Ruminating on Laughter, Predestinationand Mystery by Stephen Hand
Calvin ruined laughter, I think. Serious fellow, he. Anyone who says God predestined infants to Hell on account of some imagined "total depravity" lives by certain selective texts which don't live in him.
On dizzying heights and futility
---
The Drawbacks of Pure Secular Reason by Mark and Louise Zwick
The Enlightenment philosophy told us that one could save oneself and direct one's life without God. Secular reason was enough. One did not have to be too concerned about other people. Adam Smith taught that if people seek only their self-interest, seek their own profit, all will work out for the best. Life and the economy will function well if things are left to the forces of nature-even corrupt nature. In this philosophy what can only be called greed came to be seen as "virtue."
Beauty---not greed--- will save the world
---
The Sprouting of My Catholic Eye by Caryl Johnston
I suppose that the accession of Cardinal Ratzinger (following upon the Papacy of his much-admired and respected predecessor) was the beginning of the sprouting of my Catholic Eye. I began to look over my life and perceive that I had lacked, all my life, the muscle of devotion – which can only be exercised under the rigorous pursuit of truth. The world will despise this rigor, and it will mock the effort to train and contain, and make an inheritance, of thought. Yet only thinking can defy thinking and propel it upwards to land its roots in the sky.
From the upcoming TCR anthology, Catholic Voices TodayPublication Date Oct 31, 2005
12 comments:
Zwicks said:
"René Descartes influenced the whole Enlightenment period greatly when he reduced of all life to thought: "I think, therefore I am.""
Descartes was not trying to reduce all life to this world, if the Zwicks spent the time reading Descartes, they would realize that this line was used to postulate his proof of God, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Greed.
I would like to examine the financial statements of the Zwicks and determine who is greedy, and who is making money by pimping poor people.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/#4
anon,
I believe that if you read the the following paragraphs in the Zwicks' article, you will see that they were not accusing Descartes of greed, but rather pointing to him as the father of rationalist thought, which would later develop into enlightnment thought. This is a proposition to which every historian of philosophy would agree.
The Zwicks accuse Descartes, justly so, of taking philosophy in a subjectivist direction. Indeed, the cogito of Descartes is often referred to as the "subjective turn" in the history of philosophy. They then go on to show the results of subjectivity of thought in later thinkers.
Their argument is reasonable and informed on its face (I say this even though I do not agree with all of it, I hold Kant in high esteem).
I must admit I find it odd that an objector would accuse them of poor reasoning, and then go on in his next sentence to give such a great example of the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem in his next paragraph.
-Ben
What Ben said. Except for the thing about holding Kant in high esteem :-)
"René Descartes influenced the whole Enlightenment period greatly when he reduced of all life to thought: "I think, therefore I am.""
Descartes was not trying to reduce all life to this world, if the Zwicks spent the time reading Descartes, they would realize that this line was used to postulate his proof of God, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Greed.
You know, if you read St Augustine's "On the Teacher" and "On Free Will," (as we are doing in my medieval philosophy class), you'd find a lot of striking similarities between Descartes' philosophical starting point and St Augustine's. There's definitely a continuity there. The more I read, the smaller the gulf between pre and post Descartes seems to be
Santiago:
My point exactly. Materialists and the Enlightenists take Descartes out of context. Descartes was using his brilliant talent of deductive reasoning, to prove, using the same rules that apply to mathematics, that God does exist....
My point is that people, who are not sincere, and issue edicts occasionally for the 'monthly fund drive' misuse him, to enrich their own pockets.
ad hominem...opps, I mean Anonymous,
I think you are being insincere in your criticism. I think you are just trying to raise funds for your ski vacation to Sun Valley this year by your defense of Descartes.
You are just trying to line your pockets.
The next thing you know the Missionaries of Charity are going to be attacking Montaigne to raise money for their annual convention in Monte Carlo.
I respect charities that are true charities, I do not respect charities that are simply facade for a burned out couple in search of a career. Take no salary from the charity, and you have my respect.
Can you guys at least designate yourselves as Anonymous 1 and Anonymous 2? Or red and blue?
Anonymous:
Descartes' argument for the existence of God is a later development of St Anselm's, from the looks of it.
I will be anonymous 2, you can call me ben.
Yes, Descartes argument for the existence of God is a later formulation of St. Anselm's. However, I would not call it a development. Descartes argument is vulnerable to Kant's critque (existence is not an attribute of perfection), while the good Doctor Anselm's is not (existent things are indeed greater than not existent things).
I want to say further that I don't think the Zwicks's argument is dependent upon their correct interpretation of Descartes. It is sufficient that later thinkers attributed the subjective turn to him (this is commonly understood intellectual history), and it is the thought generated by the subjective turn that is the subject of their critique (not Cartesean dualism), particularly subjective ethics.
Their argument is decent, even if there are places where I disagree with the particulars. Like I said above, I hold Kant in esteem; I believe the categorical imperative overcomes most of the difficulties of ethical thought for those troubled by subjective skepticism without sucombing to the pitfals of the utilitarinisms and social contract theories of Kant's contemporaries.
However, what concerns me most are the ad hominem attacks of anonymous 1. In my last post I tried to illustrate the absurdity of those attacks. But now it seems the other anonymous is begining to move from ad hominem attacks against the Zwicks' argument against enlightenment thinking to detraction or calumny against the Zwicks themselves. This is innapropriate and sinful.
ben
I want to say further that I don't think the Zwicks's argument is dependent upon their correct interpretation of Descartes.
Yeah, I was only addressing what Anonymous 1 said about Descartes, not anything he said about the Zwicks.
Ahem. Mark and Louise Zwick are the antithesis of burned out. They are models of Christian charity and humility, whatever you think of their politics . . .
Fred
As I've suggested before, and do with respect to my own blog, if you lack the courage to put a face behind your words, don't bother saying them.
Post a Comment