phi final (god&philosophers) Flashcards
In 341 Nietzsche writes that “The eternal hourglass of existence will be turned over again and again, and you with it, you speck of dust!” What do you think this means and why?
-Talking about a demon who lives life over and over again
-Life doesn’t matter - it goes on forever, and we are just simply a speck of dust in the world
-Eternal return/recurrence - every choice that we’ve made will recur over and over again OR he wants us to see ourselves as a speck of dust in comparison to the world
-within nietzsche’s scholarship, there are 2 ways to take this
1: ontological/literal: the world is physically repeating itself
2: rhetorical: this is a hypothetical to provoke humans to think about their choices and what the person is doing
-which choice do you agree with? - i think it is the rhetorical answer, because most of Nietzsche’s work is a critique of humanity
In 345 what is Nietzsche’s critique of Christian self-sacrifice morality? What do you think of his analysis?
- 3 main points
-Hates self-sacrifice morality - thinks that it is detrimental to human flourishing
-thinks that humans do not take morality persoanlly enough (don’t think that christians think morality applies to them as a person)
-mistake to think that morals are the same everywhere culturally
-looking at different societies, we see that other places have different moral standards (ex: cannibalism)
-one society’s moral scheme should not be the only - christian morality values should not be forced upon every culture
-morals are relativistic
-opinion on this:
In part II, Hume presents a form of the design argument. What is the design argument here and do you think Hume does justice to it? Why or why not?
-Hume does do justice to the argument. He brings in multiple viewpoints and tries to include lots of elements. It definitely could be a stronger argument though, but he doesn’t agree with it, so it’s hard to argue for it. Aquinas writes about this argument as well, and appears to have a stronger argument
-not a proponent of the design argument - he does not like it, but still proposes it
-is he trying to create a deliberately weak argument because he doesn’t agree (strawman argument)
-universe as a whole is one great machine - every part is perfectly organized and working together (ex: watch or eye)
-one machine made up of lots of smaller machines - all fit together
-adapting of means to ends is representative of human design
-hume’s example is a building
-by analogy, the design is similar to the human mind
In part III, Cleanthes argues that animal anatomy, such as the eye, is strong evidence of design. What is the argument and do you agree or disagree? Why?
-design argument claims that earth is one large machine being run by lots of small machines
-He relates this to the anatomy of an eye
-disagree with this argument, but it does make the design argument more relatable
-hume doesn’t agree with this argument, so it’s hard for him to have a strong argument available
-he thinks that examining the intricacies of the eye, by analogy, this will lead to the design argument
-mentions reproduction as well in this part - differences in males and females, but these differences work together to procreate
In part V Philo criticizes the idea that “Like effects prove like causes.” What is the argument, and do you agree or disagree? Why?
-Philo criticizes it, saying “It is still more unreasonable to form our idea of so unlimited a cause from our experience of the narrow productions of human design and invention” (p.35).
-Also says “Every departure on either side diminishes the probability and renders the experiment less conclusive. You cannot doubt of the principle; neither ought you to reject its consequences” (34).
-Philo has many points against this claim, one of the most important is that the argument likens God to humans, which takes away God’s attributes. God would be finite, imperfect, and needless (we don’t need him).
-produces a problem of proportions: there is a great distance between humans and god & this statements takes away the distance
Part IX contains a version of the ontological argument and a counter argument presented by Cleanthes. What is the argument and counter argument. Do you find the argument or the counter more compelling? Why?
argument:
-God necessarily exists
-if we truly understand this, we cannot perceive god to not exist
-this is a very shortened version of Anselm’s version
counter:
-you can always conceive the non-existence of what we previously conceived of
-doesn’t think that it’s as cut and dry as all of this - he doesn’t agree with the argument
-argues against the concept of necessary existence (it is not in the human experience & we don’t truly have this concept)
-I find the counter argument more interesting because the concept of necessary existence is hard to grasp
In part X Philo outlines the problem of evil as a conflict in affirming several facts. Explain the argument. Do you think it is an argument that theists must address? Why or why not?
facts:
1. evil exists & god exists
(god is all good, all powerful)
2. if god cannot prevent evil, then god is not omnipotent
3. if god can prevent evil and doesn’t then he is not all good
if all of these things are true, then something must be wrong
-logical argument of evil
In part XI, Philo gives four circumstances in the world that introduce evil. What are the four circumstances? Do you think he’s right that they produce evil? Why or why not?
4 circumstances that produce evil - these do not necessarily get god off the hook
1: Pain and discomfort promote self-preservation
2: The world operates by uniform laws - this allows an upside and a downside to the laws Ex: having weather means sun, but also hurricanes and tornadoes
3: Animals don’t have all of the cool traits in one- traits are distributed amongst the animals - humans don’t have wings or sonar, like some other animals
no body has absolutely everything
4: Inaccurate workmanship - there are things that are built wrong in the universe
-Without all of these, evil wouldn’t exist
-If you believe in god, then god is to blame
Leibniz mentions at several points early in the reading that God must have made the best of all possible worlds. What is his argument? Do you think he is right? Why or why not?
Argues that if god is all god & love, why would he create a world that is not the best of all possible worlds. For this argument to work, one needs to agree that God exists.
“That is in effect denying that this universe is the best, and that God is bound to insist upon the best. I have met this objection adequately in more than one passage: I have proved that God cannot fail to produce the best; and from that assumption it follows that the evils we experience could not have been reasonably excluded from the universe, since they are there”
What is Leibniz’s answer to the first prosyllogism in the appendices (p. 378)? Do you think Leibniz is right? Why or why not?
“But I deny the major, that is, the first of the two premisses of the prosyllogism, and I might content myself with asking for its proof. In order, however, to give a clearer exposition of the matter, I would justify this denial by pointing out that the best course is not always that one which tends towards avoiding evil, since it is possible that the evil may be accompanied by a greater good”
Leibniz responds that avoiding evil may not be the best course of action, because evil can lead to a greater good. I somewhat think that he is right, because often adversity leads to strength. But, on the other side, why would God want his people to experience pain and evil in order to learn? Is there not a better way to teach?
Admits evil exists, but dismisses that the best course is avoiding evil. Evil may have a greater good to be found (inspo from aquinas)
Think’s adam’s sin was a fortunate sin because it resulted in Jesus being sent to earth - this is an example of his response that evil can bring about a greater good
We have to be free to commit evil acts - we can choose to accept or reject god
Choosing god when we have the ability to reject him is enough of a reason for god to allow free will
According to Aquinas, what is evil? Do you agree or disagree? Why?
Evil is not a nature or thing in itself. It does not have independent being. Evil is a privation (lack) of what should be. Ex: Chair with 3 legs is an evil of a real chair with 4 legs. Lack of a quality expected to be in something = privation
Does Not apply to a quality that shouldn’t be in something ex: horse without wings is not evil because horses do not have wings
Evil destroys the good - evil is the destruction of good
Evil is parasitic on good - evil exists because good does
Agree or disagree - why?
According to Aquinas, how can God permit evil and still be good? Do you agree or disagree? Why?
God preserves the universe (it exists), which is good.
Good in one thing cannot happen without evil in another
Ex: lion needs to eat. Lions are good at sustaining themselves and eating a gazelle. For the gazelle this is bad, because it no longer exists
Evil makes the good more clear, just like a black background makes white letters more clear
Comes down to god bringing even more good out of things than the evil & the reunion with god in the eternity (ultimate good which makes up for all of the evil)
Agree or disagree - why?
