phew... just finished typing a philosophy paper. Have been on it the past few days, and that perhaps explains my previous post. Anyway, I'm going to try to submit it to a couple of undergraduate journals. Though the chance of publication is scant, just thought i'd give it a try. I have a small problem at hand though... For whatever reason, i can't come up with a title that sounds nice and is relevant. Right now, the working title is rather dubious:
"From Logical to Epistemic Circularity: The Cartesian Circle Remains"
Hmmm. Ok. I'm sorry if that didnt make too much sense to you. It does make sense to me, but it just doesnt sound nice. Sounds a bit clunky (is there even such a word?) to me at the moment. Hopefully a good night's sleep will provide some inspiration.
Ok, on a totally different note, seems like Chinese New Year isn't really very chinese. But it seems to me that there are 2 things which are guaranteed each year. One which we are desperate for and the other which we just have to put up with. Make a guess?
Too late - the answer is here: Hong Bao and Very HOT weather.
Now I'm sure that we dont uphold the giving (or rather, the taking) of those little red packets because of some proud Chinese culture/tradition/spirit. You don't see other traditions being upheld as so sacrosanct.
Hot weather, on the other hand, seems to always go hand in hand with a picture of anything Chinese. Try it. Just imagine Chinatown in the afternoon in your head. Is it raining, snowing, cloudy, or scorching hot? I'd bet on the last one. Imagine those period dramas which are shown on television - e.g. those with justice Bao or some Emperor or some pugilistic kung fu show. 99% of those scenes give you the impression that it's really hot.
So, true to the above observations, this Chinese New Year has ushered in the merciless, searing, scorching, burning hot sun and chased away the rainy days. I wonder if there are statistics done on the number of people down with heat stroke. And as if it were not bad enough, every house is stocked up with those pseudo goodies like bak kwa and lots and lots of other heaty stuff. Eat at your own risk!
Even so, the visit to my grandma's place was lightened up today by Xiao Bai - Jing Yang's very own cute dog. Finally, the funny action it does - standing up on it's hind legs and waving it's front feet up and down - finds an appropriate time. This year, our entrance was greeted by this "gong xi, gong xi" action which made it such a darling to everyone. Xin En had a ball of a time throwing balls for it to fetch. Just highlights the difference between cats and dogs. Cats are so self-absorbed, nonchalant, indifferent, and well, boring because they're bored. They survive (as pets) just based on looking pretty. Dogs, on the other hand, are inquisitive, hyperactive, excited, ready to please, and interested in what's around them. As the book "Cat and Dog Theology" exhorts, let's be dogs and not cats. Maybe I should learn something from Xiao Bai, take a reminder from God's creation, and try to be less self-centred this year. :)
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Friday, January 27, 2006
knowledge, epistemic circularity and presuppositional apologetics - part one
Consider the following: How do you know anything?
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), we seek to find a criteria for what counts as knowledge. Obviously, what counts as knowledge must at least be:
1. True
2. Believed
For example, consider the statement: "Grace Baptist Church is located at 17 Mattar Rd." If a person knows this, it means that it must first be true, and the person himself/herself must belief this statement.
But problem is that those 2 conditions are clearly necessary but NOT sufficient. There is something about knowledge, such that we distinguish it from mere lucky guesses. For example, a madman thinks that the address of every single church is at 17 Mattar Rd. Obviously, in the case of Grace Baptist Church, he happens to be correct. But so what? Does he really know anything? Isn't it just a lucky belief?
Thus, we need a third criterion - that something that makes a belief worth believing in. For the above example, we can say that a person only truly knows if he has a good reason for believing in the statement, such as checking the Singapore Street Directory.
The biggest problem in philosophy of knowledge (epistemology), is to find this elusive something that makes a mere true belief become knowledge.
Many suggestions have been put forward as to what something may be. The most obvious is simply good reason that the person has access to. But then comes another problem!
Let's say I tell you I believe something. Let that belief be represented by P (e.g. cats are mammals). You may then ask, why do you believe that P? I will probably give you a reason Q. But Q is just another belief you can question. I will have to give you another reason R, for believing in Q. But R itself is just another belief... and the process goes on.
So we have
So, what can we do?
Some people propose that the chain ends with something that is self-evident, that does not need an explanation itself. For example, it is self-evident that 1+1=2. It is self-evident that reason does not allow for contradictions. So, when the reason comes to something that is self-evident, we can stop there and give ourselves a pat on the back. We have that as our foundation. Our knowledge is secure!
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), we seek to find a criteria for what counts as knowledge. Obviously, what counts as knowledge must at least be:
1. True
2. Believed
For example, consider the statement: "Grace Baptist Church is located at 17 Mattar Rd." If a person knows this, it means that it must first be true, and the person himself/herself must belief this statement.
But problem is that those 2 conditions are clearly necessary but NOT sufficient. There is something about knowledge, such that we distinguish it from mere lucky guesses. For example, a madman thinks that the address of every single church is at 17 Mattar Rd. Obviously, in the case of Grace Baptist Church, he happens to be correct. But so what? Does he really know anything? Isn't it just a lucky belief?
Thus, we need a third criterion - that something that makes a belief worth believing in. For the above example, we can say that a person only truly knows if he has a good reason for believing in the statement, such as checking the Singapore Street Directory.
The biggest problem in philosophy of knowledge (epistemology), is to find this elusive something that makes a mere true belief become knowledge.
Many suggestions have been put forward as to what something may be. The most obvious is simply good reason that the person has access to. But then comes another problem!
Let's say I tell you I believe something. Let that belief be represented by P (e.g. cats are mammals). You may then ask, why do you believe that P? I will probably give you a reason Q. But Q is just another belief you can question. I will have to give you another reason R, for believing in Q. But R itself is just another belief... and the process goes on.
So we have
P because of Q.
Q because of R.
R because of ...
.
.
.
indefinitely?
Obviously the chain of reasoning has to end somewhere. There can't be an infinite regress of reasons backing up each previous reason, because our capacity for knowledge is obviously finite.So, what can we do?
Some people propose that the chain ends with something that is self-evident, that does not need an explanation itself. For example, it is self-evident that 1+1=2. It is self-evident that reason does not allow for contradictions. So, when the reason comes to something that is self-evident, we can stop there and give ourselves a pat on the back. We have that as our foundation. Our knowledge is secure!
BUT IS IT?
Another question arises: what is our reason for supposing that something that is self-evident does not need reasons to back it up?
Clearly, I can think of examples when something appears to be self-evident to the subject and yet is false. Consider Neo in the Matrix. Neo thinks he's living in the 20th century in a metropolis, when in actual fact all that is just a simulated illusion caused by some very advanced computers. In reality, his body has been trapped in a machine since his birth.
In other words, it is not self-evident that self-evident beliefs can serve as the foundation of knowledge. In order to justify that self-evident beliefs can serve as a foundation, we need other reasons again! So are we condemned to not being sure of anything? It seems that if we just end at things which seem self-evident to us, then our knowledge tends to be arbitrary. How do we know that things are TRUE, and not just evident?
And as Christians, how are we to respond to questions regarding faith? Stay tuned...
Thursday, January 19, 2006
question explained!
in response to the meagre amount of (highly appreciated) comments in response to the question I asked in my post (first hour in school), I shall attempt a better explanation.
(Those not interested, please skip, and remember that not all my entries (in fact, most are not) are about philosophy!)
in philosophy of mind, there are 2 main schools - physicalism/materialism and dualism. The first thing to bear in mind is that these are just terms that are used to refer to certain beliefs about the world and the nature of our minds. In order to be clear in discussions, the definitions of these terms tend to be a little technical, and that is why some people understandably find it difficult to understand.
Now this is (one way of defining) what physicalism/dualism holds:
Does the physical nature of the world logically necessitate its mental nature?
Ok. Just hang on and read on. I'm going to explain the terms, and then give a layman's description.
physical nature (of the world) - the objective world as discovered in the sciences, which can have several levels of description, eg. brains, cells, neurons, proteins, DNA, carbon molecules, atoms, electrons, stones, planets, and so on... Also includes the functions of such physical objects, their configurations, arrangements, interactions, etc.... You get the general idea.
mental nature - traditionally what we regard as the experience of our minds. This includes thinking, sensing, willing, feeling, and so on. For example, the sight of a blue sky, the feel of a velvet suit, the smell of freshly cut grass, the spicyness of chilli, the sound of waves crashing upon jagged rocks; emotions like the feeling of anger, the pangs of jealousy, the delight at seeing a loved one, the nostalgia while looking at old photos; the act of willing something, deciding something, or believing something; religious/spiritual experience of worship, praise, contrition and so on.
Physical nature tends to be regarded as objective. If E=mc2 is true, then it is true no matter who is investigating this fact, or whether anyone knows it. On the other hand, what characterises mental nature is the personal, subjective quality of experience (as Thomas Nagel puts it). Atoms can still be atoms whether or not there is a subject observing them. But the experience of the smell of a rose depends on there being a subject to smell it.
Next, what is logical necessity? When I say that B is necessitated by A, it means that B logically follows from A. It means that once I have A, I cannot deny B. Consider the following example:
P1. All triangles are 3-sided figures.
P2. S is a 3-sided figure.
C. Therefore, S is a triangle.
Here, we see that once we say that S is a 3-sided figure, it is logically necessary that S is also a triangle. There is NO WAY that S can be 3-sided without being a triangle.
Similarly, when we consider the above question:
Does the physical nature of the world logically necessitate its mental nature?
If you are a physicalist, you answer 'yes', and that means that all our mental experiences are FIXED by the physical structure of our bodies and of the world. It means that, given a certain configuration of your brain, there is a certain mental experience that you must have.
For example, if now you are having a visual experience of a red apple, and some scientist discovers that you current brain is in a state, say state ABC. Then the physicalist would say that whenever your brain is in state ABC, you MUST necessarily be having the exact same visual experience of a red apple.
What the physicalist says, in effect, is that in any possible world, if there were someone with the exact physical structure as you, which goes through the same physical changes and so on, then that person must necessarily have the exact same kind of mental life as you.
Ok, now on to the dualist position. As mentioned, the dualist answers 'no' to the question. Now, this means that the dualist thinks that it is possible in theory to have another world where everything physical is exactly the same as ours, down to the last atom, but where the mental life is different. For example, we could have a world of zombies, or machines, constructed exactly like humans, with the same chemical/biological make-up, but without consciousness.
In short, the dualist thinks that the mental is not completely determined by the physical. The dualist does not deny that the mental is caused by the physical, e.g. when I stub my toe, I feel a pain (because my nerves transmit the physical information to my brain, causing the firing of some neurons, etc). What the dualist denies is that mental life and experience is fully determined by physical life, not only in our world, but in any possible world.
Phew! Having said that, I hope I have not scared off my entire readership. For the brave souls who have read all the way and hopefully achieved a new level of understanding (and a headache), do feedback. :)
(Those not interested, please skip, and remember that not all my entries (in fact, most are not) are about philosophy!)
in philosophy of mind, there are 2 main schools - physicalism/materialism and dualism. The first thing to bear in mind is that these are just terms that are used to refer to certain beliefs about the world and the nature of our minds. In order to be clear in discussions, the definitions of these terms tend to be a little technical, and that is why some people understandably find it difficult to understand.
Now this is (one way of defining) what physicalism/dualism holds:
Does the physical nature of the world logically necessitate its mental nature?
Ok. Just hang on and read on. I'm going to explain the terms, and then give a layman's description.
physical nature (of the world) - the objective world as discovered in the sciences, which can have several levels of description, eg. brains, cells, neurons, proteins, DNA, carbon molecules, atoms, electrons, stones, planets, and so on... Also includes the functions of such physical objects, their configurations, arrangements, interactions, etc.... You get the general idea.
mental nature - traditionally what we regard as the experience of our minds. This includes thinking, sensing, willing, feeling, and so on. For example, the sight of a blue sky, the feel of a velvet suit, the smell of freshly cut grass, the spicyness of chilli, the sound of waves crashing upon jagged rocks; emotions like the feeling of anger, the pangs of jealousy, the delight at seeing a loved one, the nostalgia while looking at old photos; the act of willing something, deciding something, or believing something; religious/spiritual experience of worship, praise, contrition and so on.
Physical nature tends to be regarded as objective. If E=mc2 is true, then it is true no matter who is investigating this fact, or whether anyone knows it. On the other hand, what characterises mental nature is the personal, subjective quality of experience (as Thomas Nagel puts it). Atoms can still be atoms whether or not there is a subject observing them. But the experience of the smell of a rose depends on there being a subject to smell it.
Next, what is logical necessity? When I say that B is necessitated by A, it means that B logically follows from A. It means that once I have A, I cannot deny B. Consider the following example:
P1. All triangles are 3-sided figures.
P2. S is a 3-sided figure.
C. Therefore, S is a triangle.
Here, we see that once we say that S is a 3-sided figure, it is logically necessary that S is also a triangle. There is NO WAY that S can be 3-sided without being a triangle.
Similarly, when we consider the above question:
Does the physical nature of the world logically necessitate its mental nature?
If you are a physicalist, you answer 'yes', and that means that all our mental experiences are FIXED by the physical structure of our bodies and of the world. It means that, given a certain configuration of your brain, there is a certain mental experience that you must have.
For example, if now you are having a visual experience of a red apple, and some scientist discovers that you current brain is in a state, say state ABC. Then the physicalist would say that whenever your brain is in state ABC, you MUST necessarily be having the exact same visual experience of a red apple.
What the physicalist says, in effect, is that in any possible world, if there were someone with the exact physical structure as you, which goes through the same physical changes and so on, then that person must necessarily have the exact same kind of mental life as you.
Ok, now on to the dualist position. As mentioned, the dualist answers 'no' to the question. Now, this means that the dualist thinks that it is possible in theory to have another world where everything physical is exactly the same as ours, down to the last atom, but where the mental life is different. For example, we could have a world of zombies, or machines, constructed exactly like humans, with the same chemical/biological make-up, but without consciousness.
In short, the dualist thinks that the mental is not completely determined by the physical. The dualist does not deny that the mental is caused by the physical, e.g. when I stub my toe, I feel a pain (because my nerves transmit the physical information to my brain, causing the firing of some neurons, etc). What the dualist denies is that mental life and experience is fully determined by physical life, not only in our world, but in any possible world.
Phew! Having said that, I hope I have not scared off my entire readership. For the brave souls who have read all the way and hopefully achieved a new level of understanding (and a headache), do feedback. :)
Monday, January 16, 2006
OOPS! Error in previous post
Hey... upon re-reading my post dated last monday, 9th Jan, I have discovered a mistake (which I have since corrected). Minor in quantitative terms, but grievous in terms of changing the meaning I inteneded.
Recall that I posed a question relating to philosophy of mind. I said:
"Does a thing's MENTAL nature necessitate its PHYSICAL nature?"
This is not the question I wanted to ask.
The correct question is:
"Does a thing's PHYSICAL nature necessitate its MENTAL nature?"
So to those who have so kindly answered, my apologies for the mistake (which on hindsight, is rather glaring). Anyway, if anyone answers 'yes' to the wrong question, it means that you're an idealist. This philosophical position is very out of fashion and hence if you are an idealist, you're an endangered species.
Other than the question itself, the explanations I gave in the previous post were all correct and pertain to the right question. As mentioned, if you answer 'yes' you are a materialist, and if not, then a dualist.
Recall that I posed a question relating to philosophy of mind. I said:
"Does a thing's MENTAL nature necessitate its PHYSICAL nature?"
This is not the question I wanted to ask.
The correct question is:
"Does a thing's PHYSICAL nature necessitate its MENTAL nature?"
So to those who have so kindly answered, my apologies for the mistake (which on hindsight, is rather glaring). Anyway, if anyone answers 'yes' to the wrong question, it means that you're an idealist. This philosophical position is very out of fashion and hence if you are an idealist, you're an endangered species.
Other than the question itself, the explanations I gave in the previous post were all correct and pertain to the right question. As mentioned, if you answer 'yes' you are a materialist, and if not, then a dualist.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
trust
Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
In all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make your paths straight.
These familiar verses, taken from Proverbs 3:5-6, have been read countless times by myself. Even in my old primary school ACJS, I recall these words displayed prominently upon the walls.
But how difficult they are to live out.
I wonder how often we trust God, let alone with all our heart. Sometimes, it is hard to measure. But lately, I have realised that we can perhaps know through the second line - how much are we leaning on our own understanding? When a decision is to be made, when a crisis comes, when something we do not like happens, how do we react? So often, we take control ourselves. I dont mean that we take control of the situation or control the circumstances; what I mean is that we react out of our own will and understanding. We tend to grasp, to want to react our own way, to interpret the situation with our own understanding, and not pausing to let God come in.
Leaning on our own understanding doesnt refer to using the intellect and mind that God has given us. I think it refers to reliance. Do we ultimately put our reliance on our own understanding, our own 'wisdom', or in God Himself? Do we see Him as the totally sufficient, all-satisfying God, who is both sovereign and good? Many times, we may have a feeling that we should obey God in a certain thing, but we extinguish or ignore that notion by reasoning it away, using our own understanding of the situation. We either rationalize by being too practical, too idealistic, too emotional, too rational - whichever fits what we want. And when obedience goes against what we want, it is difficult to trust. It seems easy to trust God in games which you excel in, in subjects you like, in dealing with happy situations. But whether we have really that trust, only a crisis will reveal. Because when a crisis comes, the natural way, the fallen way, is to lean on our own understanding. It is only when we are truly filled with the Holy Spirit, and sensitive to Him, that we can stand a chance against our own understanding.
In all your ways acknowledge Him. See the unequivocal statement. All our hearts, in all our ways. There is no exception, no loophole to find. I doubt anyone who truly follows this will ever find it easy. In fact, it must be impossible but for the grace of God. I suppose God demands the humanly impossible, in part so that we have to acknowledge His divine strength, to plead for His grace and depend on it, to realise how small, how weak, how foolish we are. And if we truly trust and obey, there comes the straight paths, there comes the dawning realisation of our past foolishness, there comes the emerging delight of God's glory and His wonderful ways.
Because ultimately, all good things come from above. (Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. James 1:17). If we go down the wrong path, even the temporary pleasures will one day seem dull and terribly unsatisfying. But if we walk the straight path today, then even the pain and discomfort will be transformed into nuggets of His wisdom and grace, and the path shall lead ever-closer to true happiness.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
lameness personified
"Good afternoon, I'll be your torturer-erm... I mean, lecturer for today." So began the lecturer for my sociology module today. (That's supposed to be a joke.) If you think that's as lame as you can get, the next 80 minutes were full other phrases that topped that. And the worst thing was, the lecturer took his jokes so seriously, keeping that obviously deadpan expression, pausing after each delivery to wait for the laughter, and treating all of us like some audience at a talkshow.
I appreciate his efforts, but I think the jokes were one too many and basically his humour was mostly superfluous. Come on, we're not secondary school kids who need 1 joke per sentence (he was close to that) in order to pay attention. Neither are we expecting to laugh our way through a sociology module. And I wonder whether he was doing this because the cohort comprised largely engineering students. If engineering students really need such patronising in order for them to learn, then they shouldnt be trying this module at all. And the lecturer doesn't need to talk as if we can't even understand simple concepts without a great deal of effort.
Well, to give him the benefit of the doubt, I shall assume his efforts are well-intentioned and not arisen from some self-constructed picture of his alter-ego as a stand-up comedian. To be fair, some of the examples he used to bring out a point were funny and made a point. So all i hope for is, please cut out all the unrelated jokes. And for goodness sake, give a break in the middle of the lecture...
I appreciate his efforts, but I think the jokes were one too many and basically his humour was mostly superfluous. Come on, we're not secondary school kids who need 1 joke per sentence (he was close to that) in order to pay attention. Neither are we expecting to laugh our way through a sociology module. And I wonder whether he was doing this because the cohort comprised largely engineering students. If engineering students really need such patronising in order for them to learn, then they shouldnt be trying this module at all. And the lecturer doesn't need to talk as if we can't even understand simple concepts without a great deal of effort.
Well, to give him the benefit of the doubt, I shall assume his efforts are well-intentioned and not arisen from some self-constructed picture of his alter-ego as a stand-up comedian. To be fair, some of the examples he used to bring out a point were funny and made a point. So all i hope for is, please cut out all the unrelated jokes. And for goodness sake, give a break in the middle of the lecture...
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
take time and pray...
01/09/2006: Bangladesh Missionary Brutally Murdered
Gospel for Asia leaders in Bangladesh report that native missionary Laxman Das, 25, was murdered last Friday, January 6. He was found on the side of a highway near the town of Dangil, approximately 100 kilometers (62 miles) outside of the capital city of Dhaka. Police took his body to a hospital, where an autopsy revealed the cause of death to be a severe blow to the head.
Laxman is survived by his young wife and five-month-old child. He graduated from a GFA Bible college in 2001 and was working full-time as a missionary. He had already established a church in his village located in the northern part of Bangladesh. Laxman was returning home by bus on Friday when it was stopped. He was apparently singled out and forced off the bus, then killed. GFA leaders are still waiting for more details from the police investigation.
"This is the time of the Eid festival [when Muslims celebrate what they believe to be Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son, Ishmael]," one GFA leader commented. "There is no law and order in some places, and usually many incidents like this happen." The nation of Bangladesh is primarily Muslim, with more than 85 percent professing Islam. Less than one percent of the population is Christian.
Gospel for Asia is currently training 77 students in two Bible colleges in the country. GFA also has 98 full-time native missionaries in Bangladesh who have planted 75 churches and 100 mission stations. "This is not the first time we have faced such opposition to the work of the Gospel in Bangladesh," commented GFA President K.P. Yohannan. "As the Body of Christ, we must stand together in prayer for our brothers and sisters in this nation."
Please pray for Laxman's family and co-workers to know the Lord's comfort and strength as they grieve his death, and pray that much fruit will come from this "grain of wheat" that has fallen.
Gospel for Asia leaders in Bangladesh report that native missionary Laxman Das, 25, was murdered last Friday, January 6. He was found on the side of a highway near the town of Dangil, approximately 100 kilometers (62 miles) outside of the capital city of Dhaka. Police took his body to a hospital, where an autopsy revealed the cause of death to be a severe blow to the head.
Laxman is survived by his young wife and five-month-old child. He graduated from a GFA Bible college in 2001 and was working full-time as a missionary. He had already established a church in his village located in the northern part of Bangladesh. Laxman was returning home by bus on Friday when it was stopped. He was apparently singled out and forced off the bus, then killed. GFA leaders are still waiting for more details from the police investigation.
"This is the time of the Eid festival [when Muslims celebrate what they believe to be Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son, Ishmael]," one GFA leader commented. "There is no law and order in some places, and usually many incidents like this happen." The nation of Bangladesh is primarily Muslim, with more than 85 percent professing Islam. Less than one percent of the population is Christian.
Gospel for Asia is currently training 77 students in two Bible colleges in the country. GFA also has 98 full-time native missionaries in Bangladesh who have planted 75 churches and 100 mission stations. "This is not the first time we have faced such opposition to the work of the Gospel in Bangladesh," commented GFA President K.P. Yohannan. "As the Body of Christ, we must stand together in prayer for our brothers and sisters in this nation."
Please pray for Laxman's family and co-workers to know the Lord's comfort and strength as they grieve his death, and pray that much fruit will come from this "grain of wheat" that has fallen.
Monday, January 09, 2006
first hour of school (please comment!)
yesterday I had my first hour of school. well, to be exact, it was more like the first 45 minutes. I arrived in school for my Philosophy of Mind lecture, and there Pelczar was, glasses balanced immaculately on his face, with his smooth shaven head, looking primed and clean-cut for this semester's mental workout. and packed into the small, familar classroom along the AS-1 walkway were some of the usual suspects - those philo majors whom i had gotten to know the previous sems, thanks to our common fascination (or distaste) for a bunch of dead people like Descartes, who seem to exert an inordinate amount of influence upon our poor young souls.
nevertheless, the delight and anticipation was palpable (to myself) as Pelczar got through with the usual admin business and embarked on the real stuff. The rest of the lecture consisted of elucidating the basic mind-body problem, or the distinction between materialists and dualists, traditional and modern, with some side apologies to idealists and neutral monists (which we werent going to touch on).
for the uninitiated, dont be daunted by all this terminology. Just consider the following question, whether you would answer 'yes' or 'no' to it:
"Does a thing's physical nature (if it has one) necessitate its mental nature?"
In other words, consider an example. Do you think that whatever mental experience you have eg. thinking, feeling angry, see a rainbow, etc. is completely described by the physical structure of your brain and body?
Send your answers either by posting on the sidebar or adding a comment!
For the record, if you answer yes, then you are a materialist, and if not, then a dualist. And my opinion right now tends to dualism. Interestingly, Pelczar is a materialist who thinks that the best arguments are on the side of dualism.
Anyway, the lecture ended after 45 minutes instead of the stipulated 2 hours (and so ended my first day of school for this semester). Try to find such a case in engineering, and you'd still be hard pressed after graduation.
From that short lecture, I gather that we're in for a fun semester. Fun, of course, does not exclude mental torment. But the sheer joy of sinking your mental teeth into some meaty, abstract argument, attacking it, defending it, finding some loopholes and discovering new perspectives - simply delicious. For those that beg to differ, who think of it as some perverse delight, I can only say that it is an acquired taste that if acquired, would justify its acquiring well enough.
And imagine the practical benefits of philosophy class - less homework, early dismissals, no mathematics, no transistors, no cells, no myocardial infraction, no DNA, RNA, no partial differential equations, no Schroedinger's equations, no Poisson distributions - yet something more basic, more profound, more abstract, yet accessible just by thinking. (Ok, I dont mean to say you need to know nothing about modern science at all. But at least, no circuits to construct!)
and before you click away from here, try and give your answer to the above question... :)
nevertheless, the delight and anticipation was palpable (to myself) as Pelczar got through with the usual admin business and embarked on the real stuff. The rest of the lecture consisted of elucidating the basic mind-body problem, or the distinction between materialists and dualists, traditional and modern, with some side apologies to idealists and neutral monists (which we werent going to touch on).
for the uninitiated, dont be daunted by all this terminology. Just consider the following question, whether you would answer 'yes' or 'no' to it:
"Does a thing's physical nature (if it has one) necessitate its mental nature?"
In other words, consider an example. Do you think that whatever mental experience you have eg. thinking, feeling angry, see a rainbow, etc. is completely described by the physical structure of your brain and body?
Send your answers either by posting on the sidebar or adding a comment!
For the record, if you answer yes, then you are a materialist, and if not, then a dualist. And my opinion right now tends to dualism. Interestingly, Pelczar is a materialist who thinks that the best arguments are on the side of dualism.
Anyway, the lecture ended after 45 minutes instead of the stipulated 2 hours (and so ended my first day of school for this semester). Try to find such a case in engineering, and you'd still be hard pressed after graduation.
From that short lecture, I gather that we're in for a fun semester. Fun, of course, does not exclude mental torment. But the sheer joy of sinking your mental teeth into some meaty, abstract argument, attacking it, defending it, finding some loopholes and discovering new perspectives - simply delicious. For those that beg to differ, who think of it as some perverse delight, I can only say that it is an acquired taste that if acquired, would justify its acquiring well enough.
And imagine the practical benefits of philosophy class - less homework, early dismissals, no mathematics, no transistors, no cells, no myocardial infraction, no DNA, RNA, no partial differential equations, no Schroedinger's equations, no Poisson distributions - yet something more basic, more profound, more abstract, yet accessible just by thinking. (Ok, I dont mean to say you need to know nothing about modern science at all. But at least, no circuits to construct!)
and before you click away from here, try and give your answer to the above question... :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
