not resemble Christ. But it is through grace that these things have the essence of Christ.
Monday, November 19, 2012
More Perspective on Perspective
Duccio's The Last Supper lacks a clear vanishing point. There are many lines that seem to function like orthogonals, but they do not come to a single point. Also, the space represented in this image is like a box that is entirely limited by the edges of the picture.
In contrast, there are images where it seems that there is space outside the bounds of the frame. The picture appears as a slice of reality. It seems as if the image is continuous with the space that would exist outside of that picture. It appears as if there is more space beyond that which is represented in the image. Indeed, finite represented space can indicate infinite space beyond itself. Panofky notes that the vanishing point in particular is a concrete symbol for infinity. The discovery of the vanishing point thus represents the discovery of the infinite itself (182/57).
Later, Panofksy argues that this is a secularization of the infinite, since the infinite is represented as being part of our own reality and not merely as divine reality (187/66). Dr. Herbert notes that this idea is not contrary to religious thought. There is nothing inherently secular about the notion of the infinite existing in finite space. Indeed, Jesus Christ, as both human and divine, is such an example from religious texts. A particularly relevant image is Leonardo da Vinci's The Last Supper. Christ, as the vanishing point, is both made present in the image and is also presented as absent in this image.
In contrast, Christ is not the vanishing point in Perugino's Christ Handing the Keys to Saint Peter. The vanishing point here is the church in the background. What is signified here is that although the body of Christ will die, the church will live. The church is thus something infinite and finite. It is both a particular building (or buildings) and the "house" of the eternity of the religion.
In contrast, there are images where it seems that there is space outside the bounds of the frame. The picture appears as a slice of reality. It seems as if the image is continuous with the space that would exist outside of that picture. It appears as if there is more space beyond that which is represented in the image. Indeed, finite represented space can indicate infinite space beyond itself. Panofky notes that the vanishing point in particular is a concrete symbol for infinity. The discovery of the vanishing point thus represents the discovery of the infinite itself (182/57).
Later, Panofksy argues that this is a secularization of the infinite, since the infinite is represented as being part of our own reality and not merely as divine reality (187/66). Dr. Herbert notes that this idea is not contrary to religious thought. There is nothing inherently secular about the notion of the infinite existing in finite space. Indeed, Jesus Christ, as both human and divine, is such an example from religious texts. A particularly relevant image is Leonardo da Vinci's The Last Supper. Christ, as the vanishing point, is both made present in the image and is also presented as absent in this image.
In contrast, Christ is not the vanishing point in Perugino's Christ Handing the Keys to Saint Peter. The vanishing point here is the church in the background. What is signified here is that although the body of Christ will die, the church will live. The church is thus something infinite and finite. It is both a particular building (or buildings) and the "house" of the eternity of the religion.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
View of God: Perspective in Renaissance in Italy
We begin with Enthroned Madonna and Child from the Byzantine School (13th century), and The Alba Madonna by Raphael (1511). These images are important because they show how the representation of space changed over a period of hundreds of years. The image from the Byzantine School has no sense of depth in the image. Items look two-dimensional (2D) and flat. In Raphael's image, however, the objects depicted look as if they are three-dimensional (3D). The difference between these images is that in the earlier days of painting, certain techniques (or technologies) were not available to artists. Another difference is that the earlier artist wanted to portray the figures in heaven. Since heaven is a place of purity, the image is laden with gold. Also, the image of Jesus looks like an adult even though he is sitting on his mother's knee. In heaven, Jesus is both the child and the adult. Also, both the front and the back of the footstool and the chair are shown. This is because in heaven, all essences exist in purity, which is to say that we can see all things at all times. Raphael, however, is not concerned with portraying heaven. Raphael depicts Madonna and Jesus Christ as being in the real world. Shading makes bodies and clothing look 3D and real. A goal for this section of the course is to see how this new
Next we look at Flagellation by Piero della Francesca (c. 1458-59), which is meant to reveal something to us about how images were read in this time (What Dr. Herbert calls the period eye). In the figure, there are 15th century Italian men in the right half of the image. In the left half of the image, there is a scene of Jesus being whipped. To the person viewing this image at the time it was painted, both halves of the scene were very familiar. An important detail about the painting is the way in which the tiled floor of the plaza is depicted. Dr. Herbert's point is that in order to thrive in a merchant economy, people had to have a good ability to judge measurements and shapes just by looking at something at a distance. This requires the ability to recognize ratios and proportions. The tiles are painted in a way meant to imitate the way that tiles look at a distance. The distance between the white bands of tile in real life would be the same. In the image, the distance between the white bands decreases. Painters could use mathematic ratios to calculate how to depict this perspective.
Next we look at Christ Handing the Keys to Saint Peter by Perugino. This image is a great example of the vanishing point. The idea is that on the surface of the image, the distance between two points is finite and measurable. However, as a depiction of real space, the lines that go towards the vanishing point are parallel and will never meet. In this way, what is infinite is portrayed by means of a finite line. Imagine, for example, a picture of railroad tracks that extend out into infinity. Perhaps these railroad tracks go into space forever. In actuality, the distance is infinite. Yet when portrayed in a 2D image, the tracks will meet at the vanishing point. The vanishing point is a finite, concrete place in the painting which portrays something that is infinite. In this way, the vanishing point is both finite and infinite.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Maimonides Pt. II: What God is Not
According to Maimonides, God is essentially a unity. God is one. Plato is famous for arguing that nothing physical can truly be one because all physical things are theoretically divisible. Even if there are practical limitations on our ability to actually divide something, we can still break it down into smaller parts theoretically. Maimonides notes further that the only true oneness is a simple essence without complexity (p.149). In other words, to be truly one is to lack any divisible features or individuated characteristics--even conceptual distinctions are impossible. Any characteristic or feature would be an addition or multiplication of the concept of God.
There are four kinds of attributes that cannot be predicated of God (149-53).
- essence--God cannot be defined
- part of an essence--God is not a composite thing
- qualities--only composite things have qualities
- relations--God has no relation to anything else
- God is incorporeal, so he cannot be related to a place
- God is outside of time and space, so He is not related to time
- relations can only exist between things of the same kind, so God cannot be related to creations
Maimonides thinks that God cannot be like anything else. Since similarity is a kind of relation, God cannot be similar because He cannot be in relation to anything else. This is, however in direct conflict with Genesis 1:26. One response is that the claim that humans are made in God's "image" is not to be taken literally. We can be similar to God insofar as we are rational. Only humans share this capacity with God. But Maimonides notes that even this is not a true comparison (Book I, ch. 1). True comparisons can only be made when the words used to make the comparison are not equivocal. Indeed, even to say that God exists is to equivocate.
The basic upshot of Maimonides's negative theology is that we cannot say anything that God is. Rather, we can only say what God is not (p.165). In fact, Maimonides thought that to anthropomorphize God is tantamount to idolatry, since you are not thinking about God as God but you are thinking about God as some human-like idol (p.174). Aquinas responds to this concern by noting that some words we use to talk about God should be understood only as negations (incorporeal, infinite), but "good" should be understood as an analogy. In this way, Aquinas tries to argue that we can say "God is good" without equivocating.
Maimonides also tries to offer a guide about how humans can attain human perfection (176-81). The most important perfection for humans is intellectual. We should have correct beliefs about God. Being perfect in this way is the only way to achieve the ultimate goal of human life: immortality. Moral perfection is only useful for living with other people. Moral perfection is a necessary condition for intellectual perfection, but intellectual perfection is much more important.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Moses Maimonides AKA Moshe ben Maimon AKA Rambam
Moses Maimonides, known as Moshe ben Maimon or the Rambam, has influenced other religious thinkers such as Aquinas, who agreed that we can only have knowledge of what God is not (rather than what God is); Spinoza, who agreed that God does not directly punish or reward people, but disagrees that we can attribute miracles and creation to God and Newton, who agreed that God is a transcendent unity and that Scripture has riddles that can only be solved by intellectuals. Maimonides thought that God is the One, which is entirely outside of the world of being (the real world, our world). Because the One is outside of our realm of existence, we can identify no attributes or characteristics of the One. This idea that the divine is something entirely out of our realm of existence is one influenced by Platonism. Indeed, if God is outside our realm of experience, then we cannot say things about God. The central idea of negative theology is that we can never say what God is. We can only ever say what God is not. Maimonides is still known as a proponent of negative theology.
Maimonides was raised in Muslim Cordova (now Spain). His father was an intellectual, and he passed on Rabbinic teachings to Moses. Moses was a physician, logician and theologian. He died in 1204 at the age of 66.
Maimonides considered the role of dogma in Judaism. He asked whether there are certain things a person must believe in order to be a Jew. For Rabbinic Judaism, being a Jew was a matter of being born of a Jewish mother and of following rules. In his Commentary on the Mishnah, Maimonides claimed that there are 13 principles that Jews ought to believe. There is still debate today about whether religious dogma itself is contradictory to the spirit of Judaism and about whether Maimonides himself believed these 13 principles.
The Guide of the Perplexed was written for religious believers with background in philosophy and Talmudic Law. The goal of the Guide is to consider whether educated, philosophical thinkers must abandon commitments to dogma and Law. An important point of the work is that there are limits to understanding God. Certain things cannot be known by human beings because we are limited. We can only "glimpse" truths. Other truths, however, are only accessible to the educated elite. Since Maimonides work itself was intended to be understood by this group of intellectual elite, it is unclear even today whether Maimonides actually thought that philosophy and religion are at odds or whether philosophy is only at odds with naive religious thinking.
The main idea of the Guide is that God is utterly unique. There is nothing else that exists which is anything like God. Because God is so entirely different and unique, there are problems when it comes to learning about God. In particular, we have problems learning about God by reading about God in Scripture, which was written by humans (p.154). We can know that God is One, that He is incorporeal and that He exists, but we cannot know any positive facts about God. We cannot attribute any characteristics or qualities to God.
This leads to many puzzles:
The main upshot is this. Usually, when we describe things, we try to figure out what kinds of categories a thing falls into. God, however, is so unique that He does not fall into any categories. We can only say what categories God does not fit into.
Maimonides was raised in Muslim Cordova (now Spain). His father was an intellectual, and he passed on Rabbinic teachings to Moses. Moses was a physician, logician and theologian. He died in 1204 at the age of 66.
Maimonides considered the role of dogma in Judaism. He asked whether there are certain things a person must believe in order to be a Jew. For Rabbinic Judaism, being a Jew was a matter of being born of a Jewish mother and of following rules. In his Commentary on the Mishnah, Maimonides claimed that there are 13 principles that Jews ought to believe. There is still debate today about whether religious dogma itself is contradictory to the spirit of Judaism and about whether Maimonides himself believed these 13 principles.
The Guide of the Perplexed was written for religious believers with background in philosophy and Talmudic Law. The goal of the Guide is to consider whether educated, philosophical thinkers must abandon commitments to dogma and Law. An important point of the work is that there are limits to understanding God. Certain things cannot be known by human beings because we are limited. We can only "glimpse" truths. Other truths, however, are only accessible to the educated elite. Since Maimonides work itself was intended to be understood by this group of intellectual elite, it is unclear even today whether Maimonides actually thought that philosophy and religion are at odds or whether philosophy is only at odds with naive religious thinking.
The main idea of the Guide is that God is utterly unique. There is nothing else that exists which is anything like God. Because God is so entirely different and unique, there are problems when it comes to learning about God. In particular, we have problems learning about God by reading about God in Scripture, which was written by humans (p.154). We can know that God is One, that He is incorporeal and that He exists, but we cannot know any positive facts about God. We cannot attribute any characteristics or qualities to God.
This leads to many puzzles:
- If we are made in God's image, as stated in Genesis, this seems puzzling. If God is incorporeal and lacks any physical qualities, how can we be made in the image of nothing?
- Isn't it impossible to even describe something that is incorporeal?
- Even to ascribe non-physical traits to God (such as goodness) is to attribute a quality to God. Since God is "one", we cannot describe Him as a multiplicity We cannot describe him as a collection of different attributes.
- Even to say that God exists is to equivocate about the word "exists", since we usually use this word to mean that something exists in our own world. Things that exist in our world are composite entities (made up of many qualities) and exist accidentally as a combination of those qualities (we can go in and out of existence). God, on the other hand, is a unity which exists necessarily and independently of any qualities.
The main upshot is this. Usually, when we describe things, we try to figure out what kinds of categories a thing falls into. God, however, is so unique that He does not fall into any categories. We can only say what categories God does not fit into.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Third Heir: Rabbinic Judaism
The purpose of this section of the course is to look at covenants with God as realized in four religions: the religion of Ancient Israel, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Today we turn towards covenant in Judaism in particular.
What is particular about the covenant in Rabbinic Judaism? It is a continuation of the Mosaic covenant. Remember that the Mosaic covenant was the first nationalistic covenant. As a prophet, warlord Moses, as the paradigmatic Jew, is hailed as a lawgiver and as the bearer of the Ten Commandments. Moses became important in world Jewry after the destruction of the Temple. Without a land or a temple, Moses represented a way for Jews to remain united as a kind of nation. Moses offers a way to unify a group of people who share a covenant with God. The opportunity for this unification came about specifically through the practice of the "Oral Torah". The Oral Torah was a practice of passing along traditions orally in addition to studying the written Torah. This oral tradition was a second track for studying Judaism. In particular, this oral tradition of studying text thrived among Jews who remained in Babylon and did not return to Jerusalem. By separating itself from the Temple, Rabbinic Judaism was able to live on after its destruction.
The idea is this: Jewish scholars postulated that because they have teachers, their teachers must also have had teachers in the past. It makes sense that each teacher had some prior teacher. In fact, Jews postulate that this oral tradition can be traced all the way back to Moses himself. It is questionable whether such an oral tradition has existed all the way back to Moses. Miles notes that this belief is the central commitment to faith in Rabbinical Judaism.
The emergence of this tradition can be explained by two factors: close reading of religious texts and midrash. In the former case, there are written records of close readings and analyses of religious stories. At this stage of analysis, there could be endless arguments about the meaning of a single word or about a minor inconsistency. In the latter case, different kinds of speculation and expansion of the original text provide an academic commentary on the original text. Aggadic midrash, or story-telling midrash, is an expansion of an original account of a story by including details that the interpreter supposes happened but that are not explicitly included by the original author. Halakhic midrash, or observance midrash, is the addition of some reason for the original inclusion of a certain detail. This detail is usually tied to a specific belief or ritual.
What is particular about the covenant in Rabbinic Judaism? It is a continuation of the Mosaic covenant. Remember that the Mosaic covenant was the first nationalistic covenant. As a prophet, warlord Moses, as the paradigmatic Jew, is hailed as a lawgiver and as the bearer of the Ten Commandments. Moses became important in world Jewry after the destruction of the Temple. Without a land or a temple, Moses represented a way for Jews to remain united as a kind of nation. Moses offers a way to unify a group of people who share a covenant with God. The opportunity for this unification came about specifically through the practice of the "Oral Torah". The Oral Torah was a practice of passing along traditions orally in addition to studying the written Torah. This oral tradition was a second track for studying Judaism. In particular, this oral tradition of studying text thrived among Jews who remained in Babylon and did not return to Jerusalem. By separating itself from the Temple, Rabbinic Judaism was able to live on after its destruction.
The idea is this: Jewish scholars postulated that because they have teachers, their teachers must also have had teachers in the past. It makes sense that each teacher had some prior teacher. In fact, Jews postulate that this oral tradition can be traced all the way back to Moses himself. It is questionable whether such an oral tradition has existed all the way back to Moses. Miles notes that this belief is the central commitment to faith in Rabbinical Judaism.
The emergence of this tradition can be explained by two factors: close reading of religious texts and midrash. In the former case, there are written records of close readings and analyses of religious stories. At this stage of analysis, there could be endless arguments about the meaning of a single word or about a minor inconsistency. In the latter case, different kinds of speculation and expansion of the original text provide an academic commentary on the original text. Aggadic midrash, or story-telling midrash, is an expansion of an original account of a story by including details that the interpreter supposes happened but that are not explicitly included by the original author. Halakhic midrash, or observance midrash, is the addition of some reason for the original inclusion of a certain detail. This detail is usually tied to a specific belief or ritual.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Qur'an as Oracle and Intro to Islam
Today we look at another descendant of the religion of ancient Israel: Islam. Ummah is the Arabic term used to refer to the world community of Muslims. One thing of note about Islam is that the sacred text, the Qur'an, is not a traditional narration such as the New Testament. There are no quotations in the text but only allusions. Rather, God is always either speaking for himself or speaking about himself in the third person. The Qur'an is an oracle. An oracle is a speech given on the behalf of God by a prophet. In this case, Muhammad is the prophet speaking for God. Whereas in the New Testament, any such prophecy is preceded by a grand introduction, we can expect that every line in the Qur'an is such prophetic proclamation. An oracle may provide prophecy, warnings of punishment or corrections to earlier texts. We can think of Islam's correction of Christianity and Judaism as analogous to Protestantism's correction of traditional Catholic doctrine. It is of note that the Qur'an has little actual narrative. For the purposes of this class, we focus on certain portions of the text that most closely resemble narrative style.
We will focus in part on Abraham because he is the paradigmatic Muslim. This means that the story of Abraham is characteristic and defining for the religion. Islam is, as a matter of fact, the Arabic word for submission. In the Sura The Family of 'Imran, at section 65, a discussion of Abraham begins. It is pointed out that Abraham was neither Christian nor Muslim. At section 83, the claim is made that submission to Islam is the most important thing. This is the establishment of a new covenant between God and humans. Abraham, as someone who submitted completely to God, is heralded as someone who always had faith in God and so he is the model for Muslims. At 96, God claims that the first House of worship is Mecca. Mecca is a place where Abraham stood and whoever enters into it will be safe. In this way, the Qur'an is able to establish itself not as a new religion but as a religion that has a history as long and as rich as Christianity and Judaism. Muhammed is presented as a prophet who is part of the long line of Abrahamic religions but who is untainted and able to provide a more pure message.
Perhaps this is why Abraham is such an important part of the text. At Sura 37, verse 83, Abraham is depicted as confronting idolaters and unbelievers of his time. At Sura 4, verses 101 and on, a scene is described where Abraham tells his son that he had a dream in which he sacrificed him. At this point, the son willingly let himself be sacrificed. It is feasible that this scene is about Ishmael and not Isaac, as at a later point in the text, the birth of Isaac is noted. This faith and submission was, of course, rewarded by God's mercy.
We will focus in part on Abraham because he is the paradigmatic Muslim. This means that the story of Abraham is characteristic and defining for the religion. Islam is, as a matter of fact, the Arabic word for submission. In the Sura The Family of 'Imran, at section 65, a discussion of Abraham begins. It is pointed out that Abraham was neither Christian nor Muslim. At section 83, the claim is made that submission to Islam is the most important thing. This is the establishment of a new covenant between God and humans. Abraham, as someone who submitted completely to God, is heralded as someone who always had faith in God and so he is the model for Muslims. At 96, God claims that the first House of worship is Mecca. Mecca is a place where Abraham stood and whoever enters into it will be safe. In this way, the Qur'an is able to establish itself not as a new religion but as a religion that has a history as long and as rich as Christianity and Judaism. Muhammed is presented as a prophet who is part of the long line of Abrahamic religions but who is untainted and able to provide a more pure message.
Perhaps this is why Abraham is such an important part of the text. At Sura 37, verse 83, Abraham is depicted as confronting idolaters and unbelievers of his time. At Sura 4, verses 101 and on, a scene is described where Abraham tells his son that he had a dream in which he sacrificed him. At this point, the son willingly let himself be sacrificed. It is feasible that this scene is about Ishmael and not Isaac, as at a later point in the text, the birth of Isaac is noted. This faith and submission was, of course, rewarded by God's mercy.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Davidic Covenant and Early Christianity
Today we focus on the Davidic (named for David) covenant. In Paul's Letter to the Romans, Paul notes that Abraham is the ancestor of the circumcised and non-circumcised followers of God. Non-circumcised followers of God can be Abraham's spiritual ancestors if they have faith in God. Paul notes that this faith is more important than being a physical or genetic ancestor of Abraham. Anyone who trusts in God is Abraham's spiritual descendant and is an heir to the original covenant with God.
Christianity arose out of Judaism as some Jews began to question their religion. So we read beyond the Tanakh into the New Testament. In the Book of Deuteronomy (especially Ch. 28), we find a new element to the Abrahamic covenant. Specifically, we learn that God has the power to revoke the covenant with humans.
Hereafter, the Davidic covenant is established. David is king at the greatest time of the Israelite empire. David decides to build a temple for God. In II Samuel 7:8-16, God seems to ally himself closely with David and his heir. God pledges that his faithful love will always be with David's heir. God identifies himself as a father. This language implies a more parental kind of covenant that can never be broken. A further implication is that God is allying himself more closely with David's heir than with other Israelites. The original Christian claim is that Jesus is this heir of David--the messiah and christ.
Jesus's followers argue that Jesus is this heir by finding references in the Bible that express a hope for a new start. For example, Jeremiah 31:31-34 is one place where God promises a new covenant to come that will be irrevocable and will include God's forgiveness of the guilt and sin of his people. Additionally, this new covenant is supposed to raise up Christians out of oppression by foreign powers.
This new covenant served as a solution for the oppression of Christians because it allows that those who are not genetic or physical descendants of Abraham can enter into the covenant with God. Initially, the Romans did not accept the offer to enter into this covenant. Jesus was, indeed, murdered by the Romans. But the Davidic covenant had something to offer people that was not present in the traditional Roman religion that was based on Greek religion. In other religions, there was no promise of an afterlife filled with rewards. The Judeo-Christian God, however, promises heaven in the afterlife for those who follow God. The promise of eternal afterlife certainly helps to soothe the sting of constant oppression in one's actual life. A promise of reward in the afterlife can be linked to the kind of advice we find in Luke 6, where Christians are told to be mild and to love their enemies.
On his last night living, Jesus and his disciples drink wine as a sign of this new covenant between God and these Jesus-loving Jews. By entering into this new covenant, Christians were able to secure that they themselves could also be resurrected and enjoy eternal life. Early Christians think that Jesus himself was proof of the covenant, since Jesus is just God made flesh (John 8:56-59). Early Christians thus preach that one can enter into this new covenant by 1) repenting sins, 2) recognizing Jesus as the Messiah and as God made flesh, 3) believe that Jesus came back to life and 4) waiting in faith for their own resurrection.
Christianity arose out of Judaism as some Jews began to question their religion. So we read beyond the Tanakh into the New Testament. In the Book of Deuteronomy (especially Ch. 28), we find a new element to the Abrahamic covenant. Specifically, we learn that God has the power to revoke the covenant with humans.
Hereafter, the Davidic covenant is established. David is king at the greatest time of the Israelite empire. David decides to build a temple for God. In II Samuel 7:8-16, God seems to ally himself closely with David and his heir. God pledges that his faithful love will always be with David's heir. God identifies himself as a father. This language implies a more parental kind of covenant that can never be broken. A further implication is that God is allying himself more closely with David's heir than with other Israelites. The original Christian claim is that Jesus is this heir of David--the messiah and christ.
Jesus's followers argue that Jesus is this heir by finding references in the Bible that express a hope for a new start. For example, Jeremiah 31:31-34 is one place where God promises a new covenant to come that will be irrevocable and will include God's forgiveness of the guilt and sin of his people. Additionally, this new covenant is supposed to raise up Christians out of oppression by foreign powers.
This new covenant served as a solution for the oppression of Christians because it allows that those who are not genetic or physical descendants of Abraham can enter into the covenant with God. Initially, the Romans did not accept the offer to enter into this covenant. Jesus was, indeed, murdered by the Romans. But the Davidic covenant had something to offer people that was not present in the traditional Roman religion that was based on Greek religion. In other religions, there was no promise of an afterlife filled with rewards. The Judeo-Christian God, however, promises heaven in the afterlife for those who follow God. The promise of eternal afterlife certainly helps to soothe the sting of constant oppression in one's actual life. A promise of reward in the afterlife can be linked to the kind of advice we find in Luke 6, where Christians are told to be mild and to love their enemies.
On his last night living, Jesus and his disciples drink wine as a sign of this new covenant between God and these Jesus-loving Jews. By entering into this new covenant, Christians were able to secure that they themselves could also be resurrected and enjoy eternal life. Early Christians think that Jesus himself was proof of the covenant, since Jesus is just God made flesh (John 8:56-59). Early Christians thus preach that one can enter into this new covenant by 1) repenting sins, 2) recognizing Jesus as the Messiah and as God made flesh, 3) believe that Jesus came back to life and 4) waiting in faith for their own resurrection.
4 Covenants Introduced
The Mosaic covenant is named for Moses, as this term refers to the covenant that Moses mediated between God and his people. A distinctive feature of the Mosaic covenant is that it is the first nationalistic covenant in the Tanakh. In order to better understand the Mosaic covenant, we will first look at its predecessors: the Adamic (named for Adam), the Noachic (named for Noah) covenant and the Abrahamic (named for Abraham) covenant, we can better understand the Mosaic covenant.
In the Adamic covenant, God requested that people be fruitful and multiply, allowed humans to take dominion over plants and animals and prohibits that they murder one another (too much!).
In the Noachic covenant, God has decided that people are a mistake and so he wants to rid the world of all animals, including humans. God promises to save Noah's people. He also says he will never smite people or curse them again. Then he also orders humans again to be fruitful and multiply and gives humans permission to eat all the animals that they want. God then also warns that any person who kills another person will pay with his or her own life. The sign of the covenant is a rainbow that God sent down.
In the Abrahamic covenant, God wants to give land to Abram and his people on the condition that these people move to the lands. Abram agrees implicitly by moving to the lands. Miles notes that the text gives us little clue about Abram's mood when he moved. God makes a promise to Abram that he will have many children and that he will have power over other tribes and their lands. As a sign of the covenant, God says that if Abram slices a bunch of animals in half and separates them, a giant flaming sword will come out of the heavens and burn everything up.
God prevents Abram's wife, Sarai, from preventing the covenant to come to pass when Sarai wants to murder the offspring of Abram and Sarai's servant. Later, Abram is promised that he will be the father of a multitude of nations. God demands that the covenant be marked by circumcision. After circumcision and the ratification of the covenant, Abram becomes Abraham and Sarai becomes Sarah. Abraham's son, Ishmael was circumcised and so were all the other men in the tribe. Later, Abraham has another son, Isaac God applauds Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his only son to God. After this, Abraham continues to breed many children who later become the tribes of Israel (Jacob).
The Mosaic covenant is described in Exodus. Some of the sons of Israel (Jacob, who was a son of Isaac) came to Egypt as refugees. The Pharaoh is upset because the Israelites are so fertile and so he demands to kill all of the first-born sons of the Israelites. God, in order to fulfill his side of the covenant, destroys the lands of Egypt in order to liberate his people. The Israelites then performed a ritual which transformed into modern Passover. The ritual is a sign of the covenant. This ritual was to mark their doors with blood to make sure that God knew to avoid them when he was doing his smiting. God then first requests to be worshipped.
Next, the Israelites turn into a large army and march across the desert up to the foot of Mount Sinai, a volcano. God warns that if his people get too close to him, he will harm them. Only Moses and Aaron are allowed to be up high and on the mountain to hear what God has to say. This is when God reminds them that he is the one who has been saving their butts. Then he gives a list of duties that he expects his people to obey. After pouring a bunch of blood on the altar and on his people, Moses then passes along the ten orders from God.
In the Adamic covenant, God requested that people be fruitful and multiply, allowed humans to take dominion over plants and animals and prohibits that they murder one another (too much!).
In the Noachic covenant, God has decided that people are a mistake and so he wants to rid the world of all animals, including humans. God promises to save Noah's people. He also says he will never smite people or curse them again. Then he also orders humans again to be fruitful and multiply and gives humans permission to eat all the animals that they want. God then also warns that any person who kills another person will pay with his or her own life. The sign of the covenant is a rainbow that God sent down.
In the Abrahamic covenant, God wants to give land to Abram and his people on the condition that these people move to the lands. Abram agrees implicitly by moving to the lands. Miles notes that the text gives us little clue about Abram's mood when he moved. God makes a promise to Abram that he will have many children and that he will have power over other tribes and their lands. As a sign of the covenant, God says that if Abram slices a bunch of animals in half and separates them, a giant flaming sword will come out of the heavens and burn everything up.
God prevents Abram's wife, Sarai, from preventing the covenant to come to pass when Sarai wants to murder the offspring of Abram and Sarai's servant. Later, Abram is promised that he will be the father of a multitude of nations. God demands that the covenant be marked by circumcision. After circumcision and the ratification of the covenant, Abram becomes Abraham and Sarai becomes Sarah. Abraham's son, Ishmael was circumcised and so were all the other men in the tribe. Later, Abraham has another son, Isaac God applauds Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his only son to God. After this, Abraham continues to breed many children who later become the tribes of Israel (Jacob).
The Mosaic covenant is described in Exodus. Some of the sons of Israel (Jacob, who was a son of Isaac) came to Egypt as refugees. The Pharaoh is upset because the Israelites are so fertile and so he demands to kill all of the first-born sons of the Israelites. God, in order to fulfill his side of the covenant, destroys the lands of Egypt in order to liberate his people. The Israelites then performed a ritual which transformed into modern Passover. The ritual is a sign of the covenant. This ritual was to mark their doors with blood to make sure that God knew to avoid them when he was doing his smiting. God then first requests to be worshipped.
Next, the Israelites turn into a large army and march across the desert up to the foot of Mount Sinai, a volcano. God warns that if his people get too close to him, he will harm them. Only Moses and Aaron are allowed to be up high and on the mountain to hear what God has to say. This is when God reminds them that he is the one who has been saving their butts. Then he gives a list of duties that he expects his people to obey. After pouring a bunch of blood on the altar and on his people, Moses then passes along the ten orders from God.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Religion as Literature and Divinity in Genesis
This week we transition from talking about conceptions of divinity in philosophy to talking about conceptions of divinity in four different religions. We will read texts from four religions. We read one ancestor religion and three descendant religions. The religion of ancient Isreal is the ancestor religion. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are the three descendant religions.
How do we study religion in this class? We study these religions in a literary way and not in a religious way. To study religion in a literary way, we must read texts closely and critically and in comparison with other texts. This does not mean that this course is atheistic or anti-religious. Our role is not to judge religion as true or false but to judge the texts of the religions as a piece of literature. We will ask rational academic questions--not questions of faith. A person can practice a personal faith while still engaging in close, critical reading and comparison of religious texts.
Covenant is a pact or agreement that God makes with his chosen people. For example, modern Jews, Christians and Muslims all consider themselves to be the chosen people. Asking who are God's chosen people is a religious question. We will not answer this religious question. Rather, we compare the texts from four religions by looking at the concept of covenant in all of the religions. To ask how we can compare and contrast religious views on covenant is a literary question.
Society, Nature and Divinity are the three aspects of covenant. Society is part of covenant because when we enter into the same religious pact with God as other people, we also then enter into a pact with these other people. Nature is part of covenant insofar as we relate to nature as individuals and indirectly through God. Divinity is part of covenant because we must have a God of some sort in order to have an agreement with God.
Literary Method vs. Philosophy Rather than focusing on argumentation, we will practice criticism. Criticism is also known as narrative analysis. Based on the words in the text, we will identify not only explicit claims but also implicit claims or suggestions. By "reading between the lines", we will ask what a text means. The evidence we use to make claims about what the story means is the actual wording of the text. You will have to cite and quote the original texts and explain how the text leads you to a certain interpretation. It is likely that your interpretation will differ from others. Indeed, given the nature of the method, it is likely that there will be numerous interpretations that are supported by the evidence.
Genesis. We begin by looking at covenant in the book of Genesis from the Tanakh, (AKA the Old Testament). In the first chapter of Genesis, God is described as making a man and a woman at the same time. In the second chapter, God is described as first making a man and only later making a woman. Is this apparent conflict a problem? Another point of tension is in the difference in the demands put on humans. In the first chapter, humans are ordered to subdue the earth and rule over it. In the second chapter, there is no such order. Another question is whether humans every agree to follow out the orders of God. Is it relevant that there is no explicit agreement described in the text? Our task as literary scholars of this religious text is to explain how these tensions can or cannot be explained in terms of a unified interpretation of the text.
How do we study religion in this class? We study these religions in a literary way and not in a religious way. To study religion in a literary way, we must read texts closely and critically and in comparison with other texts. This does not mean that this course is atheistic or anti-religious. Our role is not to judge religion as true or false but to judge the texts of the religions as a piece of literature. We will ask rational academic questions--not questions of faith. A person can practice a personal faith while still engaging in close, critical reading and comparison of religious texts.
Covenant is a pact or agreement that God makes with his chosen people. For example, modern Jews, Christians and Muslims all consider themselves to be the chosen people. Asking who are God's chosen people is a religious question. We will not answer this religious question. Rather, we compare the texts from four religions by looking at the concept of covenant in all of the religions. To ask how we can compare and contrast religious views on covenant is a literary question.
Society, Nature and Divinity are the three aspects of covenant. Society is part of covenant because when we enter into the same religious pact with God as other people, we also then enter into a pact with these other people. Nature is part of covenant insofar as we relate to nature as individuals and indirectly through God. Divinity is part of covenant because we must have a God of some sort in order to have an agreement with God.
Literary Method vs. Philosophy Rather than focusing on argumentation, we will practice criticism. Criticism is also known as narrative analysis. Based on the words in the text, we will identify not only explicit claims but also implicit claims or suggestions. By "reading between the lines", we will ask what a text means. The evidence we use to make claims about what the story means is the actual wording of the text. You will have to cite and quote the original texts and explain how the text leads you to a certain interpretation. It is likely that your interpretation will differ from others. Indeed, given the nature of the method, it is likely that there will be numerous interpretations that are supported by the evidence.
Genesis. We begin by looking at covenant in the book of Genesis from the Tanakh, (AKA the Old Testament). In the first chapter of Genesis, God is described as making a man and a woman at the same time. In the second chapter, God is described as first making a man and only later making a woman. Is this apparent conflict a problem? Another point of tension is in the difference in the demands put on humans. In the first chapter, humans are ordered to subdue the earth and rule over it. In the second chapter, there is no such order. Another question is whether humans every agree to follow out the orders of God. Is it relevant that there is no explicit agreement described in the text? Our task as literary scholars of this religious text is to explain how these tensions can or cannot be explained in terms of a unified interpretation of the text.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
The Big Bright Green Pleasure Machine
Simon and Garfunkel's "The Big Bright Green Pleasure Machine" is a song about a fictional machine that will offer a customer pleasurable experiences. What kind of hedonism does the narrator of the song endorse? How might this be similar to or different from Epicurus's hedonism?
Epicurean Hedonism
Why should we learn physics or natural sciences? Epicurus thought that people are bothered by irrational worries about their own deaths and about "heavenly phenomena" such as the movement of stars and eclipses. Learning about physics can help humans to deal with these irrational worries. Studying the natural sciences helps us to understand that events such as solar eclipses and even our own deaths are things that we should not worry about. The gods have no interest in making us suffer, and our deaths are but a mere loss of sense perception.
The upshot is that death is nothing to us.
P1. Everything good and bad is good and bad because of sensory experiences.
P2. When you are dead, there will be no sensory experiences.
C1. Death is neither good nor bad. Death is only nothing.
C2. Death is nothing to fear because fear only happens when you expect something bad to happen.
Someone might object on the grounds that happiness means more than just lacking fear. Happiness requires hope. If death is nothing, it would make sense not to fear it. Yet if death is nothing, then it does not make sense to look forward to it. It makes sense to hope for an immortal life because we would want our happiness to continue and we need sensory experiences in order to have happiness.
Epicurus would respond by saying that being immortal cannot bring someone more pleasure than living a mortal life. Because a lack of pain is the maximal amount of pleasure we can feel, there is a limit to how much pleasure we can feel. An immortal existence could not possibly make our lives more pleasurable than this limit allows. Pleasures can vary once we have fulfilled our needs but the limit to our pleasure can never be surpassed (PD, III, XVIII) The fact that Epicurus thought that there is no greater pleasure than the removal of all pain is what makes his hedonism unique.
There are also ways in which Epicurus's hedonism is similar to other hedonistic theories. Hedonistic theories have two main theses in common. First, there is the empirical (psychological) claim that pain and pleasure are the only things that motivate us to act. Second, there is the normative, or ethical, claim that pleasure is good and pain is bad; nothing else is a source of goodness or badness. Hence, we should judge actions as good or bad based upon whether they lead to pleasure or pain (LM, #129).
To more clearly understand a theory based on pleasure (hedonism), we should clarify the definition of pleasure. Pleasures are related to desires. Epicurus first distinguishes between natural desires and groundless desires. For example, the desire for food is natural but the desire for a new television is groundless. Within the category of natural desires, some are merely necessary whereas others are necessary for a happy life. For example, being free of physical problems (health issues) and disturbances of the soul are not only natural but are also necessary for a happy life.
Epicurus thought that every pleasure is good in its own right, but some pleasures should not be chosen because of their disadvantages. In order to know which pleasures we should choose, we need to be experts at comparing pleasures (Letter to Menoeceus, #127-130). For example, smoking a lot of meth might be pleasurable for a time but it comes with serious disadvantages. Negative side effects should discourage us from such pleasures.
Indeed, Epicurus thought that we should be happy with just "barley cakes and water" (#130-31). Such sustenance is easy to acquire. Also, there is no disturbance or harm caused if we lack fancier foods. Epicurus also notes that people in need are provided "the highest pleasure" when they get these simple things. In other words, the greatest pleasure comes from satisfying needs.
If pleasure is the goal of human life and the source of all goodness, then what motivation do we have to be good? Epicurus thought that virtues come from our ability to be good at making practical decisions such as measuring and comparing virtues; he called this prudence (#132). He also thought that virtue is necessary for a pleasant life. Likewise, being virtuous ensures that you will have a pleasant life (#132).
Still, someone might wonder why we should act justly. It is possible that others benefit from just actions such as returning a lost puppy to its owner, but I myself do not get any benefit from this just action. What is the motivation to act justly? Epicurus thought that it was impossible to commit an injustice without fear of getting caught and being punished. Unjust actions are thus bad only because it leads to this fear (PD, XXXIV).
Epicurus also puts forward a concept about the "justice of nature", which is a pact or agreement that two people make for their own benefit (XXXI, XXXII). What is just is what is agreed upon for mutual benefit. Because whether things are beneficial and useful changes, what is just also changes. Something that was once just can cease to be just when it is no longer useful (XXXVII-VIII). Of course, some people might think that some things are wrong whether or not they benefit society. For example, it might benefit a society at large to have a slave population. In such a case, one might want to claim that slavery is still wrong even if it is useful. Alternatively, someone might claim that killing innocent people is always wrong even if it is useful.
The upshot is that death is nothing to us.
P1. Everything good and bad is good and bad because of sensory experiences.
P2. When you are dead, there will be no sensory experiences.
C1. Death is neither good nor bad. Death is only nothing.
C2. Death is nothing to fear because fear only happens when you expect something bad to happen.
Someone might object on the grounds that happiness means more than just lacking fear. Happiness requires hope. If death is nothing, it would make sense not to fear it. Yet if death is nothing, then it does not make sense to look forward to it. It makes sense to hope for an immortal life because we would want our happiness to continue and we need sensory experiences in order to have happiness.
Epicurus would respond by saying that being immortal cannot bring someone more pleasure than living a mortal life. Because a lack of pain is the maximal amount of pleasure we can feel, there is a limit to how much pleasure we can feel. An immortal existence could not possibly make our lives more pleasurable than this limit allows. Pleasures can vary once we have fulfilled our needs but the limit to our pleasure can never be surpassed (PD, III, XVIII) The fact that Epicurus thought that there is no greater pleasure than the removal of all pain is what makes his hedonism unique.
There are also ways in which Epicurus's hedonism is similar to other hedonistic theories. Hedonistic theories have two main theses in common. First, there is the empirical (psychological) claim that pain and pleasure are the only things that motivate us to act. Second, there is the normative, or ethical, claim that pleasure is good and pain is bad; nothing else is a source of goodness or badness. Hence, we should judge actions as good or bad based upon whether they lead to pleasure or pain (LM, #129).
To more clearly understand a theory based on pleasure (hedonism), we should clarify the definition of pleasure. Pleasures are related to desires. Epicurus first distinguishes between natural desires and groundless desires. For example, the desire for food is natural but the desire for a new television is groundless. Within the category of natural desires, some are merely necessary whereas others are necessary for a happy life. For example, being free of physical problems (health issues) and disturbances of the soul are not only natural but are also necessary for a happy life.
Epicurus thought that every pleasure is good in its own right, but some pleasures should not be chosen because of their disadvantages. In order to know which pleasures we should choose, we need to be experts at comparing pleasures (Letter to Menoeceus, #127-130). For example, smoking a lot of meth might be pleasurable for a time but it comes with serious disadvantages. Negative side effects should discourage us from such pleasures.
Indeed, Epicurus thought that we should be happy with just "barley cakes and water" (#130-31). Such sustenance is easy to acquire. Also, there is no disturbance or harm caused if we lack fancier foods. Epicurus also notes that people in need are provided "the highest pleasure" when they get these simple things. In other words, the greatest pleasure comes from satisfying needs.
If pleasure is the goal of human life and the source of all goodness, then what motivation do we have to be good? Epicurus thought that virtues come from our ability to be good at making practical decisions such as measuring and comparing virtues; he called this prudence (#132). He also thought that virtue is necessary for a pleasant life. Likewise, being virtuous ensures that you will have a pleasant life (#132).
Still, someone might wonder why we should act justly. It is possible that others benefit from just actions such as returning a lost puppy to its owner, but I myself do not get any benefit from this just action. What is the motivation to act justly? Epicurus thought that it was impossible to commit an injustice without fear of getting caught and being punished. Unjust actions are thus bad only because it leads to this fear (PD, XXXIV).
Epicurus also puts forward a concept about the "justice of nature", which is a pact or agreement that two people make for their own benefit (XXXI, XXXII). What is just is what is agreed upon for mutual benefit. Because whether things are beneficial and useful changes, what is just also changes. Something that was once just can cease to be just when it is no longer useful (XXXVII-VIII). Of course, some people might think that some things are wrong whether or not they benefit society. For example, it might benefit a society at large to have a slave population. In such a case, one might want to claim that slavery is still wrong even if it is useful. Alternatively, someone might claim that killing innocent people is always wrong even if it is useful.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Epicurus and Epicureanism
Intro to Epictetus
There are two main features of Epicurus's philosophy. First, he thought that the world is made up of simple parts, called atoms. This is called an atomistic account of nature. Contrary to Epictetus, Epicurus thought that there was no rational plan for the universe. Second, he thought that the goal of human life is pleasure. To clarify, Epicurus thought that some pleasures were better than others. He thought that stable, lasting pleasures were the target for which we should aim. Unstable, fleeting pleasures such as partying and substance abuse, however, are not good pleasures.
We can see Epicurus's influence on modern thought. For example, according to Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, a government is established for the mutual benefit of the parties involved. In other words, a government is formed because two parties want to pursue their own pleasure. Another example is ethical Utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham famously thought that moral goodness depends on human happiness. Things that make us happy and bring us pleasure are good. A last example is the rise of Deism in the 18th and 19th centuries. Thomas Jefferson, for example, thought that God does not intervene with the affairs of humans. God provides neither rewards nor punishments.
Epicurus and the Natural World (Epicurus's Physics)
Epicurus thought that all knowledge ultimately depends on our senses. However, there are certain things that we cannot observe with our senses. When we cannot depend on our senses, we can use our rationality and reasoning to infer things about the world. For example, although we might not be able to see some celestial beings, we might be able to prove that it exists if we apply scientific and mathematical principles to the movement of other stars and planets in the area of this unseen celestial being.
Argument that the totality of things was/is/always will be the same (#38-39)
P1. No thing comes from nothing.
P2. No thing can become nothing
C. Everything that is has always been and always will be as it is now.
The Void (#39-40) is empty space. In other words, it is just what is not. It has no causal powers (#67). Some philosophers thought that there was a logical contradiction to say that a Void can exist because it requires that something that does not exist must exist. Epicurus, however, thought that there was a Void. The Void is the empty space through which we can move. We know that bodies move because we see it. Since bodies move, we must know that there must be space through which they move. This space is the void. To be clear, empty space is not the same thing as "what is not".
Atoms. Atoms are unable to be physically divided. However, we can divide them in theory. There are parts to atoms even if we are unable to divide them (#58-59). When everyday things like chairs and cats die, burn up or decompose, the atoms continue to exist. Atoms lack color and smell (#54) but they have size, weight and shape. They are always moving. Unless an atom collides with another atom, it will move in the same direction and at the same speed all the time. Occasionally, atoms will "swerve", meaning that they move erratically and unexpectedly. This means that nature cannot be completely predicted or determined. Bodies of things like shoes and babies are made when atoms clump together. The human soul is also made up of tiny atoms which are supposed to be spread out throughout the entire human. Everything in nature can be explained by atoms and the Void. There is no rational organization or divine plan. There is no purpose behind nature; there are only atoms and the Void.
What about Gods? Epicurus did believe in the gods. They exist as higher beings who are indestructible and blessed. In other words, they are immortal and supremely happy. Gods neither made the world nor do they control it. Gods have no power to reward or punish human beings. In general, gods do not interfere with the world. They have no troubles and so they have no interest in humans. To allow one's happiness to depend on the activities of humans would be a sign of weakness. The gods simply don't care about humans at all.
There are two main features of Epicurus's philosophy. First, he thought that the world is made up of simple parts, called atoms. This is called an atomistic account of nature. Contrary to Epictetus, Epicurus thought that there was no rational plan for the universe. Second, he thought that the goal of human life is pleasure. To clarify, Epicurus thought that some pleasures were better than others. He thought that stable, lasting pleasures were the target for which we should aim. Unstable, fleeting pleasures such as partying and substance abuse, however, are not good pleasures.
We can see Epicurus's influence on modern thought. For example, according to Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, a government is established for the mutual benefit of the parties involved. In other words, a government is formed because two parties want to pursue their own pleasure. Another example is ethical Utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham famously thought that moral goodness depends on human happiness. Things that make us happy and bring us pleasure are good. A last example is the rise of Deism in the 18th and 19th centuries. Thomas Jefferson, for example, thought that God does not intervene with the affairs of humans. God provides neither rewards nor punishments.
Epicurus and the Natural World (Epicurus's Physics)
Epicurus thought that all knowledge ultimately depends on our senses. However, there are certain things that we cannot observe with our senses. When we cannot depend on our senses, we can use our rationality and reasoning to infer things about the world. For example, although we might not be able to see some celestial beings, we might be able to prove that it exists if we apply scientific and mathematical principles to the movement of other stars and planets in the area of this unseen celestial being.
Argument that the totality of things was/is/always will be the same (#38-39)
P1. No thing comes from nothing.
P2. No thing can become nothing
C. Everything that is has always been and always will be as it is now.
The Void (#39-40) is empty space. In other words, it is just what is not. It has no causal powers (#67). Some philosophers thought that there was a logical contradiction to say that a Void can exist because it requires that something that does not exist must exist. Epicurus, however, thought that there was a Void. The Void is the empty space through which we can move. We know that bodies move because we see it. Since bodies move, we must know that there must be space through which they move. This space is the void. To be clear, empty space is not the same thing as "what is not".
Atoms. Atoms are unable to be physically divided. However, we can divide them in theory. There are parts to atoms even if we are unable to divide them (#58-59). When everyday things like chairs and cats die, burn up or decompose, the atoms continue to exist. Atoms lack color and smell (#54) but they have size, weight and shape. They are always moving. Unless an atom collides with another atom, it will move in the same direction and at the same speed all the time. Occasionally, atoms will "swerve", meaning that they move erratically and unexpectedly. This means that nature cannot be completely predicted or determined. Bodies of things like shoes and babies are made when atoms clump together. The human soul is also made up of tiny atoms which are supposed to be spread out throughout the entire human. Everything in nature can be explained by atoms and the Void. There is no rational organization or divine plan. There is no purpose behind nature; there are only atoms and the Void.
What about Gods? Epicurus did believe in the gods. They exist as higher beings who are indestructible and blessed. In other words, they are immortal and supremely happy. Gods neither made the world nor do they control it. Gods have no power to reward or punish human beings. In general, gods do not interfere with the world. They have no troubles and so they have no interest in humans. To allow one's happiness to depend on the activities of humans would be a sign of weakness. The gods simply don't care about humans at all.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Still Curious about Logic and Arguments?
Here is a link to my other educational blog where I explain some basics about logic and arguments. Enjoy!
Stoicism in Pop Music
These clips are examples of traces of Stoic thought in music
Pearl Jam's "I am mine"
Christina Aguilera's "Fighter"
Kelly Clarkson's "Stronger"
What is the message of these songs? How do the narrators and/or songwriters respond to the outside world? How is this similar to Epictetus's Stoicism? How does it differ?
Pearl Jam's "I am mine"
Christina Aguilera's "Fighter"
Kelly Clarkson's "Stronger"
What is the message of these songs? How do the narrators and/or songwriters respond to the outside world? How is this similar to Epictetus's Stoicism? How does it differ?
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Epictetus: Argument and Objections
The Central Argument in Epictetus's Handbook
P1. Things must happen the way you want if you are going to be happy (if your life is to "go well").
P2. How things happen is not up to you.
P3. The only thing that is up to you is what you want.
C1. Therefore, you should either
(a) want things to happen just as they happen, or
(b) want nothing.
There are two ways to defeat an argument. First, you can show that a logical error has been made. Second, you can show that one of the premises are false. Only arguments that are logically flawless and have all true premises are what we call valid and sound.
Objections to P3 on the Basis that P3 is Empirically False
What I want is not up to me. First, wants are partially dependent upon our bodies. Our bodies function independently of our desires. For example, if I have not slept in 24 hours, I cannot help but be tired and want to sleep. One response to this objection is to point out that whereas we cannot avoid physical states such as hunger, pain and thirst, we can change our judgments related to that sensation. For example, someone who has anorexia can choose to judge that hunger pains are a positive thing. Second, one may claim that desires are caused by emotions and emotions are in turn caused by chemical impulses in the brain which are beyond my control. One response to this objection is to admit that Stoicism is limited because it is not an adequate treatment for mental illness. Stoicism is meant to work for people who do not have severe mental problems. Another response to this objection is to point out that the scientific basis for the objection is weaker than many people think. Even within the scientific field, there is debate about whether moods and mental states can be regulated and controlled by chemicals.
Even if we can eliminate desires, we are no better off because we would then lack motivation to do anything. A response to this objection is that Stoic philosophers distinguish between wanting and wishing. Wanting means a desire to control things that are outside of our control because we think that these things will make us happy. Wishing is desiring for something to happen without letting one's happiness be affected by that wish.
Objections on the Basis of Values and Norms
Emotions such as grief are good to have. Good people feel grieve. One can respond to this objection by pointing out that grief does not have positive benefits. It helps neither the person who is grieving nor the person who is dead.
Good friends should share our emotions and sympathize with us. One can respond to this by pointing out that a stoic can still be comforting to a friend without sharing the same emotions. A stoic would want to help his or her friend by encouraging him or her to be in control of emotions. Also, it seems that there is no good reason that we should want our friends to be sad just because we are friends. Indeed, two friends who feed off of one another's negative emotions (anger, fear, sadness, etc.) can end up making each other absolutely miserable.
Big Picture
Let's take a moment now to step back and ask what the larger picture is here. Perhaps this will help us to understand why Epictetus is a stoic. Epictetus clearly believes that, "Nothing bad by nature happens in the world (Sect. 27)". Epictetus believes that the universe is a perfectly ordered whole. Everything that happens is for a good reason ( Disc, 6.). Everything that happens because it is governed by an underlying rational principle. This rational force is god. Insofar as we are also rational, we are "fragments of god" (Disc, 10.). Epictetus also claims that we have a sort of guardian angel provided by god and this personal daemon is supposed to help us.
Some Problems with Stoicism
1. Do we have to understand how the universe is a perfectly ordered whole in order to be happy? Is it enough to know that it is perfectly ordered or do we have to know how it is ordered?
2. How should we understand the personal daemon? Is this our rational ability or something else?
3. How should we understand the claim that we are "fragments of god"? Does this mean something other than that we are rational creatures?
4. Whereas Stoics argue that no humans are slaves by nature, animals are meant to be used. How can we support this claim in a way that does not appeal to theology?
P1. Things must happen the way you want if you are going to be happy (if your life is to "go well").
P2. How things happen is not up to you.
P3. The only thing that is up to you is what you want.
C1. Therefore, you should either
(a) want things to happen just as they happen, or
(b) want nothing.
There are two ways to defeat an argument. First, you can show that a logical error has been made. Second, you can show that one of the premises are false. Only arguments that are logically flawless and have all true premises are what we call valid and sound.
Objections to P3 on the Basis that P3 is Empirically False
What I want is not up to me. First, wants are partially dependent upon our bodies. Our bodies function independently of our desires. For example, if I have not slept in 24 hours, I cannot help but be tired and want to sleep. One response to this objection is to point out that whereas we cannot avoid physical states such as hunger, pain and thirst, we can change our judgments related to that sensation. For example, someone who has anorexia can choose to judge that hunger pains are a positive thing. Second, one may claim that desires are caused by emotions and emotions are in turn caused by chemical impulses in the brain which are beyond my control. One response to this objection is to admit that Stoicism is limited because it is not an adequate treatment for mental illness. Stoicism is meant to work for people who do not have severe mental problems. Another response to this objection is to point out that the scientific basis for the objection is weaker than many people think. Even within the scientific field, there is debate about whether moods and mental states can be regulated and controlled by chemicals.
Even if we can eliminate desires, we are no better off because we would then lack motivation to do anything. A response to this objection is that Stoic philosophers distinguish between wanting and wishing. Wanting means a desire to control things that are outside of our control because we think that these things will make us happy. Wishing is desiring for something to happen without letting one's happiness be affected by that wish.
Objections on the Basis of Values and Norms
Emotions such as grief are good to have. Good people feel grieve. One can respond to this objection by pointing out that grief does not have positive benefits. It helps neither the person who is grieving nor the person who is dead.
Good friends should share our emotions and sympathize with us. One can respond to this by pointing out that a stoic can still be comforting to a friend without sharing the same emotions. A stoic would want to help his or her friend by encouraging him or her to be in control of emotions. Also, it seems that there is no good reason that we should want our friends to be sad just because we are friends. Indeed, two friends who feed off of one another's negative emotions (anger, fear, sadness, etc.) can end up making each other absolutely miserable.
Big Picture
Let's take a moment now to step back and ask what the larger picture is here. Perhaps this will help us to understand why Epictetus is a stoic. Epictetus clearly believes that, "Nothing bad by nature happens in the world (Sect. 27)". Epictetus believes that the universe is a perfectly ordered whole. Everything that happens is for a good reason ( Disc, 6.). Everything that happens because it is governed by an underlying rational principle. This rational force is god. Insofar as we are also rational, we are "fragments of god" (Disc, 10.). Epictetus also claims that we have a sort of guardian angel provided by god and this personal daemon is supposed to help us.
Some Problems with Stoicism
1. Do we have to understand how the universe is a perfectly ordered whole in order to be happy? Is it enough to know that it is perfectly ordered or do we have to know how it is ordered?
2. How should we understand the personal daemon? Is this our rational ability or something else?
3. How should we understand the claim that we are "fragments of god"? Does this mean something other than that we are rational creatures?
4. Whereas Stoics argue that no humans are slaves by nature, animals are meant to be used. How can we support this claim in a way that does not appeal to theology?
Intro to Philosophy and Stoicism
What is philosophy? Since contemporary Western philosophy is similar to ancient Greek philosophy, we can begin to answer this question by looking at the history of philosophy. Since
the ancient Greeks, philosophers have been concerned with conceptual
precision, which means that the words that we use should have clear
definitions. Additionally, philosophers are focused on logical
analysis and argumentation. Logic is the field of philosophy that is
concerned with the structure and form of language. One can apply the
rules of logic, which are similar to the rules of math, to an
argument to discover whether an argument is good or not. You can
find more info about logic here. Finally, philosophers often try to
construct a comprehensive worldview, meaning that they create a
theory that can be applied broadly across a particular subject, such
as physics, ethics, or politics.
When we transition to Hellenistic and
Roman philosophy, we see a focus on moving away from the frenzy and
excitement of human life towards a tranquil, calm experience of the
world. In the "modern" period, philosophy became further
differentiated from theology and science. It was a time of increased
specialization and a move away from questions about god and questions
better answered by empirical sciences.
Stoicism is a kind of philosophy that
originated in Greece around 300 BC. Stoicism can be most simply
characterized as the theory that we should be in control of our
emotions and avoid being influenced by factors that are external to
us and outside of our control. The influence of Stoicism can still
be seen in our culture today. For example, in psychotherapy,
patients are sometimes encouraged to control the way that they judge
the world in order to change the emotional response that they have to
the world.
Epictetus is the Stoic philosopher that
we read in this class. He became a philosopher after being freed
from slavery during the Roman empire. Epictetus thought that there
are some things that are in our control. For example, we can control
our mental states, such as opinions, judgments, desires, aversions,
emotions, and our character (virtues and vices). Everything else is
outside of our control. Our possessions, jobs, reputations and our
bodies (including our eventual death) are beyond our control. We can
control our minds and only our minds. Although what happens to us is
beyond our control, we can control how we respond to what happens to
us.
Since the goal of Stoicism is to gain
control over our minds and to stop trying to control everything else,
the ideal state of mind is to be free from disturbances and
excitements. One should be stable, calm and serene. According to
Epictetus, the only thing that is good is our own character, or
virtue. Other things might have value but they are not good in
themselves. Only our virtue is good itself and is good under all
circumstances. Passions, or disruptive emotions, are always
irrational and they reflect on a false value judgment about the
world. For example, when you are happy because you win the lottery,
you are only happy because you falsely believe that winning money is
a good thing. Because only our own virtue is good, it is not good to
win the lottery and so it is silly to be happy about being a
newly-made millionaire. Unlike the passions, good emotional states
reflect rational judgments about what is good and bad. For example,
being calm and serene in spite of a stressful environment is good
because it is based on the judgment that life is still perfectly in
order in spite of the apparent chaos.
One might object to Epictetus's Stoicism on the grounds that some disruptive emotions are part of a
good life. For example, someone might think that the person who
grieves after the loss of a loved one is a better person than the
person who is indifferent towards the death of a loved one.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Welcome
Hello and welcome to Humcore! This blog is meant to be an informal resource for students in the Humanities Core Course. This is a place where I will post notes, links and other relevant material.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)