Feast or Famine

What a daunting task it is to put on paper the amount of learning that I have experienced over the course of this semester.  It proves a difficult task to synthesis my own ideas, the ideas of great philosophers of the past, and ideas of those that have influenced my thoughts from other readings and conversations.  How can I narrow down what I have learned from this semester when it is inseparable from my years previous? How does one objectively look outside of what culture, biases and prejudices have lead you to believe and think?  Especially, how does one separate themselves from a seemingly dogmatic and saturated culture and religious practice, one of which I have had the privilege of being raised in?  Having asked this series of questions, I will take into consideration my own biases and cultural influence, and try to remain honest.

My personal thoughts and questions as a naturally inquisitive person, have guided my thirst for knowledge and truth. I relate to Socrates when he stated, once I have searched for more, you see more in the stars, the moon, and the heaven.  Even as a deep thinker, there are ideas and perspectives that I haven’t considered before. It would seem absurdly prideful to think otherwise. 

Some topics and ideas are uncomfortable and paradoxical to what I had previously thought.  When addressing topics such as the problem of evil, the world of Forms, the nature of man, or the meaning of life, this can create tension for some when previous ideas have been shaken or one hasn’t ever considered these topics. Rene Descartes motioned to this idea that it proves productive to strip yourself of the ideas and thoughts that you had already perceived as true, and believed at one point. Descartes maybe does this out of fear of being wrong, or of fear of being deceived, but his actions nonetheless are to start out by radically doubting everything.   He then starts over, so to speak, with what he sees as the most basic, these ideas are found in Meditation I. Descartes tries to separate himself from any biases and untrue thought.  In a certain sense, I hope to be able to examine myself from an objective standpoint, and to be able to clean the closet as it were when considering certain belief systems.  The unexamined life is not worth living as Socrates stated, this in a way is what I hope to do throughout my entire life. 

When Socrates speaks of the philosopher as a “gadfly”, he speaks of the bother that the weight of intellectual inquiry can have on a person.  Socrates went about conversing with others and consistently proved that the general populous didn’t think deeply about things seemingly so simple as to define terms of everyday objects.  To be as a “gadfly”, a pest, asking questions to those that would rather not be bothered by such thought, those that are adverse to arguments proving that one is wrong is an aspect of philosophy that I dare say this culture and perhaps many others resist.  Some see it as dangerous territory for faith to dwell, others don’t even consider taking time out to broaden their horizons, and see what the world outside of the cave has to offer, they remain content with the copies and the shadows and façade of their lives.  Those blissfully ignorant, lemmings as it were, don’t turn around and see what the world has to offer them. This would blind them.  The pain that comes with delving into the reality of suffering, to the reality of human nature, to the reality of how small mankind is compared to the cosmos, and so on. 

We don’t have to ask these questions, the questions of whether God exists or not, or what the meaning and purpose of life is, but we do live as though we have answered these questions.  So, why not do something about it?  Why not ask them?  Perhaps curiosity sets as a reason for inquiry, or perhaps for the benefit of others. 

In Socrates’ Allegory of the Cave, turning oneself to reality, or to become acquainted with the world of Forms is a process.  I think this process takes time; it takes effort to come to grips with reality and still see the Beauty participating in the world around us.  Socrates alludes to the idea that once one has turns from the life of copies and shadows, and has ventured out of the cave, into the world of Forms, one goes back down into the cave once they have reached this point.   I find this to be a poignant part of the allegory.

Service, persuasion, benevolence are a part of a growth process.  Maybe asking these questions, and changing yourself in the process proves to be beneficial to the greater whole. The mind of a philosopher is in the clouds, as Aristophanes wrote.  In the world of Forms, instead of bothering with the carnal, or lesser law, or the material world, the philosopher is concerned with the depth, the intangible, the principles, the composite of experience and form, the Forms, the essences, the essential. Perhaps we are to ask and venture into the depths because in the growing pains of the journey, we feel a desire and duty to go back to our friends and family to help them to see what is on the other side.  By no means am I stating here that I have “seen the light”, or have turned, unchaining the shackles of ignorance from myself.  I do, however think that I have begun in that process.  I have begun because of my desires to change and know the truth, perhaps this is an altruistic notion, and perhaps it is self-serving. 

Even if I have this desire as a truth-seeker, like Descartes put in Meditation V, there are some questions that cannot be answered and understood by the finite mind.  Will or desire lies outside of the reach of reason.  I remember a day in class, that I was disturbed, or bothered, by the seemingly unanswerable.  There are many issues and questions that track through my mind regularly, as I have mentioned earlier, this topic brought up in class was no exception.  But, this day, I left shaken. We talked about the problem of evil.  Squaring up my idea of God, my definition of God, with the reality of suffering that I see in the world is not an easy and/or simple problem to solve. In the problem of evil I have an option to not believe in God because of the suffering that perhaps would have been instigated by an omnipotent God.  I don’t know that anyone really has any concrete answer for this question.  Descartes talked about our will to know answers are sometimes beyond our rational power to understand, I think Descartes is right. But, it still remains uncomfortable for me to sit with these ideas both the problem of evil and the idea Descartes presents in Meditation V regarding limited rationale.  I either have to ignore the suffering and evil that happens, or I have to take away from the power that God has to stop suffering.  Sometimes our choice is that we can’t make a choice right now with the limited rationale we have in dealing with the ideas of infinitude. 

My continual moment of reflection seems to steer me in a certain direction. There are options and arguments for both sides. Choose what you believe, you choose what you give weight to, you choose how to see the world and how to react to adversity, trail, pain, and suffering. There are those that are Platonists, those that are Thomists, Cartesians, Humeans and everything else.  All of them have pertinent arguments.  Both sides can be argued, but again, you choose which ideology you agree most with.  Camus was right; it is up to us to choose what meaning we attach to human experience, whether that is fortune or famine. Choose to find meaning.  Aristotle chose to put function in essence.  Aristotle said goodness lies in function, and this is a road to achieving happiness.  I think goodness and happiness lie in the ability to choose and to find meaning within the options before you. Happiness doesn’t mean easiness. 

Options for some, myself included, have proven to be a burden in some cases.  In the story of the ass of Buridan, the ass is faced with two options, one stack of hay versus a pale of water. Both are equal distances away from the ass, which one does the animal choose? The ass cannot rationally deduct which option is better, and in drawn out idleness, the beast dies of hunger.  Option can cause conflict for many.  Look at Hamlet; he was caught in between the option for living in a world of suffering, or to die.  To be or not to be, that is the question.  He was on the fence, the uncomfortable place that skewers you in the back. In this sort of limbo state, it seems hard to deal with the suffering of reality and the fear of the unknown of what lies beyond this life. Hamlet is being pulled in two directions, he doesn’t know what to do with the reality of the pain and suffering that blinds him, so much so that he considers suicide.  And on the other hand, Hamlet is being tortured by the doubt and uncertainty of what determines his standing beyond the grave.  Hamlet is tortured by the fact that he doesn’t know if it will be a peaceful experience for him when he dies, or if it won’t, perhaps the pain will only be exacerbated post suicide.

Hamlet is post Humean thought.  Hume has created more of an option for humanity. Option is essential in creating a mode to finding purpose and meaning in life.  Hume refers to epistemology versus metaphysics.  As an empiricist he argues that all ideas are copies of impressions, and that we are all born with a blank slate. It should be noted however that Hume doesn’t argue that God doesn’t exist, he is simply stating that you cannot rationally argue for any metaphysical claim.  Hume doesn’t trust causation like Aquinas does.  Aquinas argued for the first great cause, everything in motion is an effect that had to have a cause.  God according to Aquinas is the first great cause.  Hume’s skepticism proves to be a powerful in terms of creation of a different argument versus previous philosophical thought.  There isn’t one solid, sound, logical argument that God exists, but there also isn’t a completely sound argument that God doesn’t exist.  It’s just as absurd to believe in nothing, as it is to not believe in something.

In an attempt to not be as the ass, I might try to further explain my choice to believe and find meaning in the options.  Believing in only the material world leaves a lack of passion and reason.  Aquinas thinks that human beings acquire knowledge first by sense experience, then, intellect abstracts the universal from the phantasm, or sense images. It makes a lot of sense to me to gain knowledge in this way, but also to focus and give weight to the form, or the universal.  There is more depth to this way of living in my opinion.  I have reason to be moral.

Why would a skeptic ever be nice? What reason does he have to not commit murder, and adultery, and steal?  Where do his ideals of morality stem?  Would his only reason not be that of the cultural and societal shift? Of the wind blown trends and fads, and only what is presently before them? There is no essence, there is no form, and there is no anchor for you in this ideology, in this you are just being persuaded, you are not acting for yourself.  If you are not acting for yourself you are not experiencing the actuality of happiness for you, you might only be participating in the potential to find meaning and to be happy. Thomas Aquinas states that so in the soul is there something by with it becomes all things and something by which it makes all things.  How am I spending my time? Do I muse? Do I leisurely ponder? Am I caught up in the wave of the crowd? We have the choice to become and think and feel however we choose. I find power in the arguments for both sides, or perhaps more accurately all sides, because it proves to be more of an option.  In the perennial conversation I participate in, I realize that I am young, and have time to experience and to sort out my beliefs, but I plan on feasting at the end of the day. 

This kind of Mormon

Every LDS person is encouraged to become a profound theologian. Becoming such necessitates a heavy commitment to active study ‘in theory, in principle, in doctrine’ to search out the weighty matters of time and eternity, which include the basic questions of the philosophers. The imperative ‘study it out in you mind’ is a standard for all LDS persons, not just for academics. 

-Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Clipping Armistice

-->

I feel angry and frustrated, so frustrated. And it’s not because I’m a ginger. It’s because they don’t see things the way that I do.  I see some of the others, most of the others, as lazy, uninformed, comfortable, brainwashed and spoon-fed. Habitual thinkers. I see a wave of people caught up in the wave of the crowd being pushed around like sheep in a heard. Blissfully ignorant, lemmings as it were. This is a group that dismisses and shoves ugly and mystery under the rug. I see a population blind to what is accessible to them, and in return receive a pat on the back for being so “faithful”. This is an organization that I am a part of, oddly enough, and one that I have been participating in for many years. 

I have certain biases that I carry toward my faith and the culture around it.  Some aspects are admittedly admirable and I adore about our culture. Who can say that casseroles and hand delivered thank you notes are anything but an innocent and loving act? Or that green jell-o, however revolting it might be, is the worst thing in the world?  It’s kind of cute to say “Oh my heck”, instead of “oh my hell” isn’t it?  It’s admirable how dedicated Mormons are to service, and providing humanitarian aid for those in need around the world.  Mormons have a deeply rooted value in family connections across generations. There are many other aspects about Latter-Day Saint members that I greatly respect. The value of participating in a community that comes with participating in a religion is noteworthy. 

We all carry prejudices and biases in one form or another. It’s always a difficult process to objectively look at one’s own biases. It takes a certain level of honesty and internal reflection to come up with answers. In the process of dissection and categorizing, identifying internal and external influences that shape prejudices proves a difficult path.  Following my continual moment of reflection, it appears to be obvious that I carry many prejudices.  All of which are hypocritical I’m sure, elitist and ultimately apathetic. What experiences lead me to feel and think this way about this certain group of individuals?

Let’s first pause and agree that the less exposed an individual, to a particular group, the less informed the person is.  To form any substantial conclusion about a particular group or individual, one must spend the proper time and effort to observe and participate.  A scientist would only make a hypothesis after having observed or experienced phenomena several times before, and after many repeated trails and experiments, the scientist reaches fairly concrete conclusions.  An individual that has years of experience exposed to a certain group, has, let’s say, more leverage.  By simply stating that you carry a bias for a particular group because you haven’t been exposed to them is a cop out and a weak reflection on your part.  Let’s add then, to the information you already know about me, in hopes of proving that I have some weight in the discussion about Mormon culture.

I grew up in Centerville, Utah.  Aside from the In-and-Out burger, one might identify Centerville as the city with lovely landscapes in the hill hugging residents of a wind-blown city.  97% of C-ville-ites are Caucasian, most middle to high-class well off Republicans.  Centerville, not actually centrally located in the Beehive state is a blessed suburbia, and that’s not meant to be facetious, 20 minutes north of Salt Lake City.  In Salt Lake resides the headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  Utah is predominantly a religious people, of Latter-Day Saint faith, or Mormon, and has been across many generations. I experienced a homogenous upbringing to say the least, born into the church, surrounded by the cultural influence of Mormonism. 

As I have 24 years worth of experience, in exposure to Mormonism, I’d like to think that my prejudices and biases around this group of people is somewhat more informed than my biases towards other groups. Worthy of note--the more soaked you are in a particular culture, the harder it is to step outside and examine it objectively wringing out biases drop by drop.  This proves to be a tricky task, and a slow process, but one that is worthwhile.

My biases towards and against my own religious culture perhaps stem from various factors, my personality being one of them.  For one thing, I hate being told what to do.  Secondly, I would not consider myself a follower, or more accurately a conformer, and I don’t want to be, I can be at times, but I don’t want to be that way.  To a certain extent you are what you hope to be, I hope to be courageous enough to stand up, even when I might be alone.  Because of this, I feel alone, profoundly alone.  I feel as if I’m a rarity as a “black sheep” and just as rare are the few other “black sheep”. I can’t discuss my deepest thoughts and concerns about Mormon thought.  I never want to burden the naïve or sheltered with the reality of suffering I see in the world. Yet I ache for them to address each chapter carefully like I hope to.  I would hate to harm another with the trouble and burden of unanswerable questions I have constantly tracking through my mind, to be as a “gadfly” as Socrates self-proclaimed. Feeling alone is not a positive emotion; it’s a negative one, and I don’t like feeling it. This is the poignant part. Emotion drives prejudice, perhaps in a stronger and more real, intimate and private sense, than other influences do.  Maybe my prejudice towards those that don’t think about things like I do, and don’t ask the sorts of questions I do is part of my personality.  I’m one that has a tendency for inquiry.  I’m also not a bull-shitter by any means, I’m a straight shooter, I refuse to bear witness of something that I don’t know. All of these personality traits of mine, and the emotions that I feel can cause friction in my relationship with religion and larger organizations in general, and may sway my perceptions of who Mormon people are and where they are at in their quest for truth. 

My biases come from the influence of others around me as well.  Those that I look up to and respect have impacted my views; my mother in particular has been a support and catalyst in my growth process. Other family members also have influenced my biases against my own culture. Friends, ward members, bloggers, tweeters, Facebook groups, authors, church leaders, scholars, and many other people--strangers even, have impacted my thoughts and feelings.  I can think of countless occasions when I have been either uplifted or disturbed by the comments of others within my religion. 

Humans are complex, fluid beings, and nothing can be more stimulating to complexity than combining several millions of them together under one giant Mormon umbrella. Just as everyone else is on a different road, or level of growth, I am subject to the same.  I may change and move and grow, and quite frankly hope to do so throughout my entire life. 

I can’t help but think that there are always two sides to every coin.  There is always going to be black and white, but there will always be many shades of rainbow colored gray’s in between.  Good and bad will always exist within every large organization, in every group, and within every individual.   I am a part of an organized religion, with that comes the good and the bad.  And I cope with it. What weighs the most is what you choose to give weight; It’s a matter of choosing how you react to your environment however fluid it may be.  I’m not one of “those” Mormons, I hope to never be one of “those” Mormons, but I am one of those Mormons.

Summer Checklist

Read
The Poisonwood Bible
The Alchemist
The Attributes of God
The God Who Weeps
The Foundation Trilogy
Naked Hike
Bike Bike Bike
Fireworks
Love
Ask
Trips to National Parks
Oregon
Grad School thoughts hashed out
Lagoon
Pass of all Passes
Ballet Class
Wes Anderson
Learn to cook something
Make a new friend
Work hard
Go to art shows
So many concerts
Paint
Piano
Discover new music at the library
Love people
Build faith
Build something
Floss
Eat more and more veggies

Two Arguments For the Existence of God

Descartes has to begin with his own ideas, this in a sense, is where all rationalists have to begin, Descartes is a rationalist.  Rationalists think the structure of the mind is the structure of reality and by the mind alone we can acquire knowledge.  Descartes has two arguments to rationalize the existence of God.  Descartes provides one of his arguments for the existence of God in Meditation III.  There, Descartes claims that are only three kinds of ideas, innate, adventitious, and factitious. Ideas are effects.  Because they are effects, they must have a cause.  The idea of God is an effect.  The effect cannot be greater than the cause.  The idea of God was put into us by a greater cause, God, proving that God exists.

We are born with innate ideas, adventitious ideas come from a source outside of ourselves through sensory experiences, and factitious ideas are self-produced or made up. Once you have thought of an idea, you cannot unthink it; this is the principle of natural light that Descartes speaks of.  For example, I have thought the thought of God, once I have thought it, I cannot erase it.  Now that I have thought of the idea of God, where did the idea come from? What caused it?   

In Descares’ principle of sufficient reason, he states there must be as much reality in the cause as in the effect to make something reasonable and true. The effect cannot be greater than the cause, if so, there must be another cause effecting the effect.  To illustrate this, imagine a baby on a scale. The baby weighs 10 lbs.  The scale is properly functioning and accurately reads weight.  The cause is the baby being set on the scale, and the effect is the reading of 10lbs.  Seconds later you put the baby on the scale again, and the baby now weighs 20lbs. At once one would assume that there is another cause or weight being set on the scale to result in an effect so great. It would be absurd to think otherwise.  There must be a cause equal to or greater than the effect in order to be reasonable or true.       

My ideas are the effect of any given cause; the cause of my ideas then must be greater than my ideas. Descartes proposes that the idea of God as an effect, must have a cause of equal or greater value to God. Of necessity, Descartes must define God here. God is all possible perfections; there is none greater than God.  Descartes establishes God as a “He”, characterized as perfect, immutable, infinite, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, independent, and the creator of all things.  What is the cause of the idea of God?

Descartes argues that God is the cause of the idea of God. Remember the three types of ideas Descartes proposed, one being adventitious ideas; these are empirical, sensory, and finite in nature.  Human beings are made up of finite material, and cannot possibly understand that of the infinite world because our mind cannot apprehend that which is infinite. Our mind cannot comprehend the concept of eternity or what it is like to participate in the 4^th dimension, or beyond, for example. The idea of God is not an adventitious idea, then, it must be one of the other two types of ideas. Factitious ideas or self-produced ideas are limited in terms of apprehending or creating the idea of God, there is no possible way that one could make up the idea of a being like God, because of the nature of it.  Human rationale is limited.

By process of elimination, this leaves the last type of idea, innate ideas.  The idea of God is an innate idea humans were born with.  God is the cause of the idea of God in all of us, because of the principle of sufficient reason.  God is the cause of the idea because the effect cannot be greater than the cause. Someone or something had to put the idea of God into us, therefore, God exists, the cause of the idea.

In Descartes’ second argument for the existence of God is found in Meditation V. Descartes states the principle of clearness and distinction.  The principle of clear and distinct ideas is that if I clearly apprehend something to belong to an object, it truly does.  It does belong because you cannot think about one object without necessarily thinking about the characteristics of it.  Meaning, the characteristics truly belong to the object.  For example you cannot think of fire without necessarily thinking of its characteristics of light and heat.  Fire would cease to be fire without these necessary traits.  Light and heat in its most natural form are necessarily in association with fire. Therefore, while thinking clearly and distinctly about fire, one comes to realize that light and heat truly belong to fire, and vice versa.

When I am thinking of God, I’m thinking of the being with all possible perfections, including existence.  Existence is a perfection, existence is better than not existing.  So when you think of God, you necessarily think of an existence of God.  To say that God does not exist is a contradiction in terms. How do you know God is not a deceiver?  What is deception? Deception is a defect, an imperfection, and by definition God is perfect, so God cannot be a deceiver, otherwise it would be a contradictory claim.  

Descartes

Although the utility of a doubt so general may not be manifest at first sight, it is nevertheless of the greatest, since it delivers us from all prejudice, and affords the easiest pathway by which the mind may withdraw itself from the senses; and finally makes it impossible for us to doubt wherever we afterward discover truth.  

Something

No one who has not studied philosophy and who is not entirely pure at the time of his departure is allowed to enter the company of the Gods, but the lover of knowledge only.

For after death, as they say, the genius of each individual, to whom he belonged in life, leads him to a certain place in which the dead are gathered together, whence after judgement has been given they pass into the world below, following the guide, who is appointed to conduct them from this world to the other; and when they have there received their due and remained their time, another guide brings them back again after many revolutions of ages.  Now this way to the other world is not, as Aeschylus says in the Telephus, a single and straight path-if that were so no guide would be needed, for no one could miss it; but there are many partings of the road, and windings, as I infer from the rites and sacrifices which are offered to the gods below in places where there ways meet on earth.  The wise and orderly soul follows in the straight path and is conscious of her surroundings; but the soul which desires the body, and which, as I was relating before, has long been fluttering about the lifeless frame and the world of sight, is after many struggles and many sufferings hardly and with violence carried away by her attendant genius, and when she arrives at the place where the other souls are fathered, if she be impure and have done impure deeds, whether foul murders or other crimes which are the brothers of these, and the works of brothers in crime- from that soul every one flees and turns away; no one will be her companion, no one her guide, but alone she wanders in extremity of evil until certain times are fulfilled, and when the are fulfilled, she is borne irresistibly to her own fitting habitation; as every pure and just soul which has passed through life in the company and under the guidance of the gods has also her own proper home.

Now the earth has divers wonderful regions, and is indeed in nature and extent very unlike the notions of the geographers, as I believe on the authority of one who shall be nameless.

Plato 424-348 B.C.