Between Scholastics And Pragmatists: The Mddb Philosophy Debate

[mfbukowski]

"All I remembered is that he didn't have a philosophy of language and so I dismissed him."

It seems a tall order to require a writer to not only clearly define terms but also explicitly state and defend his philosophy of language. You must have a very small library of trusted texts.

Feser does not state and defend his philosophy of language in the book. He's not that kind of philosopher. He's a philosopher of mind. I'm neither kind of philosopher nor any kind of philosopher or expert at all, so I'm screwed. I'm just an armchair hack who crunches numbers for a living. I will leave further discussion of Aristotle and the nature of matter in his metaphysics to the only ones who are qualified to do so using terminology that is philosophically sound and surgically precise: Aristotelians on this board who are also philologists or philosophers of language.

James Faulconer, BYU professor:

Of course, for Latter-day Saints, talk about God that reveals God—the best sense of the word theology—is, first of all, the revelations given through the prophets. We dare to say that God continues to reveal himself authoritatively to human beings through another human being. Unless one insists that all theology be systematically rational, and I know of no one who does, it makes sense to call prophetic revelation theology. Indeed, revelation is the Latter-day Saint theology. However, I believe that those Saints who have done theology in the nonrevelatory sense have, for the most part, done it systematically and rationally.12 From the nineteenth and early twentieth century, Orson Pratt and John A. Widtsoe come to mind, both in works that few today would find philosophically or scientifically acceptable.13 Some, such as BYU's David Paulsen and the independent scholar Blake Ostler, do it today with interesting and well-respected results.

These kinds of thinkers see no difficulty in holding to two propositions, "Theology is the continuously revealed word of God" and "Theology is rational, dogmatic, or systematic theology." I do not know what either Paulsen or Ostler believes regarding the second of these claims,14 though I assume that they accept the first as one meaning for the word theology. Regardless of their positions, however, based on more than thirty-five years of talking with other Latter-day Saints about theological questions, I believe that most of us who do theology or some informal version of it assume that God's knowledge is a systematic whole and that he reveals parts of that whole over time, gradually revealing or restoring more and more of it. If so, then those who think that way assume that, using the part of the whole that has been revealed so far, they can tentatively speculate as to the systematic whole which stands behind the part. However, as reasonable as that may seem, I think it is mistaken.

For one thing, to claim that our speculations are concerned with an eternal, rational system of truths that God reveals to us over time assumes that knowledge is fundamentally and essentially systematic and rational. In other words, it assumes that all knowledge is either self-evident, incorrigible, or a result of direct sense-perception—or it can be rationally and systematically derived from those three kinds of knowledge. However, much of twentieth-century philosophy, with work ranging from that of Martin Heidegger, to American pragmatism, to Alvin Plantinga and others in the analytic tradition of philosophy, has made that assumption about the character of knowledge dubious, each in different ways. It is questionable whether it makes sense to believe that there is an eternally existing set of systematically related fundamental truths expressed at least in part in our accurate understanding of things. Indeed, I believe that most who have dealt with the question carefully have concluded that the notion is rationally incoherent. However, it does not follow from that rejection of an eternal realm of truth that is metaphysically prior to or beyond this world that there is no truth, nor that there is no eternal truth. We can reject the Enlightenment formulation of truth without rejecting truth itself.

underlining added

I am just agreeing with Faulconer. It's not like I am dreaming this stuff up from nowhere. The reason there are no such truths is because truth is a characteristic of propositions expressed linguistically. It's not about "TRVTH" floating out there in some Greek temple somewhere, truth is found in what people say. It can be nowhere else. Truth is about language and reflects someone's belief that some statement or other is justified.

As Rorty would, and does, say "That's about all you can say about truth".

Edited October 31, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

A quick review of the thread indicates that no one seems to have actually addressed Feser's argument, let alone restating and critiquing the basic chain of reasoning behind Aristotle's initial idea.

Go for it.

I think the argument itself presumes that there is, as from above, " an eternally existing set of systematically related fundamental truths expressed at least in part in our accurate understanding of things."

Since I do not believe that there are such fundamental truths, there isn't much point in evaluating the details of the argument. Am I wrong?

Edited October 31, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Spammer]

Go for it.

I think the argument itself presumes that there is, as from above, " an eternally existing set of systematically related fundamental truths expressed at least in part in our accurate understanding of things."

Since I do not believe that there are such fundamental truths, there isn't much point in evaluating the details of the argument. Am I wrong?

Actually, as I understand it, the Aristotelian view denies the existence of a platonic third realm of abstract universals or the neo-platonic idea that those universals exist within the mind of God. Forms are inherent within pieces of matter and are just the form that a particular piece of matter takes in that particular instantiation. Universals don't exist apart from matter and are merely abstractions existing within human minds, who perceive forms, formulate the universals based on abstracting the common features, and then express them through language. It sounds to me like you have more in common with Aristotle (and Feser) than you realize.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Spammer

[MiserereNobis]

I don't feel like getting sucked into this discussion right now, but I will point out that in Catholicism, a Platonic-minded individual can follow St. Augustine, while an Aristotelian-minded individual can follow St. Thomas. When it comes to strict dogmatic theology, Aristotle and St. Thomas rule the day, but Plato and St. Augustine hang out there for those who are more interested in mystical theology (that would be me).

In any case, it's interesting how the tension between Plato and Aristotle (as pointed out by Spammer) was absorbed by the Catholic Church and then accepted as two different ways of looking at things.

But let's not forget that in the historic Council of Trent, St. Thomas' Summa was placed on the altar next to the Bible. It's the sword to attack heresies.

Ok, continue on, philosophers

[Ahab]

... then what the heck have we been fighting about for the past five thousand years? We're just people. We're just Uncreated Intelligences who are trying to learn to get along.

What leads you to believe all people (intelligences) are trying to learn to get along? That's not what I've seen through history lessons, and it's not what is going on now. Basically we're trying to help teach others what we think they need to know to be as we think they should be. That's what's going on between the good and the evil, the learned and the so-called unlearned. The difference is in what each of us thinks we should be, and in what we can be. You seem to be focusing on some good stuff, and that's good, but some people are less learned in the ways of righteousness and truth so their "help" doesn't really help all that much. But at least we're all trying. At least we have what we think are good intentions. If only we all knew who to learn from, and what to learn, to be the best kind of people we can be.

Mormons have elected by the common consent in a Council a certain leader to be our Teacher of Righteousness because He is wiser than us and loved us first.

Or at least we think so. Others don't agree on him being our leader, though, which is why there is some contention.

What the heck does the particular attributes of the composition of His body have to do with anything? Why the interminable debates about ousia and being and all these other paradoxical word-game semantics? It's so frustrating.

It's all about trying to teach others what we think they should know. We may have our priorities mixed up, but at least we're trying to do something good.

We don't differ so far from others in our religious views; only that we would want all to drink into one principle of love. What matters is whether we live in a pattern that constantly pulls other people down into bitterness and guilt and jealousy and tormented fire-like chains of hellish agony, or whether we want to garden Heavens for each other by promoting eternal life, growing on worlds without number, continuing the seeds forever.

I've noticed God's way is to simply teach others how to be like he is and if others get upset at him for that he has a place for them, as well as a place for everyone else. There are many many "mansions" and we're all going to live in one, whether we are good or evil. Sometimes even being good to others can make them feel bitter and guilty and jealous and tormented. It's hard to please all people all of the time.

[Ahab]

The point is that our relationship with God is ultimately ineffable. It is unspeakable. The very attempt at systematic theology is misguided because you can't put religious experience into words and the attempt to do so is futile and a waste of time.

But those who practice systematic theology apparently disagree, and therein lies the problem.

Sheesh, mski. I find myself thinking "what am I" or "what does mski think I am" when trying to understand your categorizations.

Maybe, like Forrest Gump says, both are going on at the same time? I know we can't fully describe to others all things we experience with God, but we can make at least a little headway. Don't ya think? Otherwise what is a board like this for?

[mfbukowski]

Actually, as I understand it, the Aristotelian view denies the existence of a platonic third realm of abstract universals or the neo-platonic idea that those universals exist within the mind of God. Forms are inherent within pieces of matter and are just the form that a particular piece of matter takes in that particular instantiation. Universals don't exist apart from matter and are merely abstractions existing within human minds, who perceive forms, formulate the universals based on abstracting the common features, and then express them through language. It sounds to me like you have more in common with Aristotle (and Feser) than you realize.

Not really.

Because I have studied this stuff, I understand what you mean and am aware of those issues. BUT.... there is less difference than you realize

How both of those positions would disagree with a Wittgensteinian view, say, is that there are no such "things" as "universals" because to believe in such things makes names we use for linguistic purposes into concrete "things", which is a major fallacy.

"Universals" are simply words used in a particular context to describe abstract linguistic expressions- nothing more, nothing less. So Plato goes out the window.

And the idea of a form "instantiating" in a particular is just as incorrect in this view. Something "pink" is not an "instantiation" of Pinkness in matter- it is just an abstract linguistic expression of, well, pinkness. There IS no "Form" of pinkness TO "instantiate" - it's just that some things appear to our eyes as pink in color, and the name for that color is "pink".

So then that approach by Aristotle goes out the window too. It is no more correct that Plato's, both simply show a misunderstanding of language and it's use- both turn abstract language into "things" which don't exist.

Both of these are what Gilbert Ryle would call "category mistakes" He would use the example of military parade of individual soldiers and someone asking "Yes but where is the Squadron?" as if a squadron were something independent from a group of individual soldiers.

There ARE no forms to instantiate. There are no forms to "express" in language. In fact one could say there are no "things" but that is probably getting beyond where we want to take this. There is only language. Again, as Nietzsche said, "there are no facts (or forms for that matter) only interpretations."

Edited October 31, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I don't feel like getting sucked into this discussion right now, but I will point out that in Catholicism, a Platonic-minded individual can follow St. Augustine, while an Aristotelian-minded individual can follow St. Thomas. When it comes to strict dogmatic theology, Aristotle and St. Thomas rule the day, but Plato and St. Augustine hang out there for those who are more interested in mystical theology (that would be me).

In any case, it's interesting how the tension between Plato and Aristotle (as pointed out by Spammer) was absorbed by the Catholic Church and then accepted as two different ways of looking at things.

But let's not forget that in the historic Council of Trent, St. Thomas' Summa was placed on the altar next to the Bible. It's the sword to attack heresies.

Ok, continue on, philosophers

I was thinking about Volgadon's question about what was the strongest aspect of Scholasticism and I think you have hit upon it, speaking now of Scholasticism as a hybrid of Plato and Aristotle- really called Neoplatonism I suppose. But the strength is exactly what you have pointed out- the ability to reconcile both views into one- sort of

But of course I think that both were wrong to start with.

[mfbukowski]

Sheesh, mski. I find myself thinking "what am I" or "what does mski think I am" when trying to understand your categorizations.

Maybe, like Forrest Gump says, both are going on at the same time? I know we can't fully describe to others all things we experience with God, but we can make at least a little headway. Don't ya think? Otherwise what is a board like this for?

Well it's like the old saw about the taste of salt. If you know what it is, we can talk about it, but that's just because we already know what it is. If you've never tasted it, you can talk yourself blind trying to explain it and not get anywhere.

In this case, I would compare writers of systematic theology with folks who think they can explain the taste of salt to someone who has never tasted it.

Good old Forrest was exactly right. He knew what love is, and didn't need to talk about it.

And as far as this board is concerned, you have a point. I am not sure what it's for myself. I pretty much use it to correct, in my view, errors that I see and try to help people see things as I do. I am not sure that is right or wrong, but it seems to be what everyone else here is doing also.

The problem is that no one seems to be actually convincing anyone of anything.

[Ahab]

Well it's like the old saw about the taste of salt. If you know what it is, we can talk about it, but that's just because we already know what it is. If you've never tasted it, you can talk yourself blind trying to explain it and not get anywhere.

In this case, I would compare writers of systematic theology with folks who think they can explain the taste of salt to someone who has never tasted it.

Ah, so what do you call it when someone tries to explain the taste of salt to someone who doesn't realize or remember they've had it before? And who knows, maybe it doesn't taste the same to everybody, or some people think it's good while some others don't like it.

Good old Forrest was exactly right. He knew what love is, and didn't need to talk about it.

Jenny didn't think he did, though, or at least she said he didn't know. Maybe it would have helped if he explained how he felt.

And as far as this board is concerned, you have a point. I am not sure what it's for myself. I pretty much use it to correct, in my view, errors that I see and try to help people see things as I do. I am not sure that is right or wrong, but it seems to be what everyone else here is doing also.

I agree, as well as to try to help people to see how to see as God sees.

I still think we do at least a fairly good job of presenting what we're bringing here, though.

The problem is that no one seems to be actually convincing anyone of anything.

I don't think that's a problem, though. I think it helps just to share our ideas and beliefs while hoping the best ones will stick to the people who want them. It's kinda like a pot luck buffet where we get to pick what we like, whether or not we bring anything new. Sometimes more of the same is a good thing.

[MiserereNobis]

I like how Forrest Gump has made it into multiple posts on the Scholastics vs. Pragmatists thread... oh my

[Seraphim32]

I am sorry to have joined the party so late.

MFB, I think the most important thing for you and I is going to be to make sure we understand one another. I read through all your previous posts and I still don't see what has led you to dismiss the Aristotelian and Scholastic traditions. Perhaps rather than broadbrushing very complex areas, we should start with something very simple. I recommend Aristotle's four causes. He argues that a substance has four following aspects, or causes:

1. Material cause: What material a thing is made of.

2. Formal cause: The form a thing takes.

3. Efficient cause: the source of movement/ rest in a substance.

4. Final cause: A thing's aim or purpose.

Do you disagree that these four causes are sufficient for describing substances? If so, where does your disagreement lie?

[Mudcat]

Only skimmed the thread but I get the general drift of it.

I think philosophical views either go over or under my head. Not sure which.

I think I could some it up like this.

Joe Friday: Just the facts Ma'am?

Ma'am: There are no such things as facts. There are only what you think "facts" are...

[cursor]

The topic of the thread is "The Mddb Philosophy Debate." Nowhere AFAICFC ..."as far as I can frickin' see" ... does anyone suggest what that acronym might mean. Hey ... what's up with that?!

[TAO]

Only skimmed the thread but I get the general drift of it.

I think philosophical views either go over or under my head. Not sure which.

I think I could some it up like this.

Joe Friday: Just the facts Ma'am?

Ma'am: There are no such things as facts. There are only what you think "facts" are...

Sup Mudcat! Long time, no see!

[mfbukowski]

Only skimmed the thread but I get the general drift of it.

I think philosophical views either go over or under my head. Not sure which.

I think I could some it up like this.

Joe Friday: Just the facts Ma'am?

Ma'am: There are no such things as facts. There are only what you think "facts" are...

Nailed it.

[volgadon]

The topic of the thread is "The Mddb Philosophy Debate." Nowhere AFAICFC ..."as far as I can frickin' see" ... does anyone suggest what that acronym might mean. Hey ... what's up with that?!

(In best Inspector Clouseau voice): Here is a clue. Look at the board's name.

[mfbukowski]

I am sorry to have joined the party so late.

MFB, I think the most important thing for you and I is going to be to make sure we understand one another. I read through all your previous posts and I still don't see what has led you to dismiss the Aristotelian and Scholastic traditions. Perhaps rather than broadbrushing very complex areas, we should start with something very simple. I recommend Aristotle's four causes. He argues that a substance has four following aspects, or causes:

1. Material cause: What material a thing is made of.

2. Formal cause: The form a thing takes.

3. Efficient cause: the source of movement/ rest in a substance.

4. Final cause: A thing's aim or purpose.

Do you disagree that these four causes are sufficient for describing substances? If so, where does your disagreement lie?

I don't know what any of these words mean and you have left them undefined. How does one know the correct way to characterize "what a thing is made of"?

Is it made of atoms? Quarks? Strings? Chemicals? Energy? How is one to know the difference in the light of Quantum Mechanics? Is it made of metal- do we want to say that? Or is it made of compounds which make the metal? Is it an alloy? What is our purpose in saying what the thing is "made of"? Is it a medical question? Is it a psychological question?

We say often that a man is a "man of steel", or that "you should be made of sterner stuff". What is a man "made of"?

One can characterize "what a thing is made of" in many ways. And for that matter what is a "material thing" as opposed to a "non material thing"?

How can something non-material be a "thing"?

2. Formal cause: The form a thing takes.

I have no clue what that means. How does a thing take a form? Does it have a choice to appear as a car or a tree?

And what is a "form" in this context?? And how does a "thing" take it?

And what does any of this have to do with causation? Why does a thing taking a form have something to do with causation?

And "source of movement" of a thing? Are you serious? What is the source of movement of an atom? The entire universe is in constant motion- what is it's "source"?? I suppose the ultimate source of anythings movement was the Big Bang. But was everything static "before" the Big Bang? (hard to say since there was no time for it to be "before"

And if I did know what a "substance" was (which I do not) how would I know how many causes or aspects it could have? Why four? Why not four million? Why not none at all? And besides, what qualifies as an "aspect" and why?

What was the cause of YOU? Your parents? Their parents? Adam and Eve? The big bang? God's plan to create everything? And what caused God to come up with the plan? Where does it end and why does it end where you think it does?

We haven't even scratched the surface.

The point is that he plucked all this from thin air. That is his theory that he made up. There is no way of deciding if any of it is true or false or if he got anything right. There is no evidence, there is no reason to think any of it even makes sense.

Maybe he is right, maybe Plato is right or maybe both of them are wrong. How does one decide that? What are the practical consequences in our lives if one is right or the other? How would our lives change if one was right or the other?

[Mudcat]

Sup Mudcat! Long time, no see!

Sup Homie TAO!

[Spammer]

I don't know what any of these words mean and you have left them undefined. How does one know the correct way to characterize "what a thing is made of"?

Is it made of atoms? Quarks? Strings? Chemicals? Energy? How is one to know the difference in the light of Quantum Mechanics? Is it made of metal- do we want to say that? Or is it made of compounds which make the metal? Is it an alloy? What is our purpose in saying what the thing is "made of"? Is it a medical question? Is it a psychological question?

We say often that a man is a "man of steel", or that "you should be made of sterner stuff". What is a man "made of"?

One can characterize "what a thing is made of" in many ways. And for that matter what is a "material thing" as opposed to a "non material thing"?

How can something non-material be a "thing"?

I have no clue what that means. How does a thing take a form? Does it have a choice to appear as a car or a tree?

And what is a "form" in this context?? And how does a "thing" take it?

And what does any of this have to do with causation? Why does a thing taking a form have something to do with causation?

And "source of movement" of a thing? Are you serious? What is the source of movement of an atom? The entire universe is in constant motion- what is it's "source"?? I suppose the ultimate source of anythings movement was the Big Bang. But was everything static "before" the Big Bang? (hard to say since there was no time for it to be "before"

And if I did know what a "substance" was (which I do not) how would I know how many causes or aspects it could have? Why four? Why not four million? Why not none at all? And besides, what qualifies as an "aspect" and why?

What was the cause of YOU? Your parents? Their parents? Adam and Eve? The big bang? God's plan to create everything? And what caused God to come up with the plan? Where does it end and why does it end where you think it does?

We haven't even scratched the surface.

The point is that he plucked all this from thin air. That is his theory that he made up. There is no way of deciding if any of it is true or false or if he got anything right. There is no evidence, there is no reason to think any of it even makes sense.

Maybe he is right, maybe Plato is right or maybe both of them are wrong. How does one decide that? What are the practical consequences in our lives if one is right or the other? How would our lives change if one was right or the other?

It gets even worse. We assume we're things, but how do we characterize what we are? How do you even know you're you or if you even exist? Maybe we really do live in the Matrix. Who knows? At what level do "I" or "You" exist? At the level of consciousness? What is that? Is it immaterial or material? Are my thoughts objectively real? If material, then it's just particles/quarks/strings, or something deeper. My thoughts aren't mine and will isn't free. There's no way of proving it one way or the other. After all, neuroscience has shown that the event of "I have a desire to grab a cup of coffee" can be predicted before the thought even occurs to the individual thinking the thought. All we can do is just live our lives the best we can and not worry about such silliness as whether we exist, whether god exists, whether our neighbors exist, whether my thoughts are real and whether they're really mine. Right? If doing good brings you joy, great. If believing in god and going to church brings you joy, great. If avoiding church and going to the mountains brings you joy, that's great too. But there's a flip side. If doing bad makes you rich and fat, and you find a way to guarantee that you'll always get away with it, fantastic! Oh, but that would be wrong, you say! But that's hardly relevant, if consciousness is material and we can't really be sure that we really exist in the first place. Maybe god is there, maybe he's not. There's no way to know for sure. Even if he appears right in front of you and slaps you across the face, there's no way to know if he's really there since you're not sure that you're really there. It could all be part of the program you're embedded in. Even if you play it safe and take Pascal's Wager, going to church and praying, in the Celestial Kingdom how do you know you're really there? It's probably still all just part of the program.

But even if we dispense with such silliness and take it on faith that we exist and there is no matrix, getting back to your main point, why am I even typing this? Let's go further down the rabbit hole. I haven't gone to the trouble of clearly defining each of the words I'm using in this paragraph. I'm wasting your time. Even if I did define each word up front, language is rooted in concepts rooted in individual brains, with no necessary correspondence between the concepts and anything existing in objective reality. There are no such things as facts; there are only what we think "facts" are. Our subjective meanings don't ever meet anywhere in objective reality and shake hands. My definitions and facts will never be your definitions and facts, and vice versa. My pink will NEVER be your pink. Communication is a waste of time, therefore, not to mention the fact that maybe I'm not even here and maybe my thoughts aren't really even my thoughts. They're randomly banging particles within my brain! So before we can have any kind of conversation about any topic whatsoever in this forum, we need to all come to an agreement on whether a) any of us exists; b) whether anything besides us exists; c) whether our thoughts have objective reality; and since our individually-determined meanings do not occupy a shared, objective space, d) go through each of the tens of thousands of words in the dictionary, but wait! before that we each have to state our philosophy of language up front, ahem, sorry, now we can go through each word in the dictionary, and make sure we're all 100% in agreement on the meaning of each subjectively-determined word that each of us utters, knowing full well up front that even though we all say "I agree that's what I mean by that word", the subjective meaning of the agreed upon word will always remain utterly opaque to every other individual - no matter how many years we spend hashing out an attempt to come to an agreed upon definition! Given all of this, why am I even wasting time responding? After all, when you say "I don't know what any of these words mean and you have left them undefined" I dont' know what any of those words mean! At all. I know what I mean and I THINK I know what most people mean when they use the words "I" and "what" and "words" and "undefined" (though what I THINK other people mean is just a guess with no necessary connection to anything objectively real) and I assume that what you mean is what is usually meant by those words, but you didn't preface your response by stating that up front. How the hell (I mean heck) can I possibly know what you mean? You haven't told me. So - what DO you mean when you use those words and by the way can you restate your philosophy of language by way of framing your response? But wait! I forgot, every concept in my brain is rooted in my own inner subjectivity and we can never really come to agreement on the meanings of things anyway, apart from a gentlemen's agreement whereby we pretend we share a word's meaning, knowing all along that we really don't. Oh yea, perhaps you don't really exist. Maybe I don't exist. Why am I even talking to you? We're doubly damned. Even if we do exist, communication is pointless, as our words and concepts are purely subjective and don't have a necessary correspondence to anything objectively real in the first place.

Ok, rant done. I'm having flashbacks to silly debates in Philosophy 101. I find it richly ironic that I've encounted nominalism on a Mormon forum, of all places! This is why I like Aristotle, the philosopher of common sense. What we see and think is actually real. We can base an entire philosophy on the intolerable assumption that you and I exist and that that tree over there is really a tree and that when you look at it you see a tree too. When I see a pot or a goat, there really is a pot or a goat and you see the exact same thing and think the exact same thing when you see them. "Look, it's a goat tied to a tree and his dinner's in the pot!" We're more than mere congeries of subatomic particles randomly banging about, material entities that only think their knowledge is determined by the object known. When we abandon common sense we end up insane like the children of Descartes and Hume. The mind games generated by relativist and nihilistic 20th century philosophy are not conducive to a productive life, although they do allow for great fun in online forums.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Spammer

[MiserereNobis]

I find it richly ironic that I've encounted nominalism on a Mormon forum, of all places!

Me, too, which is why I told mfb that he was a curiously wonderful surprise

The mind games generated by relativist and nihilistic 20th century philosophy are not conducive to a productive life, although they do allow for great fun in online forums.

Yes, Descartes dug the hole from which modern philosophy has yet to extract itself. It seems the best it can do is say that we'll study language instead and then pretend that all the issues in philosophy weren't really issues to begin with.

Thomas Merton remarked, in his fantastic book "New Seeds of Contemplation," that it is truly a world gone mad where a man has to struggle with the question of whether or not he exists and the solution "cogito, ergo sum" is somehow a stroke of genius...

[MiserereNobis]

By the way, how did this thread get the tag "dark ages"? I find that somewhat insulting...

[Spammer]

Me, too, which is why I told mfb that he was a curiously wonderful surprise

Yes, Descartes dug the hole from which modern philosophy has yet to extract itself. It seems the best it can do is say that we'll study language instead and then pretend that all the issues in philosophy weren't really issues to begin with.

Thomas Merton remarked, in his fantastic book "New Seeds of Contemplation," that it is truly a world gone mad where a man has to struggle with the question of whether or not he exists and the solution "cogito, ergo sum" is somehow a stroke of genius...

I love that quote. Here's a good one from Chesterton's "Orthodoxy" that speaks to the same issue: '

'The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.'

[MiserereNobis]

What's the difference between a philosopher and a madman?

Neither believe that the floor exists, but the philosopher still walks on it

[Spammer]

What's the difference between a philosopher and a madman?

Neither believe that the floor exists, but the philosopher still walks on it

Excellent!