DOCSLIB.ORG

Time and Personal Identity in Nietzsche's Theory of Eternal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Time and Personal Identity in Nietzsche's Theory of Eternal Philosophy Compass 7/3 (2012): 208–217, 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2011.00473.x Time and Personal Identity in Nietzsche’s Theory of Eternal Recurrence Scott Jenkins* University of Kansas Abstract Friedrich Nietzsche’s theory of eternal recurrence is an essential part of his mature philosophy, but the theory’s metaphysical commitments and practical implications are both obscure. In this essay I consider only the metaphysical elements of the theory, with the aim of determining whether it is possible that we live our lives infinitely many times, as the theory maintains. I argue that the pos- sibility of eternal recurrence turns on issues in personal identity and the metaphysics of time. As I proceed, I also consider the relation between Nietzsche’s theory of eternal recurrence and theories of recurrence found in the work of Heraclitus, the Pythagoreans, and the Stoics. Friedrich Nietzsche’s infamous doctrine of eternal recurrence receives its clearest expres- sion in The Gay Science. The heaviest weight. – What if some day or night a demon were to steal into your loneliest lone- liness and say to you: ‘This life as you now live it and have lived it you will have to live once again and innumerable times again; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unspeakably small or great in your life must return to you, all in the same succession and sequence—even this spider and this moon- light between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned over again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!’ Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experi- enced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: ‘You are a god, and never have I heard anything more divine.’ If this thought gained power over you, as you are it would transform and possibly crush you; the question in each and every thing, ‘Do you want this again and innumerable times again?’ would lie on your actions as the heaviest weight! Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to long for nothing more fervently than for this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal? (GS 341)1 According to the theory of eternal recurrence sketched by Nietzsche’s demon, the world consists of a single series of events that is repeated infinitely many times. Because your life is a part of this series, the theory maintains, you will live your life infinitely many times. Most of the questions to be asked concerning this passage can be sorted into three gen- eral categories. First, there are straightforwardly exegetical questions. We might wonder why the doctrine of eternal recurrence is introduced by a ‘‘demon,’’ why the passage addresses the reader directly, and why there is talk of moonlight, spiders, sighs, and so on. Second, there are questions concerning the practical significance of eternal recur- rence. Nietzsche says that eternal recurrence would be ‘‘the heaviest weight,’’ and he describes just two reactions to the doctrine – either crushing anguish or a longing for recurrence. We find the same pair of reactions in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, in which Zara- thustra is initially overpowered by an ‘‘abysmal thought’’ closely related to eternal recur- rence (Z III:13) but later comes to love this vision of eternity (Z III:16). Since these ª 2012 The Author Philosophy Compass ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Nietzsche’s Theory of Eternal Recurrence 209 reactions probably do not fit your own, we might ask about Nietzsche’s reasons for thinking that eternal recurrence has this practical importance. Third, there are questions concerning the theory of eternal recurrence itself. We might ask what exactly the theory maintains about the world, what evidence or argument Nietzsche offers in support of the theory, and whether it is even possibly true that we will live our lives infinitely many times. I will focus on the third set of questions, which have recently returned to the forefront of Nietzsche scholarship thanks to studies by Paul Loeb (2010) and Robin Small (2010). My aim will be to locate Nietzsche’s theory of eternal recurrence within ancient discus- sions of cosmological recurrence, to determine whether Nietzsche’s theory could be true, and to outline what must be the case if it is to be true. As we will see, the possibility of eternal recurrence turns on issues in personal identity and the metaphysics of time. These issues are of historical and philosophical interest even if it turns out that the practical significance of eternal recurrence does not depend upon the truth or coherence of the theory.2 1. Recurrence Cosmology Today the idea of eternal recurrence is closely identified with Nietzsche’s writings, but the idea has a long history that Nietzsche knew well from his training in classics. In Ecce Homo Nietzsche identifies eternal recurrence with the doctrine of ‘‘the unconditional and infinitely repeated circular course of all things’’ and maintains that the doctrine ‘‘may have been taught already by Heraclitus’’ (EH BT:3). This remark connects eternal recur- rence with Heraclitus’ view that the world ‘‘always was and is and will be,’’ and that it changes states in ‘‘measures’’ (Fr. 30, Barnes 1979 1:61). The measured stages of the world occur through an inner necessity, forming an infinitely repeated cycle that Heracli- tus is thought to have regarded as a ‘‘great year’’ (see Kahn 156). These notions appear often in Nietzsche’s work. The animals that accompany Zarathustra attribute to him the thought that ‘‘there is a great year of becoming, a monster of a great year, which must, like an hourglass, turn over and over again […] and all these years are alike in what is greatest and what is smallest’’ (Z III:13). Nietzsche himself speaks of the world as a ‘‘musical mechanism [that] repeats eternally its tune, which must never be called a mel- ody’’ (GS 109). This denial that the series of events resembles a pleasing melody echoes Heraclitus’ claim that the necessary structure of existence is not produced by a god or by humanity (Fr. 30, Barnes 1979: 1:61). Nietzsche’s talk of renouncing a desire for an ‘‘ulti- mate peace’’ and willing the ‘‘eternal recurrence of war and peace’’ (GS 285) also recalls Heraclitus’ view of war as common to all things (Fr. 80, Barnes 1979: 1:60). It would be a mistake, though, to regard Heraclitus as the only ancient source of eternal recurrence. Empedocles, one of Nietzsche’s favorite ancient philosophers, also postulated the exis- tence of cosmic cycles (Barnes 1979: 2:6–8). In an early work Nietzsche also mentions the Pythagorean doctrine of cosmological recurrence (HL §2), and he later acknowledges the importance of recurrence within Stoic physics (EH BT:3). Nietzsche’s demon asserts the theory of eternal recurrence independent of evidence or argument. But unless Nietzsche means to establish its truth through appeal to the author- ity of his ancient predecessors, he must provide us with some evidence or argument in support of the theory. Arthur Danto has influentially maintained that there could be no empirical evidence of recurrence because the act of discovering such evidence would dis- tinguish this cycle of existence from other cycles, contrary to the theory’s claim that the infinitely many cycles are indistinguishable (Danto 204). Paul Loeb has recently shown ª 2012 The Author Philosophy Compass 7/3 (2012): 208–217, 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2011.00473.x Philosophy Compass ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 210 Nietzsche’s Theory of Eternal Recurrence that this view is mistaken because the act of discovering evidence could, in principle, occur in every cycle (Loeb 17–8).3 Loeb claims, in addition, that individual experiences can serve as evidence of recurrence. Suppose a demon whispers the recurrence doctrine in your ear, or you suddenly have the overwhelming feeling that all of this has happened before. Such experiences, Loeb argues, would be evidence of multiple cycles of existence. Even if Loeb is right about this (I return to this point in Section 3), it is still not clear that such experiences could ever justify belief in recurrence. People often hear voices or experience de´ja` vu, but even the most intense, emotionally resonant experiences of this sort would provide an insecure foundation for a theory of the cosmos. If individual experiences are not sufficient to establish cosmological recurrence, a scien- tific or metaphysical demonstration of recurrence would be necessary. Zarathustra does provide a proof of sorts (Z III:2.2), and Nietzsche’s notebooks contain multiple sketches of proofs. Nietzsche’s best-known argument, perhaps inspired by the Stoics, aims to derive recurrence from the unboundedness of time and the finitude of energy and possi- ble energy states. Stated succinctly, ‘‘the principle of the conservation of energy demands eternal recurrence’’ (Nietzsche 2003: 112). Much has been written about Nietzsche’s proofs, and there is no consensus concerning the best formulation of the arguments, or concern- ing their philosophical merits (see Capek; van Fraassen 1962; Moles; Rogers; Soll; Whit- lock). Even if Nietzsche’s proofs are unsound, it seems possible for the cosmos to be ordered as Nietzsche and his predecessors maintain. For the sake of examining whether the theory of eternal recurrence could be true, I will assume that the cosmos consists of a single ‘‘great year’’ of events. 2. Personal Identity and Circular Time Even if this cosmological theory is true, it does not obviously follow that persons will live their lives again, as Nietzsche’s theory of eternal recurrence maintains.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Is Plantinga's Argument for God Incompatible with Human Free Will?
    123 IS PLANTINGA'S ARGUMENT FOR GOD INCOMPATIBLE WITH HUMAN FREE WILL? MARINA GARNER1 Abstract / Resumo es Morriston has written a few articles claiming the incompatibility of Alvin WPlantinga’s Modal Ontological Argument and the Free Will Argument against the problem of evil. According to him, the Modal Ontological Argument defends an essentially good and free God in opposition to the Free Will Argument, which defends that the best kind of freedom is the significant freedom (SF), justifying God creating us with such freedom. In this paper, we attempt to summarize the arguments and Morriston’s position. In conclusion, we will see that there are reasons to agree with both of Plantinga’s arguments without falling in to a contradiction. Key words: Alvin Plantinga; Modal ontological argument; Free will argument; Wes Morriston. es Morriston escreveu alguns artigos afirmando a incompatibilidade do WArgumento Ontológico Modal de Alvin Plantinga e o Argumento do Livre Arbítrio contra o problema do mal. De acordo com ele, o Argumento Ontológico Modal defende um Deus essencialmente bom e livre em oposição ao Argumento do Livre Arbítrio, que defende que o melhor tipo de liberdade é a liberdade significativa, justificando a pessoa de Deus ao nos criar com tal liberdade. Nesse trabalho tentaremos resumir os argumentos e a posição de Morriston. Concluindo, veremos que há razões para concordar com ambos os argumentos de Plantinga sem entrar em contradição. Palavras-chaves: Alvin Plantinga; Argumento ontológico modal; Argumento do livre- arbítrio; Wes Morrison. In the realm of Christian apologetics and the doctrine of God, all arguments would ideally be in perfect accord.
    [Show full text]
  • An Examination of Charles Hartshorne's Concept of God
    THE DIVINE BECOMING: AN EXAMINATION OF CHARLES HARTSHORNE'S CONCEPT OF GOD By TERRY RICHARD HALL ~ Bachelor of Arts Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 1971 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirem~nts for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS July, 1975 \he~~_s l ~15 1-111'fcl verf· ;;L STATE UNl'.'ERSITY Liaf<ARY OCT 23 1975 THE DIVINE BECOMING: AN EXAMINATION OF CHARLES HARTSHORNE'S CONCEPT OF GOD Thesis Approved: Dean of the Gl'a!uate C9llege 923517 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to acknowledge my debt to t~e members of the Philosophy Department· at Oklahoma. State University. They have helped immeasurably in.my sometimes faltering efforts to achieve intellectual maturity. I, would like to espe­ cially mention Dr. Walter Scott, my thesis adviser, and Dr. Edward La~ry, who first.acquainted me with the thought of Charles Hartshorne. They have been a constant source of aid and encouragement in my· attempts to think through the topics covered in this thesis; without, their guidance and advice this-thesis could not, have been written. In addi­ tton, grateful appreciation is·· extended to Professor Charles. Hartshorne; with whom I was privileged to discuss some of these ideas during his visit to the Oklahoma State Univer­ sity campus in the spring of.1975. I am also grateful for the patien'l; assistance of my Wife, Valerie. It·is a singular good fortune.when one's wife is also a philosopher, and many of the.ideas treated herein became clearer as a result of her perceptive com­ ments.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Chemistry
    Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Chemistry Jaap van Brakel Abstract: In this paper I assess the relation between philosophy of chemistry and (general) philosophy of science, focusing on those themes in the philoso- phy of chemistry that may bring about major revisions or extensions of cur- rent philosophy of science. Three themes can claim to make a unique contri- bution to philosophy of science: first, the variety of materials in the (natural and artificial) world; second, extending the world by making new stuff; and, third, specific features of the relations between chemistry and physics. Keywords : philosophy of science, philosophy of chemistry, interdiscourse relations, making stuff, variety of substances . 1. Introduction Chemistry is unique and distinguishes itself from all other sciences, with respect to three broad issues: • A (variety of) stuff perspective, requiring conceptual analysis of the notion of stuff or material (Sections 4 and 5). • A making stuff perspective: the transformation of stuff by chemical reaction or phase transition (Section 6). • The pivotal role of the relations between chemistry and physics in connection with the question how everything fits together (Section 7). All themes in the philosophy of chemistry can be classified in one of these three clusters or make contributions to general philosophy of science that, as yet , are not particularly different from similar contributions from other sci- ences (Section 3). I do not exclude the possibility of there being more than three clusters of philosophical issues unique to philosophy of chemistry, but I am not aware of any as yet. Moreover, highlighting the issues discussed in Sections 5-7 does not mean that issues reviewed in Section 3 are less im- portant in revising the philosophy of science.
    [Show full text]
  • Experience and the Passage of Time∗
    Experience and the Passage of Time∗ Bradford Skow 1 Introduction Some philosophers believe that the passage of time is a real phenomenon. And some of them find a reason to believe this when they attend to features of their conscious experience. In fact this “argument from experience” is supposed to be one of the main arguments for passage. What exactly does this argument look like? Is it any good? There are in fact many different arguments from experience. I am not sure I understand them all. In this paper I want to talk about the three most interesting arguments that I do understand.1 I am going to argue that all three of them fail. ∗Published in Philosophical Perspectives 25: Metaphysics (2011), pp.359-387. 1I will not say anything about A. N. Prior’s “Thank Goodness That’s Over” argument (Prior 1959) because it is not an argument from experience (even though it is often said to be). Here is Prior’s argument: I can be glad that my ordeal is over without being glad that my ordeal is earlier than this thought or that my ordeal is earlier than 12 noon. But the latter two propositions are the propositions that some opponents of passage (the ones Prior knew) identified with the proposition that my ordeal is over. Prior concluded that the object of my propositional attitude is a proposition that only proponents of passage believe in. Phenomenal experience does not play an important role in this argument. True, there is some distinctive phenomenal “feel” that (sometimes? usually? always?) occurs when I am glad about something.
    [Show full text]
  • William James As American Plato? Scott Sinclair
    WILLIAM JAMES AS AMERICAN PLATO? ______________________________________________________________________________ SCOTT SINCLAIR ABSTRACT Alfred North Whitehead wrote a letter to Charles Hartshorne in 1936 in which he referred to William James as the American Plato. Especially given Whitehead’s admiration of Plato, this was a high compliment to James. What was the basis for this compliment and analogy? In responding to that question beyond the partial and scattered references provided by Whitehead, this article briefly explores the following aspects of the thought of James in relation to Whitehead: the one and the many, the denial of Cartesian dualism, James’s background in physiology, refutation of Zeno’s paradoxes, religious experience, and other kinships. In the end, the author agrees with Robert Neville that James had seminal ideas which could correctly result in a complimentary analogy with Plato. Therefore, a greater focus on the important thought of James is a needed challenge in contemporary philosophy. Michel Weber provided a very helpful article in two parts entitled, “Whitehead’s Reading of James and Its Context,” in the spring 2002 and fall 2003 editions of Streams of William James. Weber began his article with a reference to Bertrand Russell: “When Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) visited Harvard in 1936, ‘there were two heroes in his lectures – Plato and James.’”1 Although he goes on to affirm that Whitehead could have said the same, Weber either overlooks the fact, or is not aware, that Whitehead actually did compare James to Plato in his January 2, 1936 hand-written letter to Charles Hartshorne, as printed by Whitehead’s biographer, Victor Lowe: European philosophy has gone dry, and cannot make any worthwhile use of the results of nineteenth century scholarship.
    [Show full text]
  • Time, Metaphysics Of
    Time, metaphysics of Keywords: Time, Presentism, Eternalism, Moving Spotlight View, A-theory, B-theory, Growing Block View, Temporal Experience, J. M. E. McTaggart Article Summary Metaphysics is the part of philosophy that asks questions about the nature of reality – about what there is, and what it is like. The metaphysics of time is the part of the philosophy of time that asks questions about the nature of temporal reality. One central such question is that of whether time passes or flows, or whether it has a dynamic aspect. By this metaphysicians mean something very specific: is one time metaphysically privileged in some way, and does this metaphysical privilege move on from time to time? A-theorists answer in the affirmative, and different A-theorists offer different ways of thinking about the metaphysical privilege involved. Some say the privilege consists in being the only time that exists (presentism). On presentism, only the present exists, but which time that is changes as time passes. Other A-theorists, known as growing block theorists, say the metaphysical privilege consists in being the latest time that exists. On the growing block view, the past and the present exist, but the future does not. As time passes, new times comes into existence. Yet another version of the A-theory says that all times exist, but that one time is metaphysically privileged because it is present in an absolute sense. This version of the A-theory is known as the moving spotlight theory. Different times gain the privilege in turn by becoming the one time that is present in an absolute sense.
    [Show full text]
  • Mctaggart's Proof of the Unreality of Time
    McTaggart's proof of the unreality of time Jeff Speaks phil 20229 January 24, 2008 1 The A series and the B series . 1 2 Problems with the A-series . 2 2.1 Does the present move? . 3 2.2 McTaggart's argument that the A series is contradictory . 3 3 McTaggart's view that time is unreal . 5 4 Time without the A-series . 6 John (McTaggart Ellis) McTaggart was one of the most prominent British exponents of idealism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. His most prominent work is The Nature of Existence (in two volumes) from which we read an excerpt. McTaggart's idealism consisted largely in the denial that what we usually take to be cen- tral features of reality are, in fact, real. Accordingly, much of his work was devoted to exposing contradictions, or difficulties, inherent in our ordinary picture of the world. Per- haps his most famous, ambitious, and influential such argument is his argument that our ordinary view that things exist in time is false. This was first systematically presented in his 1908 paper, `The Unreality of Time.' We will be looking at his later (1927) exposition of the argument. 1 The A series and the B series McTaggart's first central claim is that, as he puts it \Positions in time . are distinguished in two ways. Each position is Earlier than some and Later than some of the other positions. To constitute such a series there is required a transitive asymmetrical relation, and a collection of terms such that, of any two of them, either the first is in this relation to the second, or the second is in this relation to the first.
    [Show full text]
  • Dummett on Mctaggart's Proof of the Unreality of Time
    Dummett on McTaggart’s Proof of the Unreality of Time Brian Garrett Australian National University Abstract Michael Dummett’s paper “A Defence of McTaggart’s Proof of the Unreality of Time” put forward an ingenious interpretation of McTaggart’s famous proof. My aim in this discussion is not to assess the cogency of McTaggart’s reasoning, but to criticise Dummett’s interpretation of McTaggart. Keywords: McTaggart, Dummett, Time, Space, A-series. 1. Introduction The reasoning of McTaggart’s 1908 article “The Unreality of Time” runs as follows. We distinguish positions in time in two ways: a permanent B-series (in which events and facts are distinguished using the relations of earlier than and later than) and a dynamic A-series (in which events and facts are future, then present, then past). Both series are essential to time, yet the A-series is more fundamental since only it allows for change (McTaggart 1908: 458). This concludes the first part of McTaggart’s reasoning: his argument for the fundamentality of the A-series. Having established this conclusion, McTaggart then claims that the A-series “involves a contradiction” (McTaggart 1908: 466). His argument for the contradiction is seemingly straightforward: past, present and future are “incompatible determinations” yet “every event has them all” (McTaggart 1908: 469). This argument is typically known as McTaggart’s Paradox. McTaggart is aware of a natural rejoinder to his argument. No event, it will be urged, is simultaneously past, present and future, only successively, and from this no contradiction follows. But, claims McTaggart, this rejoinder entails either a vicious circle or a vicious infinite regress, and so the contradiction is not removed.
    [Show full text]
  • Peirce, Pragmatism, and the Right Way of Thinking
    SANDIA REPORT SAND2011-5583 Unlimited Release Printed August 2011 Peirce, Pragmatism, and The Right Way of Thinking Philip L. Campbell Prepared by Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550 Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under Contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.. Approved for public release; further dissemination unlimited. Issued by Sandia National Laboratories, operated for the United States Department of Energy by Sandia Corporation. NOTICE: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government, nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represent that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily con- stitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors or subcontractors. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government, any agency thereof, or any of their contractors. Printed in the United States of America. This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy.
    [Show full text]
  • CONCEPTS, DEFINITIONS, and MEANING Author(S): TYLER BURGE Source: Metaphilosophy, Vol
    CONCEPTS, DEFINITIONS, AND MEANING Author(s): TYLER BURGE Source: Metaphilosophy, Vol. 24, No. 4 (October 1993), pp. 309-325 Published by: Wiley Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24439033 Accessed: 11-04-2017 02:15 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24439033?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Metaphilosophy This content downloaded from 128.97.244.236 on Tue, 11 Apr 2017 02:15:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms © The Metaphilosophy Foundation and Basil Blackwell Ltd. 1993. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 238 Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA METAPHILOSOPHY Vol 24, No 4, October 1993 0026-1068 CONCEPTS, DEFINITIONS, AND MEANING* ** TYLER BURGE The Aristotelian tradition produced many of the elements of what is widely thought of as "the traditional view" of concepts. I begin by attempting to summarize this view. The summary runs roughshod over numerous distinctions that were dear to various thinkers who contributed to this general conception of concepts.
    [Show full text]
  • The Explanatory Role of the Notion of Representation
    The Explanatory Role of the Notion of Representation Michael Strevens Draft of November 2004 ABSTRACT This paper investigates the explanatory role, in scientific theories, of the no- tion of representation and other kindred notions, such as the notions of in- formation and coding. I develop a simple account of the use of the notion of a representation, or more specifically the notion of an inner map, in a class of explanations of animals’ navigational capacities. I then show that the account, though simple, is more widely applicable than it seems, and I pose the question whether the same simple account could make sense of the use of representational notions in other kinds of scientific explanation, such as the explanations of neuroscience, genetics, developmental biology, cognitive psychology, and so on. I extend the account of the explanation of capacities to the explanation of behavior, and conclude by discussing representations of goals. 1 CONTENTS 1 Representations in Explanations 3 2 The R-C Model of Explanation 5 2.1 Explaining Navigational Capacities . 5 2.2 The Role of the Detection Mechanism: Establishing Covariation 8 2.3 The Role of the Prosecution Mechanism: Exploiting Covariation 10 2.4 The R-C Model . 11 3 Extending the R-C Model 13 3.1 Covariation and the Representation of Past and Future States of Affairs . 13 3.2 Representations of Permanent States of Affairs . 15 3.3 Complex Exploitation . 16 4 Beyond Navigation 19 4.1 Further Extending the R-C Model . 19 4.2 Other Animals, Other Capacities . 20 4.3 Other Kinds of Explananda .
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Moral Theory: a Process Response
    MODERN MORAL THEORY: A PROCESS RESPONSE by BRADFORD O. DOWNS (Under the Direction of William Power) ABSTRACT The dominant consensus in modern moral theory suggests that comparative judgments concerning moral values can be adequately made apart from theism. Building on the thought of Charles Hartshorne and other process thinkers, I hold that values such as good, desirability, or importance are meaningless unless we posit God, properly understood in a metaphysical theory, as real and the basis or telos according to which moral values are established and measured. INDEX WORDS: Process, Process Theology, Neoclassical, Moral Theory, Theistic Arguments, Global Argument, Charles Hartshorne, Immanuel Kant MODERN MORAL THEORY: A PROCESS RESPONSE by BRADFORD O. DOWNS A.B., The University of Georgia, 2001 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS ATHENS, GEORGIA 2003 © 2003 Bradford O. Downs All Rights Reserved MODERN MORAL THEORY: A PROCESS REPSONSE by BRADFORD O. DOWNS Major Professor: William Power Committee: Carolyn Medine Bradley Bassler Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PART I INTRODUCTION Moral Theory and the Ground of Moral Assertions………………1 II MODERN MORAL THEORY Ethical Nihilism: A Response to Secularism……………………………4 The Modern Consensus in Moral Philosophy…………………………………5 Autonomy………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6 III THE MORAL RELIGION
    [Show full text]