Western Philosophy was birthed on May 28th 585 B.C. by Thales' solar eclipse.
Outline:
Pre-socratic
- Thales - The question of "One and the Many - the quest for mono-arche = monarchy" / relationship btw "unity & diversity" (results in "Universe") -> ultimate reality -> metaphysics. Telos (teleology) -> why. The search for essence/substance/stuff. Ultimate essence is water for its 3 forms (being) and necessity in life and Hylozoistic (motions of sea, river, etc.) which is supposed to solve for infinite regress (self moving like automobile) (by Thales) contrasting with Paul's Act 17:28a 'For in him we live and move and have our being.'
From the book: The Consequences of Ideas by R.C. Sproul:
It is interesting to note that a janitor/cleaning guy gave up working in the intellectual world because it cost him his wife and children back in the days of the Nazis, when he was a professor in philosophy, which is what the 3rd Reich hated (any ideas different than Hitler's). His knowledge stunned the young Sproul who freshly graduated with a philosophy degree and working by his side doing the same work (it was hard to find job for a philosophy graduate). - From the book's introduction.
Chapter 1:
The combination of any 2 terms from Corporeal, Incorporeal, Monism, Pluralism sums up 4 chief categories of the pre-Socratic philosophers. For example: Thales => C.M.; Empedocles, Anaxagoras => C.P.
3 Milesian Philosophers:
Thales used the quest of unmoved mover (thus not originated from Aristotle) to find water as the answer by seeing the moving oceans and rivers.
Thales' student Anaximander -> Apeiron (indeterminate boundless) -> Pluralism.
Anaximenes, student of Anaximander -> combine Thales and Anaximander (both specific and spread everywhere) -> air (rarefaction vs condensation, essential to life, wind, etc.).
Pythagoras:
Migrated from Samos to southern Italy. Religious interest in mathematics. 10 is perfect number. Formal over material, spiritual/intellectual over physical. Math is a matter of the soul. Music (consists of mathematical proportions, numerical ratios) soothes the savage beast.
Heraclitus & Parmenides (giants of the pre-Socratic):
Heraclitus:
Ephesian. Father of modern existentialism (I wonder why this fact is only presented by Christians from my brief online research). Panta rhei = All things are flowing. Becoming instead of Being. Not possible to step into the same river twice. Fire as basic element because it is constantly in flux. Always in process, always being transformed. Process is not chaotic, but orchestrated by "God", an impersonal force. Flux is product of universal reason Heraclitus calls the logos. The root of John's logos. But John's logos is filled with Hebrew thoughts. Heraclitus thus is pantheistic. All conflicts are resolved in the overarching Fire or the logos of things.
Work(s): On Nature.
Parmenides:
Eleatic (Elea = Italy) school of philosophy.
"Whatever is, is."
Change violates the law of non-contradiction. It cannot be and not be at the same time. Change is an illusion, not an "it".
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Ex nihilo, nihil fit = Out of nothing, nothing comes.
Attacks notion of self-creation, including Christian view.
The "how" of creation and creator-creature difference remains a mystery. Sproul: We take comfort, however, that mystery is not a synonym of contradiction.
This impasse of change promoted the skepticism era.
Work(s): The Way of Truth and the Way of Seeming.
Zeno of Elea:
Parmenides' student. The critics against Parmenides were done using the 5 senses to confirm change. Zeno established proofs/paradoxes that senses deal not with reality but appearances only:
1. Using circle tracks traveling in halves of the previous halves to show the pluralists that the world is not divisible because of infinite points.
2. Achilles and a tortoise.
3. Flying arrow is not really moving if it has to occupy the same space with the same length. Thus must always be at rest.
4. relativity.
Empedocles:
Sicilian. Challenged Zeno's skepticism. Change is too obvious to deny. Particles posses being and do not change, but the composition of particles do change. He changed Parmenides' monism to pluralism: 4 basic elements: earth, air, fire & water. Later a 5th element was considered to the other 4. Hence the word quintessence. Two opposite forces: love vs. strife, harmony vs. discord.
Work(s): On Nature, Purifications.
Anaxagoras:
Athenian. Tweaked Corporeal Pluralism by introducing eternal units: spermata (seeds). Reality is composed of matter and mind.
Democritus:
Primitive Atomism.
Chapter 2
Monism & Pluralism
Pre-socratic mentions: Anaxemenes (Challenges Thales to replace water with air as ultimate substance), Anaximander, etc.
Ultimate substances progression in history: Water -> Air -> Earth -> Fire -> all 4 -> 5th Essence/quintessence.
Anaximander: Apeiron (ultimate reality) - boundless, ageless.
Sproul: These are "pursuit of God".
Monists: All reality is one. There is unity. A sort of pantheism. God would be "The One".
Pluralists: There cannot be a single substance. More than one ultimate element, etc. Infinite number of "seeds" in the world. Atoms by Democritus.
Eastern Philosophy: Dualism. Two equal & opposite forces. A kind of Pluralism.
Thales = Corporeal (only matter) Monist. Democritus = Pluralist.
Incorporeal monists: non-matter. Such as energy.
Ancient philosophers always debated between monists and pluralists; corporeal and incorporeal.
Chapter 3
Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Zeno
Being, unavoidable in life. Verb to be.
Controversy about whether it was Heraclitus or Parmenides responded to the other.
Heraclitus was in fact a monist. All reality is ultimately one.
Parmenides' Whatever is, is, relates to God's "I am".
Plato & Aristotle debates the "being" between Heraclitus & Parmenides.
Zeno, Parmenides' student, against reality of MATTER & MOTION.
Reductio ad absurdum argument started with Zeno, not Socrates: Adopt other's premise, and logically conclude to absurdity. e.g. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, if there is no resurrection of the dead...
Zeno against pluralism (infinite divisibility of matter): Using motion paradox (Race of Achilles and Hare) Hence, if pluralism is true, then Archilles would never finish the race.
So all these unexplained phenomenon of being is unresolved until Socrates.
Chapter 4: Socrates
Like the Danish gadfly (Soren Kierkegaard), Socrates was the gadfly of Athen.
Socrates, born 468-9 BC, approximation. Athen lost to Sparta in war, thus...
Began the ancient birth of pragmatism, humanism, disilusion of religion (gods let us down) = pre-socratic age of secularism. Instead of pursuit of the ultimate reality. Sophist(sages) movement began.
Much info of Sophists from Plato, who's negative of them. So beware of reading Plato. The negative source of "sophisticate".
Because of the development of Jury System - Sophists as good in rhetoric is desired.
Public speaking at premium. Most articulate wins, similar to our society today.
Sophists are pragmatic = What works. Truth was not their interest, persuasion was their interest.
Sproul, similar to Tong, mentioned that as a porfessor, he's not interested in just transferring information from textbook to your notebook. Thus, Sproul admits persuasion is important. Persuade to acquiesce to truth, not personal interest.
Sophists persuade to meet pragmatic ends.
Demosthenes, famous orator, practiced with pebbles in his mouth to train his lips and tongue to be super articulate.
Protagoras, father of humanism. "Homo-Mensura" = man is the measure of all things.
Gorgias, early skeptics. "The good/right is defined as that which works for one's own vested interest."
These superficial sophists and their problematic humanism, etc. is where Socrates steps in. To safe virtue.
The socratic method. Method of dialogue. Not like a speech. More like Lt. Columbo.
Socrates - the original paradigm of education (in latin it means "lead out of". "ed" = from, out of what - ignorance). To gain true knowledge, one must admit ignorance.
Soc: How we act/behave is the first analysis of proper knowledge. What is justice, honesty, industry, etc.
Plato noted Socrates was rather calm at his deathbed regarding death & after life.
Chapter 5: Plato (Part 1)
A philosopher noted that all subsequent philosophy is nothing but a footnote of Plato and Aristotle.
Plato born 427 BC. (28 years before death of Socrates). "Plato" is nickname by his sports coach. Means broad shoulder. Great ancestry.
Plato's school: Academy. Attributed to the person Akademos. Used to be land for olive groves. Hence the phrase: "Groves of academia". "Let none but geometers enter here (ἀγεωμέτρητος μὴ εἰσίτω)" - door post over the entrance of school.
Plato: The universe is not simply measured by form, but rather it is form. Reality is mathematical form.
Theory of Ideas - theory of forms.
Thus, Plato = idealist & realist, though two terms usually contrasting each other. Ultimate reality = ideal, truth = formal. A realist because Plato truly believed the ontological existence of the idea, ultimately, eternally.
Interesting, both Pappas and Sproul used a chair as a prop to demonstrate Plato's idea of a chair.
Plato: The reason we can recognize anything: chair, etc. because there is a eternal idea of chair, etc. But the chair in this world is just a copy of that idea. Thus, resolving Heraclitus & Parmenides' "becoming" and "being".
Sproul: Physical things sort of infected by shadow of evil (idea). But they are necessary, thus the term "necessary evil".
Plato: All things in this world are receptacles. Copies of pure idea. Receptacle = particular object which is an imperfect copy of spiritual idea.
Imperfect here means metaphysically imperfect.
This is a short step away from moral imperfection.
Thus, subsequent philosophies reject and deny the goodness of the created world. (contrasting: God said "it is good" in his creation).
Sproul: Resurrection of the body = redemption of the body vs. Plato: Get rid of the body = redemption of the body (redemption from the body, pure state of spirit and idea).
Chapter 6: Plato (Part 2)
Sproul was told: Karl barth used a bust of Schleiermacher in class to critic Schleiermacher, and at the end of it, he throw the bust to break it on the floor.
Sproul: Plato, how do you know?
Antiquity, primary focus of philosophy: Ontology (metaphysics). Science of being.
Secondly, Epistemology: science of knowing. How do we know what we know.
Plato: The Theory of Recollection: Distinction btwn opinion & knowledge. Plato's cave.
Plato: Mind/Soul (eternal) in us has all knowledge of eternal realm. Thus, innate ideas. A Priori.
Sproul: Christianity has a priori (built-in knowledge)? Yes. Romans 1. God has written His law in our hearts.
Plato, highly influenced by Pythagorean's doctrine of transmigration of the soul = reincarnation for Eastern religion.
Plato: Thus, body is the prison house of the soul. Highest way to know, through the mind, not senses which distorts reality (like prisoners in Plato's case).
Plato: How to get out of such oppression of the body? Get out of it through recall/remembrance. How? By Socratic Method.
Thus, this is the process of education! I recall Tong's "academic study is the slave of conviction".
Sproul: This education is not to give info you don't already have, but to get out of you the info that's already there.
Meno Dialgue, one of many dialogues Plato proves his theory of recollection. Sproul finds it fascinating. Sproul once used this dialogue to make a play between himself (Plato) and a student (Meno, a slave boy) who had no background in math nor philosophy. Hence, Socrates was able to get Meno to articulate the Pythagorean theorem.
Plato: "Saving the Phenomena": The chief task of science. Phenomena = our experience, senses = realm of appearances. Giving the foundation of science.
Sproul: Paradigm shifts. Paradigm = model that explains everything. But paradigm is imperfect due to anomalies. Thus, paradigm shifts.
Me: So the rejection of God seen as paradigm shift is because one puts God under science.
Plato: The ultimate idea is the idea of the good. The Universal Author of all things beautiful and all things right = Perfect Ideal of Good. Is this Plato's God? Unknown. Debated through history.
Justin Martyr: What Plato's thinking, seems to be the influence of the divine Logos who had come into the world.
Aristotle (Part 1)
Events & Ideas (which one is first - chicken & egg problem)
Aristotle is "The Philosopher" as Calvin is "The Theologian".
Plato calls (pet name for) Aristotle: The Brain.
Plato's successors were not Aristotle - Hence some thinks Plato did not return Aristotle's affection in kind. Probably why Aristotle left The Academy.
Aristotle's school: peripatetic due to Walking around as he teaches.
Bibliophile.
Plato thinks that's too bookish. Discussion is better, like Socrates.
Plato: plain style dressing.
Aristotle: expensive style.
Disagrees with Plato fundamentally over theory of Ideas & Recollection.
Troubled by Plato's dualism (of Being & Becoming).
Prefers Unity of all.
Military Expedition of Alexander, most costly until NASA.
Expedition brought back specimens for Lyseum.
Theory Substance (as Plato had his theory of Ideas).
Everything has - Primary Substance - Consists of Matter and Form.
Thus, sometimes Aristotle's philosophy is referred to as the theory of form.
Unlike Plato, for Aristotle: Being and Becoming are found in each individual entity (every substance contains both matter and form).
Being: Form
Becoming: Matter
Christianity: Duality of Body and Soul (not Dualism).
Aristotle: Matter and Form
Being: Actuality, characteristic of form, being. (e.g. acorn -> oak tree, not elephant)
Becoming: Potentiality.
Acorn actually an acorn, but potentially an oak tree.
Acorn has the form of oak-tree-ness.
A substance actualizes its potential.
Entelechy: the driving force from from potential to actuality.
Substance and accidens: Every physical object has substance and accidens.
Accidens: External perceivable qualities of an object.
e.g. whiteness, cylindricalness, etc. of a chalk.
Miracle of Transubstantiation: Bread has substance and accidens of bread-ness. As does wine. Hence, miracle: Rome defines: substance of bread and wine changed into the substance of Christ's body and blood, but the accidens of them remains bread-ness and wine-ness.
Double miracle: because all substances always are co-present with their accidens, in additional to transubstantiation.
Aristotle: where you see the accidens of something, you can be sure it has the substance of that same thing.
1965: Roman Church crisis. 1) Dutch Catechism. 2) A Dutch theologian challenged formula of transubstantiation, wished to change it to transignification. Resulted in the 1965 Roman encyclical: Mysterium fidei by Pope Paul VI: Church maintains transubstantiation and its Aristotelian formula.
Aristotle: It is impossible for pure independent matter to exists by itself, or it would be pure becoming, pure potentiality -> potentially everything but actually nothing. However, it is possible to have pure form => pure being => pure actuality => Aristotle's creative & innovative concept of God as pure form.
Aristotle (Part 2)
God = pure form, absolute actuality without potentiality/becoming.
Unmoved mover / Uncaused cause.
If everything else has form and matter. Back to Thales' problem: of the one and the many, unity and diversity. Thus, God as the ultimate source exists. God the mover, by attraction (like flame stays but moths move to flame). This being is eternal.
Augustine creates synthesis btw. Biblical Christianity and Platonic philosophy.
Aquinas creates synthesis btw. Biblical Christianity and Aristotelian philosophy.
(Sproul: over simplification)
Aristotle: God = necessary being. But no concepts of personal, conscious, divine providence, voluntary creation. "Reigns but doesn't rule".
Aristotle differs with Plato in epistemology as well.
Plato: Knowledge is Apriori
Aristotle: Knowledge is Aposteriori. From senses. Brain/mind. Knowledge is from learning things using senses. The mind has Apriori ability, not knowledge, to work with raw data and form intelligible ideas.
Realism (Res=the thing/matter) & Nominalism (Nomina=name, e.g. nominal Christians=by name only):
Plato: Ideas are real
Aristotle: Ideas are not real (in the sense of having a being within them)
Nominalism: Universals (generic ideas: treeness, humanness, etc.) are not things, but are names.
Thus, Aristotle is not a realist, but a nominalist.
Aristotle: Truth involves conformity between the mind and the thing. When mental idea corresponds to the reality of the thing, then there is truth, otherwise there is error, falsehood.
Aristotle also pursued aesthetics.
Role of Logic = Organon (Instruments) of all sciences. To construct knowledge of all sciences. Logic as a necessary instrument as all intelligible discourse. In our time, people praise irrationality, as observed by Francis Schaeffer. Removing the first law of logic.
First law of logic: The law of non-contradiction. A cannot be non-A at the same time in the same way. I can be a father and a son at the same time, but not in the same relationship (I cannot be a father of whom I am also a son of).
Logic and all sciences depend upon the relationship between the general (subject) & particular (predicate). This is how knowledge and language work.
Plotinus and Neo-Platonism
First classical Greek Skepticism was just before Socrates (due to the diff. between Heraclitus and Parmenides).
After the tension between Plato & Aristotle, the revival of skepticism happened: Quest for metaphysics was fool's errand. Focused on this world's concrete evidence.
Stoicism & Epicureanism followed (common desire to find secret of living a happy life, peace of mind).
At this point, the advent of Christianity saved philosophy. Thus, Paul is the most important philosopher between Plotinus (3rd century A.D.) and Aristotle.
radical ideas introduced by Christian thought: God as personal, The Trinity. The progression of history according to a definite, divine plan.
Neo-Platonism: Revival of Platonism in account for the impact of Christianity.
Founder: Plotinus (203-270 A.D.), Awares and opposes Christian thoughts.
After Christians dealt with Gnosticism.
Neo-Platonism: Mystical experience -> Ultimate truth. Only a few elites were given such. Virtuous life, good life = life of a mystic.
Plotinus: Contemplative life desired = rising above the Platonic cave.
Ancient mysticism - Stages of life:
Sensation -> Contemplation -> Communio -> Unio (become one with the One)
Compare & Contrast with Christian Mysticism:
Communio (only on the communion with God)
Plotinus's god -> suggests pantheism. But some say he tried to avoid pantheism & Christianity.
The One: Unknowable.
Via Negationis = The way of Negation. Describing what God IS NOT. (Plotinus' only way of describing the One). Christians do it to some extent as well (infinite, immutable, etc.). But Plotinus went to the extreme of via negationis:
"Real Being possesses a character comparable to Shape, the intelligible shape of the Real:the One is not shaped even by intelligible shape. For that Principle which generates all things cannot be anything of them all. It is not a thing, it is not quality, it is not quantity, it is not Intelligence nor Soul. It does not move, and yet it is not at rest, either in space or in time: it is the Uniform- absolute, or rather the Formless as being prior to all Form and prior to Motion and Rest."—Enneads, VI. ix. 3.4
Influenced many, for example:
Paul Tillich - God is not a being, but the ground of being. Neither personal nor impersonal, but the ground of personality. A student provoked him by asking was the ground personal or impersonal.
Augustine - converted to Neo-platonism, then later wrote against it as Christian.
Real question: What is the difference between this The One and Nothing? Thus, Plotinus' god is nothing ~ Sproul.
Plotinus: Principle of evil - the material world (similar to Gnosticism).
Augustine (354-430 A.D.)
Was involved in Manichaeism, Neo-Platonism, later wrote against them.
Against Donatism (they over emphasized on sainthood, baptism administration).
Doctor of Grace - Against Pelagius.
Epistemology:
Against skeptics of his time: "No truth is discoverable", this truth is apparently discoverable.
Are you absolutely sure that there are no absolute?
Certainty: Sense perception. Our senses are not perfect. But we are dependent of them.
Augustine: Oar appears bent when entered water.
1. What is said of reality?
2. Perception of reality?
3. What we feel about the reality?
Root of many arguments between people, spouses, etc.
Augustine: We can be certain of former knowledge = mathematical truth.
Happiness of the soul = Beatitude, knowledge of God.
Eternal truths must have source - God (Augustine: Illuminator). Similar to Plato's IDEA.
Neo-platonism (and others): everything is necessary extension of God. Denying free voluntary creation of God. Some form of pantheism.
Augustine: Creatio Ex Nihilo, through divine imperative/fiat (creative power).
Anselm - Archbishop of Canterbury
3 major works:
1. Cur Deus Homo? (Why the God-Man), also talks about the necessity of atonement.
2. Monologion: Credo Ut Intelligam (also used by Augustine) - I believe in order to understand. Childlike faith, not childish faith. Though we cannot completely comprehend God, it is a sin to be negligent of His knowledge.
Anselm: Christian faith is rational, that which God revealed is not irrational. But not rationalism, because he did not place reason above revelation.
- One exists through something or through nothing (it would be absurd to exist out of nothing by itself).
3. Proslogion: Ontological (science of being) Argument. (The usual other two arguments: cosmological/causality & teleological/design). Ontological argument has been dismissed and revived again and again. Opposed by Gaunilo (no greatest island exists). Anselm's response: Being must exist, but non-existing island is conceivable: "It is impossible to have the idea of a possible necessary being, because if a necessary being is simply possible, then it is not necessary".
St. Thomas Aquinas (~1224 to 1274)
Part I
Angelic doctor.
Classmates call him dumb ox of Aquino.
Accused by Evangelicals of separating nature and grace. Chiefly by Francis Schaeffer. Disputed by R.C. Sproul:
great Muslims scholars came up with the "double truth" theory: Something can be true in philosophy and false in religion or vice versa at the same time.
Aquinas was student of Albert the Great. He was attacking this theory using the concept equivalent to our "special revelation" vs. "general revelation". His "distinction" is not "separating".
Mixed Articles: truth learned from either Bible or Nature (e.g. existence of God) -> natural theology.
Natural theology (revealed in nature) as Natural Revelation is what God reveals in nature.
5 proves of God's existence in Aquinas' natural theology.
No seculars dared to attack this until Immanuel Kant.
Aquinas uses Anselm's idea of Necessary Being. There can't be infinite regress of being.
Debate between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston (Roman Catholic). Russel insisted he could conceive infinite regress.
Two types of "Necessary":
- Logical, Anselm's apologetics.
- Ontological, Aquinas' existence by pure being, as Aristotle's "pure being".
Analogia Entis (Analogy of Being): Analogy between eternal being and contingent being (image of God mentioned).
=========
Part 2
Natural Theology: Knowledge of God we gained is: Incomplete, Mediate(through a medium, not direct nor immediately), Analogical, but True.
Analogy natural theology:
1. Univocal: a word describes two different beings, but same meaning
2. Equivocal: a word means radically differently when describing different being
3. Analogical: language of analogy (language we use about God, e.g. "Father"), similarities, analogy of being.
In response to this, I inserted Dr. Tong's critique on Natural Theology:
自然神學的錯誤
我們昨天提到康德反對上帝存在所作的証論，改教家們也反對「自然神學」証明上帝存在的方法。為什么反對呢？因為自然神學是靠著墮落的理性，以人為本，盼望找出証據來証明上帝存在，這些所謂的証據包括：宇宙論証(Cosomological Argument )、本體論証(Ontological Argument )、目的論証(Teleological Argument )等等，這些宇宙論証基本上都是人憑著受造的理性要來認出上帝。改教家們看出這是不可能的事情，他們不是相信自然神學，而是相信那只是「普遍啟示」。
十六世紀的改教家早就為我們亮起紅燈了，很多人不去注意﹔到了十八世紀的時候，我們看見康德出來反對﹔十九世紀的時候，祁克果也出來反對﹔廿世紀的時候，羅素(Bertrand Rusell，1872-1970)再站出來反對，他寫了一本《為什么我不是基督徒？》來表示他的反駁。請問，這三個人是不是都站在否定上帝存在的立場呢？不是的！康德是站在不承認啟示的必要，而把宗教拉到道德范圍的一個人，所以他應該算是「現代不可知論之父」。但是祁克果是強調「個別與神交通」比理性的論証更重要，所以祁克果算是「現代存在主義之父」。但是羅素的動機完全不一樣，他是站在一個存心懷疑，故意要抗拒基督教的立場，所以他几乎等于是一個無神論者。在同樣反對「上帝存在之論証」的這三個人，其實有很不一樣的動機和表現。
那么，當康德說「証明上帝存在很難很難」的時候，那些反對上帝存在的人就高興得不得了，因為連康德都說「証明上帝存在是很難很難的」，但當他們高興還沒有完的時候，康德又講了另外一句話：「証明上帝存在是很難很難的，但是証明上帝不存在更難更難。」這些話到底要講什么呢？乃是要告訴我們：「神不是在論証的范圍里面」，「論証」的方法是太膚淺的，沒有辦法溝到神那里去。所以聖經從起初就很正宗的、很原本的告訴我們，是透過「啟示」，不是透過「論証」。