The heart of philosophy

Christianity is often condemned for its circular reasoning, and postmodernism is often condemned for its contradictions. However, we cannot reasonably expect the heart of any philosophy (including Christianity) to be free of both circular reasoning and contradiction. One or both of these are of necessity at the heart of every philosophy.

Circular reasoning or contradiction are the necessary result of supporting our philosophy, or more specifically, our epistemology, on the most basic level. The problematic question is simply, "How do we know that this is how we know?" We have only two ways to answer: we must either step outside or stay within our philosophy. If we step outside the philosophy to answer this question, we contradict ourselves. For example, if we attempt to show that postmodernism must be reasonably believed, we are, to oversimplify, saying, "How do we know that reason is an invalid basis for truth? By reason." If we use reason to demonstrate that Christ or the Bible should be the foundation for truth, we reach the same contradiction.

The other option is to stay within the philosophy to answer the question. This leads to circular reasoning. Christians are guilty of this when they say something like, "How do we know that God exists? By the Bible. How do we know the Bible is true? Because it came from God."

We cannot satistfactorily support any philosophy on the most basic level. We must therefore seek to find, not conclusive proof, but good grounds for believing in a philosophy.

My philosophy

First of all, check out an essay I wrote for what I don't believe.

What I do believe is that

• Apart from Christ there is no objective truth. Without Christ and the Bible we may question whether truth even exists.
• Apart from Christ there are is no objective reality.
• Apart from Christ there is no absolute morality. While God has imprinted the "Law of Nature" on the hearts of man, natural law is not an absolute standard. Since our reasoning has been corrupted by the fall, everyone interprets natural law differently, and one can never be sure that his interpretation is correct. The Bible, not natural law, is the only absolute moral standard. Sir William Blackstone elaborated on this in his Commentaries:
  

"This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other-It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.

But in order to apply this to the particular exigencies of each individual, it is still necessary to have recourse to reason; whose office it is to discover, as was before observed, what the law of nature directs in every circumstance of life: by considering, what method will tend the most effectually to our own substantial happiness. And if our reason were always, as in our first ancestor before his transgression, clear and perfect, unruffled by passions, unclouded by prejudice, unimpaired by disease or intemperance, the task would be pleasant and easy; we should need no other guide but this. But every man now finds the contrary in his own experience; that his reason is corrupt, and his understanding full of ignorance and error.

This has given manifold occasion for the benign interposition of divine providence; which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, at sundry times and in divers manners, to discover and enforce its laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity. But we are not from thence to conclude that the knowledge of these truths was attainable by reason, in its present corrupted state; since we find that, until they were revealed, they were hid from the wisdom of ages. As then the moral precepts of this law are indeed of the same original with those of the law of nature, so their Intrinsic obligation is of equal strength and perpetuity. Yet undoubtedly the revealed law is of infinitely more authenticity than that moral system, which is framed by ethical writers, and denominated the natural law. Because one is the law of nature, expressly declared so to be by God himself; the other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority; but, till then, they can never be put in any competition together." [emphasis added]

Because there is no absolute truth, morality, or reality apart from Christ, we do not deal in absolutes. Our responsibility as Christians, however, is to come as close to God's standards as possible.

Relative goodness

This is Aristotle's description of relative goodness, taken from his Rhetoric, Chapter 7. Knowledge of relative goodness - and good in general - is important because good is the end toward which men aim. When one is attempting to persuade someone of something, one must appeal to goodness to be effective.

This list was part of an assignment for my rhetoric class. Sometime I'll post Aristotle's list of goods.

1. A greater number of goods is a greater good than one or than a smaller number.

2. If the largest member of one class surpasses the largest member of the other, then the one class surpasses the other.

3. If one class surpasses another, then the largest member of the one class surpasses the largest member of the other.

4. If one good is always accompanied by another good, but does not always accompany it, the one good is greater.

• Accompanied simultaneously (as life accompanies health)
  

• Accompanied subsequently (as knowledge accompanies the act of learning)

• Accompanied potentially (as cheating accompanies sacrilege)

5. If one thing is productive of a greater good than is another, the one thing is itself greater.

6. That which has been produced by a greater good is itself a greater good.

7. That which is desirable in itself is a greater good than that which is not desirable in itself.

8. That which is an end is a greater good than that which is not an end (since it is chosen for its own sake rather than for the sake of something else).

9. That which needs fewer or easier things than does something else is the greater good (since it is self-sufficing).

• If one thing needs a second to come into existence, while the second can exist without the first, the second is greater.

• If one thing does not need anything else is greater than that which does need something else.

10. That which is the beginning of other things is a greater good than that which is n

11. That which is a cause is a greater good than that which is not.

12. That which arises from something important is greater than that which arises from something less important.

13. That which is rare is a greater good than that which is plentiful.

14. That which is plentiful is a greater good than that which is rare (since we can make more use of it).

15. The hard thing is better than the easy (because it is rarer).

16. The easy thing is better than the hard (because it is as we wish it to be).

17. Positive goodness and badness are more important than the mere absence of goodness and badness (their presence is an end, while its absence is not).

18. In proportion as the functions of things are noble or base, the things themselves are noble or base (because the nature of a thing corresponds with its results).

19. In proportion as things are good or bad, their functions are good or bad (because the results of a thing correspond with its nature).

20. If superiority in a thing is more desirable or honorable than superiority in another thing, the first thing is the greater good.

21. If a normal thing is greater than another, then an unusual degree of that thing is greater than an unusual degree of the other.

22. One thing is greater than another if it is better to desire it than the other.

23. If a science is greater than another, its activity is also greater than the other.

24. That which would be or has been judged a good thing or a better thing than something else by the majority, the wisest, or those with the most understand, is good or better. 2

25. A thing is better if it is associated with a better man.

26. A thing is greater if it would be chosen by a greater man.

27. The pleasanter of two things is better (since all things pursue pleasure, and it is an end in itself).

28. One pleasure is greater than another if it lasts longer or if it is less mixed with pain.

29. The nobler thing is better than the less noble (since the noble is either what is pleasant or what is desirable in itself).

30. Those things are greater goods which men desire more earnestly to bring about for themselves or for their friends.

31. Those things that are lasting are better than those which are fleeting, and the more secure than the less.

32. What is true of one word is also true of all related words.

33. That which is chosen by all is a greater good than that which is not.

34. That which is considered better by competitors or enemies or by authorized judges.

35. That which all share (because it is a dishonor not to share it).

36. That which none or few share (because it is rarer).

37. The more praiseworthy a thing is, the better it is.

38. That which looks better merely by dividing it into its parts.

39. That which is accomplished by a man beyond his natural powers is better than the natural.

40. That which is natural is better than that which is acquired.

41. The best part of a good thing is particularly good.

42. That which is of service when the need is pressing.

43. That which leads more directly to the end in view is better than that which leads less directly.

44. That which is better for people in general is better than that which is only good for an individual.

45. That which can be gotten is better than that which cannot.

46. That which is at the end of life is better than what is not.

47. That which aims at reality is better than that which aims at appearance.

48. That which is more useful than another thing is also better.

49. That which is accompanied with less pain and with actual pleasure is better than another thing.

50. Of two good things, the thing is better whose addition to a third thing makes a better whole than the parts.

51. That which we are seen to possess is greater than that which we are not seen to possess.

52. That which is dearly prized is better than that which is not.

---

1 One may prove 1) that a thing is greater because it is a beginning or 2) that a thing is greater because it is an end and not a beginning. Compare 8).

2 Here Aristotle is relying on his definition of good in a previous chapter: "what beings that acquire understanding will choose in any given case." While this may or may not be a true definition of goodness, it is certainly an end toward which men aim. It should therefore be understood by the political speaker.

My Questions

What is the significance of a question? Well, that's my first Question. This is a list of the Questions that make me seriously wonder and that I have no hope of answering. Discovering these Questions and writing them down is the first step in "knowing." (By the way, if anyone reads this and thinks s/he has an answer, please feel free to email me!) So,

1. What is the significance of a question?

Questions about "knowing"

1. What does it mean to "know"?

2. Is it possible to "know" anything?

3. If the answer to question (1.) is [x], how do we "know" [x]?

4. Is there any reliable foundation upon which to base "knowledge"?

5. The answer to question (4.) MUST have something to do with Christ and the Bible (Proverbs 1:7, NIV: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.” John 14:6, NIV: “Jesus saith unto him, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life…’” John 17:17, NIV: “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.”) What?

6. What is the difference between "believing," "thinking," and "knowing"?

7. Is there any "fact" upon which we may base all "knowledge" and even our definitions of "knowledge"? See question (5.).

8. How do probabilities relate to "knowing"?

9. Is anything not a probability? (again, see question (5.).)

Questions about metanarratives

1. How does a metanarrative relate to the "unified field theory"? (A "unified field theory" still hasn't been discovered. If we can't find a "metanarrative" of sorts in physics, one of the most objective and unified areas of human study, what does this mean for the possibility of a complete metanarrative?)

2. How does a metanarrative relate to Godel's Theorem?

3. How does a metanarrative relate to Jesus and the Bible?

4. Why does it "feel" like there should be a metanarrative?

Questions about our presuppositions

1. What do the premises we simply accept have to do with "truth"? I ask this because I used to think that postmodernism is stupid, but when I researched it and gave it serious attention, I realized that it's closer to "truth" than anything I've seen (by "truth" I mean "compatible with the Bible," "complementary to the Bible," "free from as many contradictions as possible," and "as close to empirical evidence, experience, and observation as possible"). But what do my initial presuppositions reveal? Are they closer to or farther away from the "truth"? Or do they simply reveal nothing, because they are culturally conditioned?

2. As a follow-up on question (1.), how should we deal with things we just "feel" are wrong (by "wrong" I mean either (1) immoral or (2) different from the truth [by "truth" I mean absolute truth, not our perception of it - that's why it's not in quotation marks. This is topic for another discussion!])

3. What role does natural law play in all this? *pulls out Blackstone's introduction to his Commentaries* *pulls out Locke's Second Treatise*

Questions about truth

1. What is truth?

2. Again, is anything not a probability and how does Christ relate?

3. Can truth be "known?" More specifically, can absolute truth be known?

4. Does Satan "know" the truth? (define "know" and "truth" how you like)

Questions about logic

1. How do we derive the system of "logic" and is it flawed? To be considered in attempting to answer this question:

• Paradoxes. Ex.: "If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists." Abbreviate "this sentence is true" as "S" and "Santa Claus exists" as "E". (We'll use ">" for the if-then operator.) We now have

S > E.

The only way for this sentence to be false, according to the laws of logic, is for S to be true and E to be false. But if S is false, then "this sentence is true." We must therefore conclude that the sentence IS true, because either 1) S is true so the sentence is false (paradox) or 2) the sentence is true. Therefore, Santa Claus exists (modus ponens).

Logic can't escape this, at least to the best of my knowledge.

2. As a follow-up for question (2.), should we accept the laws of logic and why? See also my questions on our presuppositions. Logic seems right, it feels right, but is it right?

Other questions

1. What are the implications of Godel's Theorem?

2. I think like a postmodernist (in many areas), but act like a modernist. In other words, my philosophy is basically postmodernism from the viewpoint of a Christian worldview, but I refuse to make decisions without a logical basis. What is the meaning of this contradiction and does it matter? Does it reveal something about postmodernism - that it is not viable as a worldview?