University of West Georgia Unit 6 Realized Absurdity of Life Discussion THIS IS FOR POST AND REPLY Choose two of your philosophers and compare and contrast

University of West Georgia Unit 6 Realized Absurdity of Life Discussion THIS IS FOR POST AND REPLY Choose two of your philosophers and compare and contrast them on the meaning of life. How do these theories relate to issues such as self, free will/determinism, and ethics? Use the logical standards set in unit one in your post and replies.Once you have completed your initial post, read and respond to the posts of at least 2 of your peers. Your initial post and your peer responses should be substantive (well thought out and logically organized) and original (do not copy and paste). Also, check the course calendar for discussion due dates. Unit 6 Discussion
The Realized Absurdity of Life
Let us begin with a quote from Albert Camus’s “The Myth of Sisyphus”:
It happens that the stage sets collapse. Rising, street-car, four hours in the office or the factory, meal,
street-car, four hours of work, meal, sleep, and Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday and
Saturday according to the same rhythm—this path is easily followed most of the time. But one day the
“why” arises and everything begins in that weariness tinged with amazement… At certain moments of
lucidity, the mechanical aspect of [human beings’] gestures, their meaningless pantomime makes silly
everything that surrounds them. A man is talking on the telephone behind a glass partition; you cannot
hear him, but you see his incomprehensible dumb show: you wonder why he is alive. This discomfort in
the face of man’s own inhumanity, this incalculable tumble before the image of what we are, this
“nausea,” as a writer of today [John-Paul Sartre] calls it, is also the absurd. Likewise the stranger who at
certain seconds comes to meet us in a mirror, the familiar and yet alarming brother we encounter in our
own photographs is also the absurd.
Camus here memorably captures the moment in which, as Nietzsche puts it, the “Why?” finds no
answer. Provided we keep our thoughts about our lives “inside” of the mechanistic life we live, focusing
on our routine, our schedule, our long- and short-term goals, we most likely will not recognize the fact
so unforgettably articulated above. But if our thoughts move beyond this mechanistic life—“outside” of
it, as it were—we will be struck with an uneasy fact. Namely, that our lives, in the grander sense of
things, may be meaningless.
Granted, you are someone’s daughter or son, maybe even someone’s mother or father, or someday you
will become that. Or, perhaps you have done or will do something significant for humanity—you will
lead a great political life or create some great work of art or invent some object that changes humankind
in ways that seemed unimaginable before.
You might, but probably not.
Most of us, at best, have a mundane future-life awaiting us in “middle management.” Not as a
“nobody,” per se, but not too terribly important either. Do not despair over your inevitable mediocrity.
As the narrator in the 1999 film Fight Club puts it, “On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for
everyone drops to zero.” It is true, on a long enough timeline, everyone will be dead and everyone’s
accomplishments forgotten.
No matter how great a person was in life—in history—she dies, everyone that knew her dies, everyone
that remembers what she did dies, even the books and movies about her life eventually are forgotten or
destroyed (given the inevitable cooling of the solar system, everything will be destroyed eventually). If
human beings are the types of creatures for which meaning matters and life ought to make sense, then
Camus is correct. Life is absurd. So, why live it?
Humanity itself is like a speck of rust on but one of the many links in the chain of existence. The universe
is thought to be 13,798,000,000 years old; the earth is roughly 4,540,000,000 years old. We as humans
have been around in our present form for about 200,000 years. Our own existence constitutes
0.000044% of just the existence, in time, of the Earth.
Let’s say your parents died and bequeathed you 0.000044% of their inheritance, leaving the rest to your
slacker brother, Harold. Let’s say your parents were worth 1 billion dollars. That would mean that Harold
would get $999,999,560.00. You’d get $440.00 A pretty insignificant gesture on the part of your parents,
perhaps one would even say a “meaningless” one.
In this unit, we are going to consider why such insignificance matters to us. Or, at least whether it should
and how should we confront this fact if it does matter. Could we nevertheless create our own
“meaning” in this world such that, in the end, given these facts, our lives still mattered…at least to us?
Could there be a point to existence for us individually or, as a species, even though looking at the whole
thing overall, there seems to be no point?
Or, given these disturbing facts and events above, is there perhaps some source of objective meaning in
our lives, which is not ultimately dependent on how we individually or as a group see it—a God, by
chance?
John Cottingham on The Meaning of Life
(Required) PODCAST: The Meaning of Life
Let’s get started with a general introduction to our topic. Listen to this “Philosophy Bites” podcast by Dr.
John Cottingham (former Department Head and Director of Research and Graduate studies at the
University of Reading). Currently, Cottingham holds the posts of Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the
University of Reading, Professorial Research Fellow at the Centre for Philosophy of Religion, Heythrop
College, University of London. He is also an Honorary Fellow of St John’s College, Oxford.
As you listen to the podcast, consider the following questions:
•
What is the main problem of human existence according to Cottingham?
•
How have philosophers commonly described human beings?
•
How do obstacles to our projects hinder our meaning in life?
•
Why is the moral resonance of one’s life important?
•
How does contingency even affect our moral lives?
•
Why is hope so central to meaning in life?
•
Do you have to believe in God to cultivate your spiritual tradition, as Cottingham asserts?
•
Why must spiritual praxis come before belief for Cottingham?
•
What does it mean to say that humans are “dependent rational animals?”
Salto Mortale
Perhaps, things are not as dire as it would appear from the remarks above. Perhaps life does have
meaning and so we are not tasked with giving it one. Perhaps meaning comes from some transcendent
source, like a deity. The existence of God (or gods for the matter) would put much of what was of
concern in the previous pages of this unit to rest. Yet, that would really only be possible if we KNEW God
existed, not simply believed God existed. The former has the benefit of reasons and evidence that any
reasonable person would accept. The later takes, perchance, even something more difficult to possess—
namely, faith.
We will look at the possibility of knowing God exists first. Then, we will look at the possibility of believing
that God exists without facts and evidence. The latter position is called Fideism.
Your Beliefs on God
Participate in this interactive exercise to test how consistently your beliefs about God and religion
register. Take note of your “direct hits” and “bitten bullets.” Those will constitute part of your first
discussion for this unit.
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/god/Default.aspx
After you have completed the exercise, move on to the next content page to complete the first
discussion activity in this unit. Be prepared to answer the following questions:
What were your direct hits and/or bitten bullets?
Describe any interesting tensions that arose from your answers and your reactions to those tensions.
Identify and explain what role, if any, reason, evidence, and argument should play in religious belief.
Is religious belief different from other kinds of belief?
Develop and defend your position.
God
What, exactly, is the nature of the entity we refer to with the term “God”? Do we even know it exists?
Can we know that it exists? If so, can we know its nature? How do we reconcile the concept of an allgood, all-powerful, and all-knowing God with a world that contains such natural evils as infant leukemia
and earthquakes? How do we reconcile the concept of such a God with a world that contains such manmade evils as slavery and genocide?
You may have heard someone say something like “I know there is a God.” You may even have said
something like that yourself. But can any of us really know that God exists? If not, can we somehow
justify our believing that it exists?
Proofs for God’s Existence
In this part of the unit you will encounter six major arguments for the existence of God. Five of the
arguments were formulated by a single person, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). The sixth was the work of
Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109). All of them continue to be debated to this day. Along with the
arguments themselves, you will also be introduced to some criticisms that have been made against the
arguments.
Read them, seek to understand them, and then assess them for yourself.
Aquinas and the Cosmological arguments
A Conception of GodWhat has Aquinas…
A Conception of God
St-thomas-aquinas
The reading from Aquinas presents five of the six major arguments for the existence of God. Aquinas is
one of the four great Fathers of the Church. All of his arguments deal with a particular conception of
God, that of God as a unique, all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good being.
It should be recognized (since Aquinas does not mention it) that this is not the only possible conception
of God. Different religions have had very different conceptions of the deity. Some religions, such as
Taoism and Buddhism, do not acknowledge the existence of any deity. Other religions, such as
Hinduism, recognize multiple deities. Many modern Biblical scholars argue that various quite different
conceptions of God appear in what Christians call the Old Testament.
One idea that appears repeatedly in the arguments of Aquinas is that of a series of causes (or motions or
sources) running backwards infinitely. The standard label for such a series is “infinite regress.” Aquinas
claims any infinite regress is impossible. But is it? We may not be able to imagine infinity (we can define
it, but not even Stephen Hawking can imagine it), but that may say more about the human mind (and its
limitations) than it says about reality.
Before moving forward, read Aquinas’ Five Ways to Prove that God Exists.
(Required) READING: 06 Aquinas-Five Ways to Prove that God Exists.pdf
(Required) Aquinas and the Cosmological Arguments: Crash Course Philosophy #10
Our unit on the philosophy of religion and the existence of god continues with Thomas Aquinas. Today,
we consider his first four arguments: the cosmological arguments.
Unable to view the video? https://youtu.be/TgisehuGOyY
(Required) Intelligent Design: Crash Course Philosophy #11
The last video introduced Thomas Aquinas’s four cosmological arguments for the existence of god;
today we introduce his fifth argument: the teleological argument, and the ensuing dialogue it initiated
Unable to view the video? https://youtu.be/7e9v_fsZB6A
What has Aquinas Proven?
So what, if anything, has Aquinas proven? If, by “proven” we mean something like “justified to the level
of absolute certainty,” then the answer must be, “Nothing.”
All of the arguments are open to serious criticism. The arguments involving the impossibility of an
infinite regress can be criticized on the basis that just because our limited minds cannot truly apprehend
such a regress is no proof of the actual impossibility of the regress. In other words, these arguments may
reveal more about us (the limitations of our minds) than they reveal about reality (that God exists).
As for the argument based on degrees of perfection, Aquinas claims that there must exist something
absolutely good for anything else to possess any degree of goodness. But is it not possible that when we
judge X better than Y we are merely comparing X and Y with each other? Just as a person can judge July
weather to be hotter than December weather without experiencing absolute hotness, can’t we judge
Mother Teresa to be a better person than Adolf Hitler without requiring any reference to an absolutely
good being (God)?
There is a further, overall problem with the arguments presented by Aquinas. Even if we grant that his
arguments succeed, what, exactly, do they succeed in proving? At best, Aquinas has proven the
existence of an unmoved mover, an uncaused cause, a necessary being, and a being possessing all
perfections. Aquinas has offered no argument to support the claim that the unmoved mover, the
uncaused cause, the necessary being, and the absolutely perfect being are all one in the same entity. In
other words, his first four arguments, at best, may prove the existence of four separate beings.
The Ontological Argument
The Ontological…Definition or…
The Ontological Argument
Anselm-CanterburyVit
Anselm’s argument is called “The Ontological Argument” because the entire argument hinges on the
concept or idea of God. Unlike Aquinas, Anselm does not hang his argument on observation or sensible
experience. Anselm essentially begins his argument by defining what we mean by the word ‘God.’ It is
this definition that serves as the foundation for the argument that follows.
Anselm’s argument, then, is an a priori argument. Remember, a priori means prior to or independent of
experience. You can know a priori if the following are true or false:
a. All bachelors are unmarried men.
b. 5 + 4 = 7
You can know that (a) is true just by knowing what each word means and by knowing how English syntax
functions. You don’t have to go out and survey 100 bachelors. Similarly, you can know that (b) is false
just by knowing what ‘5’, ‘+’, ‘4’, ‘=’, and ‘7’ mean. You don’t have to go out and collect groups of 5 things
and groups of 4 things and then combine them.
Remember, numerals and numbers are two distinct things. Numerals are the signs or symbols we use to
represent numbers. Numbers, themselves, are abstract ideas. Although children may learn to add and
subtract by using jellybeans or other tokens, we don’t need the tokens to discover or prove how
numbers work. We certainly don’t need them to determine the truth of mathematical propositions. For
example, we don’t use tokens to determine the truth of the proposition “2372 = 56,169.”
Before moving forward, read “Chapter II – That God Truly Exists” from Anselm’s and Gaunilo’s
Ontological Argument (Proslogion).
(Required) READING: 06 Anselm and Gaunilo-Ontological Argument.pdf
(Required) Anselm and the Argument for God: Crash Course Philosophy #9
Today we are introducing a new area of philosophy – philosophy of religion. We are starting this unit off
with Anselm’s argument for God’s existence, while also considering objections to that argument.
Unable to view the video? https://youtu.be/FmTsS5xFA6k
Definition or Description?
When Anselm begins his argument by stating that God is “that than which no greater can be conceived,”
is this a definition of God or a description? Is there a genuine difference between a definition and a
description? If we are describing a particular and specific item — this book rather than that book, for
example — then it would seem that the description is only that; a description and not a definition.
Definitions, as a general rule, deal with general concepts, not particular and specific entities. So perhaps
Anselm is only trying to describe God. But, if that is the case, we can legitimately ask for justification of
this description; a justification Anselm does not provide.
It seems that Anselm has defined God and not merely described God. If that is the case, however, we
need to consider the general form of definitions. Usually, a definition has the form of “X (what is being
defined) is T, W, Y, Z (T, W, Y, and Z are predicated of X).”
One important question seems to be, “Is existence a genuine predicate?” (Remember, for both Anselm
and Gaunilo, existence in fact was considered a part of “perfection.”) The British philosopher Bertrand
Russell has argued that there are at least two forms of “is.” There is the “is” of predication (the “is” we
use when defining things), and there is the “is” of existence (the form of “is” we use when making
assertions that something exists). Russell claims that Anselm has confused the two forms of “is” and
treated the former as if it were the latter. To put it more simply, in the words of David Hume, “You
cannot define something into existence.” It is this confusion of the two forms of “is” which Gaunilo
seems to be pointing out in his criticism of Anselm’s argument. Anselm responds that his argument
applies only to the existence of God; not the existence of anything else. Is this a convincing response?
Anselm may be right, up to a point. It may well be true that God is a being possessing necessary
existence by definition, but the definition alone does not prove there is an entity in existence that
matches the definition. After all, we can (and do) have definitions for things like unicorns, griffins, and
sphinxes. Just because we can and do define such things does not necessarily entail that such things, in
fact, exist.
The Design Argument
Here we will also cover the criticisms made by David Hume against the Design Argument. Hume treats
the argument as being either an argument from analogy or an inductive argument.
Allan Ramsay – David Hume, 1711 – 1776. Historian and philosopher – Google Art Project William-Paley
David Hume
William Paley
Read Paley’s formulation of the Design Argument and Hume’s response.
(Required) READING: William Paley – 06 Paley-State of the argument.pdf
(Required) READING: David Hume – 06 Hume-Design Argument.pdf
Is Belief Irrational or Rational?
Two Rowboats
So…now what? It appears clear that we cannot prove that God exists. Does this mean that we must
abandon the idea of God? Is religion just a case of superstition, more sophisticated than good luck
charms but just a superstition nonetheless? Is belief irrational? Was Karl Marx correct when he called
religion “the opiate of the masses”?
Might it be possible to have good and rational reasons for believing in the existence of God even in the
absence of absolute proof? What might such reasons be? If belief (though not outright knowledge) in
God is rational, what consequences might this state of affairs have regarding our conduct?
What about people who say things like, “I know that there is a God”? Are they just being sloppy in their
speech? Are they just plain wrong? Or is it possible to “know” God in another way?
Some students find philosophy of religion extremely anxiety-producing. As believers, they find the
criticisms already covered and the arguments against the existence of God (which are covered in this
unit) very upsetting. Such students sometimes become defensive; some even “turn off” on the subject
entirely. If you have felt like this, think about the following:
Two Rowboats
Imagine two rowboats on a large lake. One of the rowboats has a heavy chain and anchor holding it in
place. The other rowboat is floating free, bobbing on the gentle waves. Now, imagine that a storm blows
up; the fresh breeze becomes a gale; the gentle waves turn into whitecaps. What’s going to happen to
the rowboats?
You’re probably thinking something like, “Well, that’s a pretty stupid question!” Obviously, the rowboat
that was well anchored will be tossed about a bit, twist and turn. But, when the storm is over, that
rowboat will still be there, in place, safe and sound. The other rowboat, the one that was so happily
bobbing and floating free, will be driven by the whitecaps and the gale. Who knows where it will end
up—perhaps broken on the shoreline.
A believer who has not examined her beliefs and her reasons for believing is like that unanchored
rowboat. But a believer who has honestly confronted the criticisms that can and are made against the
arguments for God, who has honestly examined and considered the arguments against the existence of
God, and who, nevertheless, still believes can be compared to the well-anchored rowboat.
Belief on the Basis of Prudence
THINK ABOUT IT:
Earlier in this unit we asked the question “Is religious belief irrational?” For many philosophers, the
answer is “No” even though we cannot prove the existence of God. How is this …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment