APOLOGIA
By
Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, October 29, 2015
The Carillon, October 29, 2015
Various thoughts
Sometimes
I sit alone on our deck, quietly puffing on my pipe, and I think. What follows
are some of my thoughts. They're somewhat disconnected and perhaps
disconcerting—read at your own risk.
● The
story of the blind men and the elephant (in which several blind men disagree
about what the elephant actually is, but are corrected by the king who sees the
elephant) tells us we are all blind. But the storyteller assumes
he/ she is the king who sees.
● That
our “western eyes” cast doubt on all our knowledge of philosophical theses is
itself a philosophical thesis, so casts doubt onto itself. Ditto for moral
theses.
● Any philosophy that is written in a book must account
for the known reality of the book in which the philosophy is written and the
known reality that the contents of the book can be accurately understood by
readers. If not, why do philosophers complain about being misrepresented?
● To
know that you are deceived requires knowing at least sometimes that you are not
deceived.
● The misuse/ abuse of language keeps us from
communicating and knowing truth, but the careful use of language is conducive
to communicating and knowing truth. Or why do you ask for clarification? And
why do you give it when asked?
● Conflicting religions and worldviews (including the
worldview that all religions and worldviews are pretty much the same, which, by
the way, conflicts with all other worldviews) call for our ultimate allegiance.
The careful examination of evidence and careful reasoning therefrom help us to
discern truth. This is not to impose rationality onto the world; it's to do our
best to let the world speak for itself.
● To think God can't use reason and evidence to reveal
God puts God in a box. Whether God uses reasons and evidence depends on whether
God has given us reasons and evidence. We must look. Seek.
● Christian philosopher John Bloom on religious triage:
"Given that we have a limited amount of time in this life to study
religions, we can dispense with those that offer us a second chance in the
afterlife, or which will reincarnate us if we make a mistake in this life, or
which promise us that all will be well eventually no matter how we live now.
Prudence dictates that we first ought to consider the claims of those religions
which say that everything depends upon the decisions made and lived in this
life."
● Golden Rule: "Do to others as you would have them
do to you." When said by Jesus the others include "infidels" and the rule presumes that our desires aren't defective (e.g., masochism, paedophilia, etc.).
● To claim that "judging is wrong" is to make
a judgment.
● All violence is unjust? Surely not. The
police officer who kills a gunman on a school shooting rampage kills justly
whereas the shooter doesn't.
● To understand what Scripture says is
"disputable" depends on what Scripture says it is, not on what I
dispute today.
● Are ongoing-overly-quick-accusations of phobia a sign
of a phobia against reason?
● Truth-seeking criticisms and loving others are not
mutually exclusive.
● Facts and values are not mutually exclusive, either. Here
I'm not thinking about valuing (a
subjective though real experience that may manifest itself in behaviour); I'm thinking
about actual value—real worth. Human beings in fact have real worth. Intrinsic
worth. (Many atheists recognize this but have trouble explaining it. I
recognize it and find it suggestive of, and explained by, imago Dei.)
● I am a centre of consciousness, i.e., a subjective
being, yet I perceive objective truths (e.g., that Pythagoras's theorem is true;
that if A is part of B and B is part of C then A is part of C; that Ottawa is
the capital city of Canada).
● If mere subjective feeling is the ultimate criterion
for truth, then if a woman feels she is fat then she is fat, and if a man feels
he is a woman then he is a woman, and if a fat woman feels she is a skinny man
then she is a skinny man.
● Truth without love is harsh. Love without truth is
blind. Gentle humour can illuminate.
(Hendrik van der
Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)
No comments:
Post a Comment