Archive for ‘Renaissance/Premodern (Part II)’

In light that science has its roots in philosophy, a lot of Medieval Philosophy and later philosophy is a reaction to religion, I think it is interesting the amount of dogma that accompanies philosophy.  Often times, philosophy reacts to religion by accusing it of being dogmatic and close minded.  However, a lot of philosophy is just as bad.  The empiricist and rationalist movements are great examples.  One emphasizes experience and the other rational thinking, yet many leaders of both movements rejected the other side as wrong.

Science and religion continue to do the same thing today.  Science rejects religion as being based in myth, and religion attacks science saying that what science teaches is incompatible with God’s truth.  The most famous example being Galileo’s support of the heliocentric model of the solar system, and the Church persecuting him for it.  Galileo was a member of the Church, but because of what he said he ended up under house arrest and eventually died of sickness.  The funny thing is that he wasn’t rejecting God’s truth, but merely the influence of Aristotle’s thinking of how the Universe worked, it seems the Church cared more about it’s authority then what is the actual truth.

And so my question is, is this problem rooted in the disagreements of philosophy, religion, and science as based in the Renaissance, or is it a problem that has always existed between these different but still (with some exceptions) compatible views of the truth?

I have been stuck on the subject of free will and whether it is even free anymore. Where do we as a society draw a line on whether one has control over their actions or no control at all? Exactly what is free will and what is determinism?
I have come to the conclusion that there really is no black and white index to determine what is free will and what is not. One always wants more out of what they already have or one always wants what they think they cannot have. I believe all of our outcomes are influenced by our own free will, but I also strongly believe God has a hand in everything one does in life. What do y’all think about this topic and what is your opinion on my thoughts of free will?

John Stuart Mill believed psychology could be studied as a science. Psychology can be tested, hypothesized, and analyzed. If you are in counseling with a client you have gotten to know very well, you can predicted fairly well how they will react to different circumstances. Human beings have been found to react similarly in many situations, which is seen in primary laws. Psychologists can recognize these things and apply them to each of their clients to better understand and help those they work with. However, there are always those few exceptions. People whom react poorly to everything in their life that is out of the ordinary, good or bad. Or those who show little emotion as if they just don’t seem to care. Or there could be something randomly impacting the client that was completely unexpected.

Also, look back to all of the experiments done over the past centuries in psychology. Each one looking in to how the mind works and reacts in different situation. The mind can adapt to anything. It is how we prove our theories. Many psychologists today refer to different experiments performed to support their theories or arguments. These scientific experiments are what have allowed us to learn so much about what goes on in the mind of each person. Yes, the philosophers were brilliant and able to come up with many ideas that gave us insight in to the way human beings think. But it is the experiments that made these things clear and more defined.

It all can be explained and studied. People can talk about how they feel and how they react. There are many tests that can be done to observe and analyze the way the mind works. Though there are no absolutes, most of the things discovered work for the vast majority of people. That is why I agree that psychology can be studied as a science.

I found Immanuel Kant’s ideas on categories of thought very interesting. He felt that the things that we expreience are modified by purely mental concepts. This increases the meaning of these experiences in our minds. These categories are merely mental constructs, but they influence how we see everything. He included categories such as time and space, totality, cause and effect, reality, possibility-impossibility,  and existance-nonexistence. He used these to try to disprove Hume, who felt that all conclusions we ever reach are based on experience. How then, Kant would argue, can we make statements such as certain things being impossible? Does our experience tell us that? Is it truly impossible? What about statements that begin with the word all? Do we ever really know all of something? Of course not! We can’t know all of anything! These categories are so ingrained into our mental processes that once we become aware of them, we realize that we are incapable of viewing the world without them. Kant said that “a mind without concepts would have no capacity to think…” and I think he is right.

I tried really hard to think of things outside of these concepts, and found myself incapable of doing so. Every experience I called to mind, I had applied these concepts to. This is especially true of my spiritual experiences. I view all things along a certain possibility-impossibility bias, and yet my view of spiritual things directly contradicts this view. Indeed, I use a whole different scale for spiritual things. I apply the concepts of time and space to everything; in fact, I do not know how not to view things within these two concepts. As such, I have a really hard time thinking of a God who exists outside of these two concepts. These categories or concepts are so ingrained into my way of thinking that I am unable to think without them.

Firstly, if you were hoping this is about the television show Lost, allow me to dash those preconceptions promptly. Its not. Suffice to say, I like my title (the show is pretty cool too), and if you choose to judge (my title), you likewise choose to risk the guilt of err. So cut it out. Besides, I mention a television show later which far exceeds Lost in its entertainability. All this considered, allow me now to begin: In class, our talks of determinism and rationalism reminds me of one of my favorite tales:

A long time ago, during my travels in mid Asia, I stumbled upon a secluded temple. Venturing further within, a lone guru confronted me. He spoke slowly, deliberately of vagueness that I was fraught with vexation for a time until now. The guru, whom I shall refer to now as The Wimon, elaborated on the meaninglessness of life: he spoke of the heavenly bodies, how they rotate and spin, continually on a path of where they were always meant to go. He emphasized how all we can do is watch as such an astronomical event transpires. Next, he directed my attention within. He asked of me the knowledge of the composition of my skin. My reply referred to matter and atoms; the proton, neutron, and electron. My puzzled expression ushered an enlightening response from The Wimon: he pointed out how the electrons spun on their paths around the nucleus, how we could, in theory, alter their current condition, but they would eventually return to a set pattern. I was still unable to grasp what it was that he was trying to communicate, so he simply told me: the macrocosm is the microcosm. Within us, our atoms and composition, are thousands of universes in and of themselves similar to the ones we can see through a telescope. I furrowed my brow at such a claim. He continued, claiming that each one of us pursues a meaningless and pointless existence, that we are tossed by whims that arise from our circumstances only to realize later that none of it bore lasting relevance to what we are. Yet we are also of the utmost importance, that each precious moment of life we have must be optimized in its time.

Now, I must admit, it was much more impressive in person. I do a horrible job recounting the tale. In fact, I may have dreamt the whole thing. The point being that I walked away (or woke up) with a sense that we are all on set pathways, it is our perspective or attitude that shapes our experience of life. Nothing around us is real or relevant except our notion or perspective we choose to take in regard to it. That is our free will. Could life have progressed in any other way? Quantum Leap, a television show from the late 80s, may suggest so, but The Wimon hinted at a deeper truth: a pattern that is fixed and followed by all creation, and is evident within our everyday selves. So are we purely creatures of training and behavior, driven to action by previous learning? Or are we spirits riding a pendulum swing that is reflected in our daily walks? Perhaps our behavior is the sum of our experiences, and who we are is a reflection of that. I still don’t know anything. How frustrating.

Thoughts?

When I think about the Renaissance, what I think about most are the different major factors that stirred the spirit of objective inquiry. We have seen throughout history that certain bold accomplishments have triggered change and these contributing factors are what made it all possible. Marco Polo’s explorations of central Asia, Christopher Columbus’ discovery of the New World, and Luther’s challenge to Catholicism are just a few of these events. These ideas were bold in that they challenged ideas and opinions that had been accepted as laws once before. These ideas expanded what the world knew and they helped the world to better understand that some of the “truths” were indeed not truths at all. Events such as these shaped our world today and enlightening changes are always happening even today.

While I can think of many changes that have reawakened our society the one that I would like to discuss for just a moment is the tea party activists in American politics. When I came to ACU I began to get involved in the political views that our country held. I have followed Obama’s presidency and have found that political parties in our country are slowly changing. Recently I have come to find out that there is yet another political party that is rising in America, the tea party activists. I once believed that these people were traditional Republicans but as of late I have discovered that while they are Republican they are taking on a new face entirely. Not only are their ideas becoming more popular but tea party activists are now winning elections against other esteemed Republicans in states all over the U.S. in hopes to win back the House and Senate in the upcoming midterm elections.

While tea party activists believe very conservatively as traditional Republicans they see that the Republican party has not been doing it right and that changes need to be made. While this is just a small example it is proof that there are still events happening that are awakening the spirit of objective inquiry.

I would love to believe that we have all posses’ free will. Furthermore, I venture to speculate that many of you would love believe the same thing. After all, if we are living a life that was determined before we drew our first breath what is the point? Why live in this grief stricken world where man strikes out against man and young girls are sold for sex if we have no control over ourselves and by extension over anything else? If the horror is true and free will is a non-existent we are effectively puppets on strings, every movement manipulated.
Many of us are psychology majors and from intro have heard of the nature/nurture debate. A nature stance is similar to Thomas Hobbes belief that humans are machines. We are born with a certain blue print that makes us who we are in virtually every respect as a machine is constructed with a blue print that determines its function. A nurture stance is similar to John Locke and his “blank slate” where we are born into this world with a blank blue print and our experience writes on it and determines what we will become. Which of these two do I believe in more strongly? Well, both and neither.
On the nature side, studies have shown that the temperament of an infant can be observed and that observed temperament is consistent over time, suggesting our personality to be innate. Moreover, when one looks at twin studies the data is more shocking displaying that prediction of countless aspects of one twin can be made accurately by simply looking at the other twin. Even more shocking to the Christian, Dr. McAnulty mentioned in class that susceptibility to believe in God can be linked to biological functioning in the brain!! How crazy is that!! (I would like to see that study by the way Dr. McAnulty) On the nurture side, we can look at studies like those that Bandura performed where children learn by mirroring other children; the experience determining what was learned. We can also look at the familiar Pavlov experiments of conditioning. It is then, as you have heard before, a combination of nature and nurture that makes an individual who he or she is.
My point is not to teach you what you already know, but to ask a question. If biological make-up is one part of the puzzle and experience the other part, is there any room left for free will? Every person is born with a particular blueprint (nature) and then experience works within that blueprint (nurture) to create the person. Therefore, the person seems to have no choice in either the blueprint that was provided or the scribbles made on it by experience. The biggest reason that this debates weighs heavily upon me is because I believe in God, but I also believe that every human is a product of his or her environment within the context of his or her biological make-up. We certainly cannot choose our biology and while, to some extent, we can choose our environment our biology almost determines how we will act within that environmental context that we have chosen (to go even further, our biology may even make the choice of what we choose to be our environment.)
In Light of all this, it seems as though I do not believe in free will, but I actually do not because of logic, but because of desire; I want to believe in free will. Most of this has to do with the unfortunate reality of the hell. I would love to pretend that there is no such place and I wish more than anything that everyone would spend eternity with Christ, but scripture makes it obvious that I pretend and wish in vain. Christ would not tell us to enter through the narrow gate if there was no wide gate that leads to destruction that many enter through. In the end, I choose to believe in free will because I refuse to believe in a God that creates people to go to hell. God creates a man with the biological make-up that is not favorable to believing in Him. Then God allows that man to be put into an environment that is also unfavorable to believing in Him. However, God still sends that man to hell because the man never believed (How could he?). If God creates men or woman like this, I do not want God to be my God. God cannot be a good God if this is true. Therefore, while I believe that nature and nurture leave little room for free will, if any, I make room because a shear unwillingness to believe that God would send people to hell simply because they were products of a crappy set of genes and an equally crappy environment.
I thought this music video is funny in reference to “puppets on strings” from my first paragraph: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZfsmLP2T3Q

In my mind Descartes is one of the greatest thinkers of all time. When I was first shown his ideas and his way of determining certainty it revolutionized my life. The idea that you can determine certainty through yourself was beyond my comprehension. But I never realized how profound the rest of his ideas were before. The other day in class when we discussed in more depth his thoughts I was amazed. It never occurred to me that his philosophy could be applied to psychology. But the more I thought about it the more it made sense and fit into what all my professors and mentors have been saying since I got to college: we need to discover the truth on our own. People can show us the way, but we really need to discover it on our own. This is probably old news to everyone else, but it really struck me. No one else can force you to understand “Cogito ergo sum”, it’s all up to you to decide to figure it out. We all talked about truth a lot with the last unit and Plato, but this also is a big part of it. It doesn’t matter who tries to enlighten us or take us out of the cave, whatever the cave may be, but until we decide we’re willing to leave the cave and find the Truth, it’s all for nothing. This gives us more independence. I’m going out to try to find truth, no one can bring it to me.

I was reading in the book about Friedrich Nietzsche, and I started
thinking about his ideas on determinism vs free will. His view that we
are only “potentially free” got me thinking about the movie Donnie
Darko. In this movie the protagonist, Donnie Darko, is at a party with
his peers when he begins to see a bubble like tube come out of his
chest and go set a path for him to follow. Donnie acknowledges this
tube and follows it along throughout the house. This tube represents
the path Donnie will take. Donnie chooses to follow the tube possibly
out of curiosity to see where it will lead him. Donnie is different
from the rest of the people at the party because he can see where he
is destined to go, but he accepts it and follows the path laid before
him. The movie doesn’t show him breaking away from the path, which
would lead us to presume possibly that although we can be aware of
where we are destined to go, we cannot influence this in the end. In
Nietzsche’s view I believe Donnie would be considered an enlightened
slave. He follows a path which he did not choose, but was shown to
him. For this reason he is a slave. If Donnie were to break from the
path laid before him he would not only be enlightened, but also free.
I think the free will vs determinism debate depends on perspective. I
think from our perspective free will would be the most obvious choice,
since we are not inherently controlled. On the other hand from God’s
perspective I believe determinism would be the clear choice. From
God’s perspective all events which occur in our life could be viewed
as being on a map, and can be traced and found where our behaviors and
everything about us is rooted from. To sum this up I believe we do
have free will to an extent, but in the end I think we will do
whatever we do in this life and so I believe we are thus incapable of
escaping the grasp which destiny holds on our lives.

While catching up on some daily news last week I noticed a link to a news story on the bottom of the page and clicked on it.  The story was entitled “Who is a Family? New Study Tracks Shifting US Views”  I clicked on it and read with much interest the finding of the story.

Associated Press: Who is a Family?

To summarize the report it shows that more and more Americans are able to define a non-married couple as a family unit.  ILolt goes on to show that more and more Americans are showing an increased recognition of unmairried gay couples as  being a family unit.  The part of the report that I found interesting was the showing that there is still a solid core resistance group that states that a family can only be defined by the marriage of a man to a woman.  Of this group more than 70% considered a pet to be a full fledged member of the family and recognized those pets to have full family rights.  It was interesting that they could extend the title of “A member of the family” to a pet however not to an unmarried or homosexual couple.  This made me wonder what the concept of family would be in the renaissance amongst such people as Descartes and Martin Luther.

It is interesting to note that Luther felt that a union between a husband and wife could be just as capable as doing God’s work than that of a celibate individual which would show a belief in companionship and unity.  An American viewpoint of family consists on monogamy and remaining faithful in that marriage as a solid cornerstone to a  marriage.  However, Luther didn’t hold to this ideal stating that if a wife persistently denies her husband then a husband should seek out other women, he even suggests the maid.  It seems that.

Descartes viewpoint of “I resolve to seek no other knowledge than that which I might find within myself, or perhaps in the great book of nature”.  This viewpoint being a very personal and self fulfilling goal, It would seem most likely that the idea of the family during the renaissance would have take a back seat that the idea and the discovery of the individual.