Martin Buber "I and Thou"
Martin Buber was a child in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He grew up to write one the most famous and controversial pieces in the history of religious philosophy. This piece was entitled "I and Thou."
Buber begins his his piece by stating that a man can only speak two words; rather, two word pairs. These word pairs are "I-You" and "I-It." Buber states that when a man uses the words "You" or "It," the I is implied. However, he who says "you" does not have something for his object. "Whoever says "you" does not have have something; he has nothing. But he stands in relation" (Buber). By this, Buber seems to mean that one must acknowledge his own presence in order to acknowledge that of another. In other words, man exists in relation to those "it's" and "you's" around him. This idea leads right into another facet of his argument: man's experience of the world.
Buber states "...man experiences the world." Buber believes that a man goes over the surface of things and experiences them. It is from this interaction we gain knowledge of the way of things. These external experiences are not changed by the internal experiences we encounter along the way. This idea is in line with the the assertion on the part of the Buber that non-ternal things exist only as a "craving" born in man to take the edge off of the fear of the mystery of death.
Buber asserts later on that when a man experiences, he does not participate in the world because the experience is in them not between them. The world takes no part in the experience, it merely allows man to experience it. This idea of relation is touched on in greater detail in the latter portion of the reading. Buber's idea of a tree brings light to this idea. A man can consider a tree. A man can stand in the presence of a tree. The tree is in the presence of a man. Both must deal with the presence of the other the same, but differently. This idea of reciprocity leads to his pondering of whether the tree has a consciousness not unlike our own. Buber cannot speak to this; however, the point of this idea is that when we stand in the presence of a tree, we experience, not the soul or consciousness of the tree, bu the tree itself.
Upon his pondering of the origins of art, Buber considers a blank form in the presence of a human. The form is not a figment of his soul; rather, the form appears the soul and tried to illicit the creative talents of that soul. There is a risk involved here. This risk lies in the the infinite possibility of the form is compromised and surrendered through the artistic process. It is in the hands of the artist to ensure justice is done to the infinite possibility of the form.
Buber's style is very artistic and not linear in any way. It is often held as being quite difficult to understand. It has even been characterized as adopting the "oracular tone" of a false prophet. However, the fact that cannot be argued is that Buber had a style all his own and his words flowed well even after being translated to English. While his words have evoked harsh criticism from readers over the years, an article which has stuck around this long obviously has some strong points to convey.

How can there only be two word pairs a person can use?

What does Buber mean by a man experiences the world?

Why does a blank form carry a risk with it?

Jean-Paul Sartre's "Existentialism"

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980); novelist, playwright, revolutionary journalist, joined the French Army and became leader of the French Resistance during World War II, was awarded the Nobel Prize on October, 22, 1964 but refused it. He was also a lifelong partner of feminist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir whose publication of The Second Sex (women’s social subjugation created by patriarchal forces rather than biological or psychological structures) became seminal to the modern feminist movement.

“We were never more free than during the German occupation. We had lost all our rights, beginning with the right to talk. Every day we were insulted to our faces and had to take it in silence…And because of all this we were free. Because the Nazi venom seeped into our thoughts, every accurate thought was a conquest. Because an all-powerful police tried to force us to hold our tongues, every word took on the value of a declaration of principles. Because we were hunted down, every one of our gestures had the weight of a solemn commitment.” – From Situations, 1947.

Jean-Paul Sartre asks, “What is meant by the term existentialism?” It can be defined as being of two kinds; one who follows religious belief and one that is ‘atheistic’ having no active belief. What is common is existence precedes essence or as Sartre states, subjectivity is the starting point. We can conceive in our minds an object and produce this object in a certain way having specific use. For this object its essence precedes existence. This object is assembled of both the production routines and the properties which enable it to be both produced and defined, a technical view of the world whereby it can be said that production (or its essence) precedes existence. Conceptions of God (such as Descartes and Leibniz) is that He is a superior artisan and when God creates He knows exactly what He is creating.  The concept of man's essence inside the mind of God is the concept of the product in the mind of the manufacturer. If God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before we can define by any concept and that being is man (or as Heidegger says, human reality). Man knows that he exists and defines his essence through the choices and actions he makes.

This is embedded with Sartre's concept of the self. Sartre would say that our theories about the self that are found in our consciousness are not accurate. The self is not thinking, nor is it memory of the past. The self lies in the future, it is the goal as we create ourselves into something. As long as we are alive there is no idea of ‘self’- not a fixed or finished self. We can point out that circumstances of birth are what shape our identity but for Sartre it leaves out the moment of choice. One can take their random circumstances of birth and be proud of it, embarrassed by it or indifferent to the fact. One can fall in love, but, one can also choose to ignore it, embrace it, make it a tragedy, post all of their embarrassing photos on Facebook, or any possibility or any dimension where there is choice. We can transcend the facts that are true of us, those facts, called facticity (referred by Heidegger and Sartre). The self is defined not of these facts but what we make and continually make of these facts. We can make what we will out of these certain facts. But there are no “correct” choices; Like Kierkegaard, all choices are a subjective truth, true for the person who makes them, not necessarily true for anyone else. [Unlike Kierkegaard, there is no ultimate stage (the religious) or figure (God), which could correct the absurdity and paradox of the world].

The self never exists as complete; it is what we choose for ourselves, our projection into the future, our intentions to become a particular type of person. We never actually achieve this for new situations and more choices will arise. The sense of oneself as always incomplete and responsible for itself is called the authentic self. This self is something created not found. Traditional theories that state ‘the self simply is’ are self-deluding of not recognizing our responsibilities for creating the ‘self.’

Denying responsibility is what Sartre called Bad Faith which includes (among other things), that you try to excuse yourself of being responsible for what you or what you will become by letting you be defined by the facts of your accidental circumstances instead of recognizing these facts and doing what you wish of them.

Man is “Condemned to be free,” because he did not create himself, but he is free because once he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does. As we create ourselves we continually create an image of what we think man ought to be. Our responsibility is greater because it involves all mankind and this may project moral values (such as maybe committing a truly Altruistic act may inspire or convince others of acting Altruistically, by showing an example as being a particular type of person, it allows the possibility of others following that example).The idea that God does not exist is terrifying because there is no A priori (knowledge independent of our experiences, i.e. 2+2=4) ‘Good’, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to conceive it. You cannot explain things as being a fixed human nature because there is no being to create human nature. There is nothing that justifies our conduct; no excuse behind us nor need to legitimize because we are in control and create what we are. It is to understand that reality alone counts. 

Sartre affirms that existentialism is a doctrine of anguish, forlornness, and despair, because the existentialist has intense feelings of responsibility, has to suffer the consequences of his actions, (also being responsible for their passionate actions such as anger, rage, lust). There are no excuses or justification for actions and choices, and there is no grand design or figure that guides or dictates actions. We alone are responsible for what we continually create of ourselves out of our actions and choices.

Yet, this detour through atheistic existentialism leads, as Sartre suggests, to a surprising conclusion: The existence of God is not really the issue. Even if we could prove that any God existed it would not matter anyway. because we would not have any deeper understanding of his identity (or, of his essence).

“You are nothing else than your life,” (God ed.,Robinson pg.314) does not imply that someone like an artist, will be judged by his art alone; a thousand more components will contribute to his summation as an individual through the freedom of actions and choices he has made. 

What is meant is that humans are nothing more than a series of undertakings, that we are the sum, organization, and ensemble of the relationships which compose these undertakings and above all responsible for these undertakings.

Can we know of God's existence before we are able to understand his essence? 

Do you think we are able to define his existence with knowledge independent of our experiences? 

Or, are our choices and actions not free but confined to determined or predetermined sources of nature or a source transcendent of nature?

Random Links

Jean-Paul Sartre  Being and Nothingness A Summary (Philosophybro.com) [Disclaimer:Explicit]

Jean-Paul Sartre NoExit (audio adaptation) 

Sartre on Intellectualism

1967 Interview with Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir 

Bertrand Russell "A Critique of the Traditional Arguments"

Bertrand Russell attacks the Christian viewpoint through an analysis and systematic deconstruction of many popular (though very dated) arguments on the existence of God. It is a strength of his argument that he chooses the arguments which he addresses. This type of rhetoric is one that is very commonly used in debate and refutation of an idea.

Russell begins by addressing the idea of a “First Cause.” This idea states that we are all a result of a cause. Everything around us is also the result of some kind of cause down the line. All these causes and results are thought to stem from one common first cause. Russell says that this cannot be plausible as the very nature of the argument states that even God must have a cause. In the eyes of Russell, this leaves the argument of “First Cause” quite invalid. He states that there is really no reason to believe the world had any beginning at all. There is just as much evidence to suggest the world has simply always been.

Natural Law is the next on Bertrand Russell’s hit list. Natural Law states that things work the way they do because of the will of a grand designer. This idea was popularized in the time of Isaac Newton when it was discovered that the planets are rotating about the sun. It was then thought that God set this in motion as part of his master plan. Russell states that the way things work seem to actually imply the opposite of grand design. He states that occurrences in this world are far too unpredictable to indicate design.

Russell next addresses the idea of the Argument of Design. This idea states that the world we live in is the way it is to suit us and provide for our existence. Russell calls upon the work of Charles Darwin with the finches of the Galapagos to form his counterpoint. Darwin compiled data to suggest that we change according to our environment. This idea is one which seems to tear down the popular Argument from Design. By the very definition of the argument it seems to fail in the face of the hard numbers and figures compiled by Darwin.

Another common argument which Russell addresses is one stating that morality is proof of God’s existence. It states that there would be no right or wrong without a God to tell us which is which. Russell goes on to fleetingly mention that there may not even be such a thing as right and wrong in the first place. He states that there really may be no appreciable difference between right and wrong in the first place. Russell believes that the world may have been made by the devil one day when God wasn’t watching. This is a strange but interesting idea.

The final argument is for the remedying of injustice. This seems to be a particularly weak argument and one Russell obviously saved for last as it is his strongest point. This idea states that God exists to ensure the suffering of the wicked and the prosperity of the good. This of course is not always the case and that fact lends itself to the bolstering of Russell’s argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FJys7Pq-rQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO78Z7sG_zM

George I. Mavrodes "Queerness of Morality"

Anselm and Gaunilo, "The Ontological Argument"

Anselm talks about the ontological argument which is another argument for proving God’s existence. Anselm explains God as “something than which nothing greater can be thought.” Therefore if we cannot find something or somebody greater than God is the greatest. The ontological argument is where the questions "Can God make a sandwich so big that even He can't eat it" and "Can God make a mountain so big that even He can't climb it."

Anselms argument is the "being exist so truly that it cannot be thought not to exist." Gaunilo argues that if their is then why are there so many arguments?

Gaunilo talks about a story of an island that is in the middle of the ocean is hard, impossible, to get to. The island is called the "Lost Island" and its beautiful, rich and delightful, because no one lives there and is superior to the other lands. Now the story is easy to understand but does that make the story real because he understands the island being rich? Because a person does not doubt the story makes sense does not mean that the island must be real.

Anselm says Gaunilo misunderstood his argument, that there is a difference between "that which is greater than everything else" and "that than which a greater cannot be thought." A great thought does not mean something has to exist in reality, for example God. Nothing would be like the being or as great. 

Do you think with all of the arguments prove God's existence or are just causing more trouble?

Do you think Gaunilo's critique was fair of Anselm's argument?

When reading did you agree more with Gaunilo's understanding of the argument?

Thomas Aquinas argues about the five different ways that God does exists and how the five ways are (in) famous. Thomas Aquinas point was to tell us that God really does exists and there are reasons why.

The first of the five ways that can prove God’s existence is motion, whatever is in motion is put in motion by something else that is also put in motion by something else. With that being said, when God puts us or something else in motion, who puts God in motion. This means that if I put something in motion God has put me in motion because the mover has put that thing in motion.

The second way is the efficient cause which there are many but we all know that these can’t go onto infinity. When you take away the cause you then take away the effect. It is necessary to admit that the first efficient cause is to give the name of God.

The third way is possibility and necessity, which things in nature are found possible and for those things to exist is not always possible; meaning all the living things are not really possible but they must exist even though we say they don’t exist. Every necessity has its own necessary thing which is caused by another necessity. Aquinas talks about how possible and necessities are things in nature which are found possible, but when I think of possibility I think of the saying “with God anything is possible.” If you really think about it we are here because of possibility.

The fourth way is things; some things are good and some are bad. With this being said all beings are the cause of their being of goodness and perfection which we call this God. When Aquinas says that some things are good and some are bad he is meaning that when God does something good for us it’s like he is rewarding us but when he doesn’t something bad to us he is also in a way rewarding us by telling us to get away from that negative stuff or those negative people who will cause you to do bad.

The fifth way is the governance of the world. People who lack intelligence usually act for an end. Some intelligent beings are natural and are directed to the end and this we call God. When Aquinas says that whomever lacks intelligence acts for an end he means that we as people or beings who aren’t very intelligent act for the ending of our lives or our living souls to be ended.  

 

 

1.       Do you think God exists?

2.       If we put things in motion and God puts us in motion seeing that the mover is put in motion by something else who puts God in motion? Or does God put himself in motion?

3.       Do you think even though the knowledge of the existence of God is implanted in us do you think the existence of God is self-evident?  

 

 

                The word Ex-nihilo means “out of nothing” which is an absurd thought to William Craig. Everything must have a beginning; even the universe he says.  Nothing in this “actual” world can be seen as infinite, not even the universe.   He explains actual infinites as all the things we know like the planets, humans, ideas, stars and so on. The only infinites that make sense in this world are potential infinites.     A good example of a potential infinite is the future because we do not know how many events will be added to the future and it is possible that it can be for infinity but it will never be an actual infinity. The reason Craig does not believe in actual infinites is because they would not make logical sense in our world.   For example, imagine that Earth and Jupiter have been orbiting the sun from eternity.  Suppose that it takes the Earth one year to complete one orbit and that it takes Jupiter three years to complete one orbit. Thus, for every one orbit Jupiter completes, Earth completes three. Now the question is if they have been orbiting from eternity, which has completed more orbits? Mathematicians would say they would be equal. 

Craig takes into careful consideration many theories like the Big bang, oscillating, steady state, and thermodynamics theories, but he just can’t wrap his head around any of them.  None of them make enough sense to be able to explain why the universe was created and why people think it’s infinite. The only possible explanation that Craig does agree with is that everything came into existence by a personal creator. That Personal Creator is God.  Personal because God chose to create the universe, it wasn’t the effect of a cause. The cause being God. So that’s why the universe is not eternal even though God is, because he chose to create the universe in time. Leaving God able to be timeless and eternal.

                I do agree with Craig and I do believe he is on to something because everything has a beginning. It’s hard to believe that the universe being so immense just started existing out of infinite density. So having a Personal Creator seems very logical.

 

1. Do you think the universe is infinite?
2. Do you agree with Craig’s theory of the universe being created by a personal creator?
3. If everything has a beginning, then how did God begin?