I'm re-reading Leibniz's Monadology right now and re-thinking about the role some of his principles and concepts have in explaining or illuminating some doctrinal principles. Of course, this is upon interpretation, so please discuss or argue regarding this.
Basically, the concept of a pre-established harmony and the best possible world. I see these as excellent solutions to problem of evil dilemmas and principles to grasp the possibility of omniscience. The problem is how prophesies can direct toward an individual who will apostatize or act in some evil. Assuming that for the plan to be just, every person must have the opportunity for exaltation. There appears to be a contradiction: Person X is prophesied to not receive exaltation, and Person X is required to have the opportunity for exaltation. Now, granted that depending on the interpretation of what it means to be prophesied, the role of knowledge on action, the power of the interaction between personality and situation to derive an outcome, and so on--this might not be an exact contradiction. But, at a simple level: assuming God is omniscient and He placed person X in the place to fulfill the negative prophesy, there appears to be a contradiction. Unless, the place where God put person X was the best possible place for that individual. In other words, the individual by spiritual or natural disposition (or whatever else) would bring upon him or herself the same outcome in every possible situation, but of those possible worlds--God placed person X in the optimal situation for that person, despite the outcome being a fulfillment of a negative prophesy. Hence, the best possible world may have a role in explaining or illuminating doctrine regarding agency, prophesy, and God's omniscience. (On another note, I don't agree with pre-established harmony, but maybe later for that.)
Also, I realize my argument is rough, I'm working at ironing it out and making it more clear, but I figure, it might be better to post and discuss than just hammering at it in my head.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Leibniz, a favorite
It's sad that I haven't checked this blog for some time. However, I will be sure to check it more frequently. Brian, Leibniz is my favorite philosopher. Without checking notes or textbook (I'm going to look at these more tomorrow (and I'll probably add or change what I am saying now)), some of his contributions have been 1) Monadology, 2) Best possible world (of course, this does link with the monadology), 3) calculus, 4) attempt to establish a perfect language. Spinoza was a Jewish-Dutch philosopher who argued for a pantheistic concept, but I can't get my thoughts concrete enough to make a bullet point. Interestingly, H. G. Well's book World of the Wars demonstrates a Spinozian atonement (I realized this as I watched the movie and did some research to verify that this theory is plausible, and it is. H. G. Well's new Spinoza and his theories..., now to read that book some time soon). Voltaire was Leibniz's nemesis. His Candide is a refutation and satire of Leibniz's philosophy. Hobbes' argued for man's natural state to be a base nature, and I believe he had something to do with the social contract. Well, ultimately, I know what I'll be reading on the train to work tomorrow. On another note, I argue that Leibniz's best possible world offers valuable insight into man's relation to God and God's omniscience (but that's for another time).
On the note of Atlas Shrugged, I am reading Dostoevsky's Devils right now, and he offers some interesting refutations to Ayn Rand's philosophy; however, I need to finish this book before I speak too soon. Perhaps, when the Atlas Shrugged discussion begins, I'll be done with it.
On the note of Atlas Shrugged, I am reading Dostoevsky's Devils right now, and he offers some interesting refutations to Ayn Rand's philosophy; however, I need to finish this book before I speak too soon. Perhaps, when the Atlas Shrugged discussion begins, I'll be done with it.
12(b)(1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
Thanks to Brian for posting after a long silence. As far as those philosophers go, I know very little. I always get Liebniz and Spinoza mixed up. I know that Spinoza lived in Holland, but his parents were Jews from Portugal. I know that one of them did a lot of logic stuff and tried to prove God's existence with it. I know the Hobbes was Enligsh and his big work was the Leviathan, which I think is all about politics. He has a theory about where we get our morality from, stuff like giving up out rights to the sovereign because he protects us. At least that is what I can get right now. All I know about Voltaire is that he is French and did politics. Good luck with them. I would be more interested in Spinoza and Liebniz than the other two, so if you find anything cool out, let me know.
As far as philosophical thoughts that I have had recently, you could probably guess that they mostly have to do with the law. My favorite class right now is my criminal law class. Brian I know you mentioned once that you have libertarian leanings, which I think means that you think that we should stick to the constitution pretty strictly or something? Well, I think I was going to try and say something smart about laws, but my thoughts are too jumbled. Maybe next time.
Instead, I had a funny ethical problem the other day. I was walking on campus here, in a part where not a lot of people walk, and I saw a $20 bill crumpled up on the ground. I was shocked. I picked it up and all of the hypothetical ethical situations came to my mind that we talked about in my phil classes at BYU. I thought about the categorical imperative, I thought about different types of duty, I thought about the utility of my actions, I thought about what the average greek man would do (a la Aristotle), then I looked around, saw that nobody was coming to claim it, put it in my pocket and walked away.
I could go into all the justifications that went through my head, there were many, but I think that the choice I made was fine. I mean, maybe it was even the best decision to make. It will make for some nice ice cream.
As far as philosophical thoughts that I have had recently, you could probably guess that they mostly have to do with the law. My favorite class right now is my criminal law class. Brian I know you mentioned once that you have libertarian leanings, which I think means that you think that we should stick to the constitution pretty strictly or something? Well, I think I was going to try and say something smart about laws, but my thoughts are too jumbled. Maybe next time.
Instead, I had a funny ethical problem the other day. I was walking on campus here, in a part where not a lot of people walk, and I saw a $20 bill crumpled up on the ground. I was shocked. I picked it up and all of the hypothetical ethical situations came to my mind that we talked about in my phil classes at BYU. I thought about the categorical imperative, I thought about different types of duty, I thought about the utility of my actions, I thought about what the average greek man would do (a la Aristotle), then I looked around, saw that nobody was coming to claim it, put it in my pocket and walked away.
I could go into all the justifications that went through my head, there were many, but I think that the choice I made was fine. I mean, maybe it was even the best decision to make. It will make for some nice ice cream.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Monads?
So I am sorry that I apparently killed the conversation. It has been a long while since anyone posted, so I figured I should say something.
To kick things off, I am working on a little fun project in which I need a quick summary of some of the philosophical ideas of a few thinkers that I never really studied. Without going into wikipedia, what would you say are the 3 major contributions of:
1. Liebniz
2. Hobbes
3. Spinoza
4.Voltaire
Summaries or bullet points will do.
-Brian
PS, I am in the middle of Atlas Shrugged, and am excited to get into some discussions about it when I am done.
To kick things off, I am working on a little fun project in which I need a quick summary of some of the philosophical ideas of a few thinkers that I never really studied. Without going into wikipedia, what would you say are the 3 major contributions of:
1. Liebniz
2. Hobbes
3. Spinoza
4.Voltaire
Summaries or bullet points will do.
-Brian
PS, I am in the middle of Atlas Shrugged, and am excited to get into some discussions about it when I am done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)