DOCSLIB.ORG

Durham E-Theses

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Durham E-Theses Durham E-Theses God, time and eternity: philosophical foundations for a defence of divine timelessness Foyle, Stuart Mark How to cite: Foyle, Stuart Mark (2007) God, time and eternity: philosophical foundations for a defence of divine timelessness, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/2474/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 God, Time and Eternity: Philosophical Foundations for a Defence of Divine Timelessness Stuart Mark Foyle The copyright of this thesis rests with the author or the university to which it was submitted. No quotation from it, or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author or university, and any information derived from it should be acknowledged. Ph.D. Thesis Department of Theology and Religion University ofDurham 2007 1 1 JUN 2008 Abstmct The past two decades have seen an almost exponential growth in publications on the topic of divine eternity and the general area of' God and time'. Increasing appeal is made to arguments and resources which ranges widely through contemporary science and the philosophy of time, whilst retaining commitments to traditional historical and philosophical theology. This thesis aims to make a methodological contribution to the debate that will be of use to partisans of all views of divine temporality and atemporality, as well as to isolate more specific philosophical foundations which, it is urged, would be required for a defence of divine timelessness. In arguing for the plausibility of these foundations, a case is made for the desirability of such a defence. This thesis argues for a methodology of constraints in which the key features are, first, that the theology of divine eternity can be affected by logical constraints introduced by arguments from 'outside' as well as 'inside' itself, and, second, that such a structure is reliant upon the integration of a corresponding understanding (provided by the work of Katherine Hawley) of how science might support metaphysical claims and how alleged support might be challenged. The resulting structure is offered as a general philosophical foundation for debates in the field of 'God and time'. This thesis also argues that the most vital factor in the structure IS the ontological status of the present. The denial that the present should be metaphysically favoured is explored, as a general philosophical foundation for a defence of divine timelessness, through topics in language and ontology, science, and epistemology. Results from this analysis are incorporated into the overall structure advocated by the thesis, together with considerations both of their effect on the debate, and of candidates for philosophical foundations from 'inside' theology which fit within the wider methodology of constraints on the theology of divine eternity. Acknowledgements There are a number of people and organisations without whom this thesis could not have been produced, or without whom it would have been impoverished in many ways. My thanks go to the Department of Theology & Religion in the University of Durham for supporting my study, to the AHRC for research funding (2003 - 2005), and to Dr.s Katherine Hawley, Stephen Read, and Sarah Sawyer for helping me to fall in love with metaphysics as an undergraduate. Particular thanks (and the firm promise never again to explain relativity theory to him in the style of fictitious characters from popular culture) go to my supervisor, Dr. Colin Crowder, who can only be described as the best man for the job. I would also like to express my gratitude to my examiners, Dr. David Wilkinson and Prof. Robin Le Poidevin, for their generous time and attention to my work; their own research projects continue to inspire me in mine. These acknowledgements would not be complete without thanking my parents for their unflagging support through the ups and downs of my life in education, but most especially I would like to thank my wife, Anastasia, without whom my time (whatever theory correctly describes it) would be infinitely less well-spent. 1 Contents Introduction p.4 Chapter I p.l2 Historical Resources: Theological and Philosophical Contexts Chapter II p.44 Methodological Considerations: Science, Metaphysics, and Theology Chapter III p.70 Philosophical Foundations: Constraints on Theories of Divine Eternity Chapter IV p.lOO The Status of the Present: Language, Facts and Ontology Chapter V p.l34 The Status of the Present: Science, Philosophy, and Interpretation Chapter VI p.l72 The Status of the Present: Epistemology, Experience, and Reality Chapter VII p.l98 Philosophical Foundations: Temporal Ontology and the Divine Nature Conclusion p.224 Bibliography p.227 2 I shall use the following abbreviations for sources in order to facilitate clear presentation (a statement of the full detail shall be made at the first instance of reference for each work contained in them): CCAq :Norman Kretzmann, and Eleonore Stump (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) CCAr : Jonathan Barnes (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), I shall use the following abbreviations where appropriate for textual clarity: STR: The Special Theory of Relativity I declare that no part of the material of this thesis has previously been submitted for a degree in the University of Durham, or any other university. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without their prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. 3 'Time again - time is the reef upon which all our frail mystic ships are wrecked.' 'You mean because it has never yet been proved that the past the present and the future are not one and the same thing?' Noel Coward, Blithe Spirit 4 Introduction My aim in the chapters that follow is to provide some philosophical foundations of a defence of divine timelessness, these being both methodological (how do we go about discussing God and time in the first place?) and also specifically focussed on philosophical elements that will ground arguments for, and accounts of, divine timelessness. But why, the critic might ask, would anyone want to defend divine timelessness when most theologians these days think that God must be in some way temporal? The simplest reply will invoke just those considerations, both generally methodological and more specific, that are to be found in the thesis. The best way to make things rather clearer is to explain all of this in terms of what the thesis is not, and why. This thesis is not an open inquiry into divine eternity, seeking to arbitrate fairly between all the different views available on the basis of considering their grounds and supporting arguments. Such a work is a mammoth undertaking: William Lane Craig's synoptic assessment of the areas of debate runs to three volumes', well in excess of seven hundred pages, and there has been plenty written on the subject since. Nevertheless, my methodological discussion is not designed to be solely for the benefit of the defender of divine timelessness: my contention is that the structure I develop should be helpful for anyone debating 'God and time'; even its total rejection would aid the debate, since everyone would be clear on what was being rejected and why. Similarly, the defender of divine temporality may find here a useful resource for their project - primarily by virtue of seeing a need to rescue various of the more specific philosophical elements from criticism, for use in the philosophical foundations of their own undertaking. This thesis is also not an exhaustive defence of divine timelessness, presenting extended and comprehensive arguments for the position and fashioning a coherent and complete account. For such a work would also be a vast project: Leftow's defence and account of divine timelessness2 is well over three hundred pages, and Craig's work, whilst being a survey, is also a defence of divine temporality which supplies considerable critical material that the defender of divine timelessness would have to engage with. Work that has been done in the area since Leftow's monograph also 1 William Lane Craig, The Tenseless Theory of Time: A Critical Examination (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000); William Lane Craig, The Tensed Theory of Time: A Critical Examination (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000); William Lane Craig, God, Time, and Eternity (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 200 I) 2 Brian Leftow, Time and Eternity (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991) 5 means that the defender of divine timelessness must work harder to differentiate their position from a variety of others (as opposed to simply from 'unqualified divine 3 temporality' ), and this means in terms of motivation and advantage as well as in terms of content. More nuanced positions that have been developed include Craig's own position, which holds God to be timeless sans creation whilst the act of creation brings 4 5 God into temporality , and the view of Alan Padgett that God is outside created time , but nevertheless basically temporal in an 'unrnetricated divine time' reliant upon God's being.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Problem of Evil in Augustine's Confessions
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 2011 The rP oblem of Evil in Augustine's Confessions Edward Matusek University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the American Studies Commons, and the Philosophy Commons Scholar Commons Citation Matusek, Edward, "The rP oblem of Evil in Augustine's Confessions" (2011). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/3733 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Problem of Evil in Augustine’s Confessions by Edward A. Matusek A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Thomas Williams, Ph.D. Roger Ariew, Ph.D. Joanne Waugh, Ph.D. Charles B. Guignon, Ph.D. Date of Approval: November 14, 2011 Keywords: theodicy, privation, metaphysical evil, Manichaeism, Neo-Platonism Copyright © 2011, Edward A. Matusek i TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract iii Chapter One: Introduction to Augustine’s Confessions and the Present Study 1 Purpose and Background of the Study 2 Literary and Historical Considerations of Confessions 4 Relevance of the Study for Various
    [Show full text]
  • Origen of Alexandria and St. Maximus the Confessor: an Analysis and Critical Evaluation of Their Eschatological Doctrines
    Origen of Alexandria and St. Maximus the Confessor: An Analysis and Critical Evaluation of Their Eschatological Doctrines by Edward Moore ISBN: 1-58112-261-6 DISSERTATION.COM Boca Raton, Florida USA • 2005 Origen of Alexandria and St. Maximus the Confessor: An Analysis and Critical Evaluation of Their Eschatological Doctrines Copyright © 2004 Edward Moore All rights reserved. Dissertation.com Boca Raton, Florida USA • 2005 ISBN: 1-58112-261-6 Origen of Alexandria and St. Maximus the Confessor: An Analysis and Critical Evaluation of Their Eschatological Doctrines By Edward Moore, S.T.L., Ph.D. Table of Contents LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................VI ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................VII PREFACE.....................................................................................................................VIII INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 ORIGEN, MAXIMUS, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF ESCHATOLOGY ....................................... 1 THE HISTORY AND IMPORTANCE OF ESCHATOLOGY IN CHRISTIAN THOUGHT – SOME BRIEF REMARKS. ............................................................................................................. 3 CHAPTER 1: ORIGEN’S INTELLECTUAL BACKGROUND................................... 15 BRIEF BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Periphyseon' Jonathan Mounts
    Duquesne University Duquesne Scholarship Collection Electronic Theses and Dissertations Spring 2011 Salvation of the Damned Within the 'Periphyseon' Jonathan Mounts Follow this and additional works at: https://dsc.duq.edu/etd Recommended Citation Mounts, J. (2011). Salvation of the Damned Within the 'Periphyseon' (Doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University). Retrieved from https://dsc.duq.edu/etd/956 This Immediate Access is brought to you for free and open access by Duquesne Scholarship Collection. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Duquesne Scholarship Collection. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SALVATION OF THE DAMNED WITHIN THE PERIPHYSEON A Dissertation Submitted to the McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts Duquesne University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Jonathan G. Mounts April 2011 Copyright by Jonathan G. Mounts 2011 THE SALVATION OF THE DAMNED WITHIN THE PERIPHYSEON By Jonathan G. Mounts Approved April 1, 2011 ________________________ ________________________ L. Michael Harrington, Ph.D Thérèse Bonin, Ph.D Associate Professor of Philosophy Associate Professor of Philosophy Director Committee Member ________________________ ________________________ James Swindal, Ph.D James Swindall, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Philosophy Associate Professor of Philosophy Committee Member Department Chair ________________________ Christopher Duncan, Ph.D. Dean, The McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts iii ABSTRACT THE SALVATION OF THE DAMNED WITHIN THE PERIPHYSEON By Jonathan G. Mounts May 2011 Dissertation supervised by L. Michael Harrington, Ph.D This dissertation shall examine the claim of John Scottus Eriugena, the ninth century Irish philosopher, that all things must ultimately return to unity with their creator.
    [Show full text]
  • These Disks Contain My Version of Paul Spade's Expository Text and His Translated Texts
    These disks contain my version of Paul Spade's expository text and his translated texts. They were converted from WordStar disk format to WordPerfect 5.1 disk format, and then I used a bunch of macros and some hands-on work to change most of the FancyFont formatting codes into WordPerfect codes. Many transferred nicely. Some of them are still in the text (anything beginning with a backslash is a FancyFont code). Some I just erased without knowing what they were for. All of the files were cleaned up with one macro, and some of them have been further doctored with additional macros I wrote later and additional hand editing. This explains why some are quite neat, and others somewhat cluttered. In some cases I changed Spade's formatting to make the printout look better (to me); often this is because I lost some of his original formatting. I have occasionally corrected obvious typos, and in at least one case I changed an `although' to a `but' so that the line would fit on the same page. With these exceptions, I haven't intentionally changed any of the text. All of the charts made by graphics are missing entirely (though in a few cases I perserved fragments so you can sort of tell what it was like). Some of the translations had numbers down the side of the page to indicate location in the original text; these are all lost. Translation 1.5 (Aristotle) was not on the disk I got, so it is listed in the table of contents, but you won't find it.
    [Show full text]
  • Psychological Arguments for Free Will DISSERTATION Presented In
    Psychological Arguments for Free Will DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Andrew Kissel Graduate Program in Philosophy The Ohio State University 2017 Dissertation Committee: Richard Samuels, Advisor Declan Smithies Abraham Roth Copyrighted by Andrew Kissel 2017 Abstract It is a widespread platitude among many philosophers that, regardless of whether we actually have free will, it certainly appears to us that we are free. Among libertarian philosophers, this platitude is sometimes deployed in the context of psychological arguments for free will. These arguments are united under the idea that widespread claims of the form, “It appears to me that I am free,” on some understanding of appears, justify thinking that we are probably free in the libertarian sense. According to these kinds of arguments, the existence of free will is supposed to, in some sense, “fall out” of widely accessible psychological states. While there is a long history of thinking that widespread psychological states support libertarianism, the arguments are often lurking in the background rather than presented at face value. This dissertation consists of three free-standing papers, each of which is motivated by taking seriously psychological arguments for free will. The dissertation opens with an introduction that presents a framework for mapping extant psychological arguments for free will. In the first paper, I argue that psychological arguments relying on widespread belief in free will, combined with doxastic conservative principles, are likely to fail. In the second paper, I argue that psychological arguments involving an inference to the best explanation of widespread appearances of freedom put pressure on non-libertarians to provide an adequate alternative explanation.
    [Show full text]
  • Light, Life, and Love
    Light, Life, and Love Author(s): Inge, William Ralph (1860-1954) Eckhart, Johannes (c. 1260-1327) (Author of section) Tauler, John (c. 1300-1361) (Author of section) Suso, Henry (c. 1296-1366) (Author of section) Publisher: Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library Description: This book has everything a reader needs to explore the world of German mysticism. William Inge begins with an introduc- tion of histories, biographies, and summaries of the move- ment, and his scholarly articles will prove useful for the stu- dent of mysticism. Then he includes in the book many ex- amples of the writings of the 14th century Dominicans, the Friends of God. These friends were an informal group of Catholics who strove to deepen both their communal relation- ships as well as their inner spirituality. Eckhardt, Tauler, and Suso were the major proponents of this theology, and each is represented in Inge©s collection.This book is a unique and convenient volume that will assist readers interested in the fascinating movement of German mysticism. Abby Zwart CCEL Staff Writer Subjects: Practical theology Practical religion. The Christian life Mysticism i Contents Title Page 1 Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 1. The Precursors of the German Mystics 4 2. Meister Eckhardt 7 3. Eckhardt's Religious Philosophy 10 4. The German Mystics as Guides to Holiness 19 5. Writers of the School of Eckhard–Tauler 21 6. Suso 22 7. Ruysbroek 24 8. Theologia Germanica 25 9. Modern Mysticism 26 10. Specimens of Modern Mysticism 28 Light, Life and Love 31 Eckhardt
    [Show full text]
  • Rock of Atheism’
    Navigating around Hume’s ‘Rock of Atheism’ by Mike Tonks, Second Master, Shrewsbury School Published in ‘Dialogue: A journal of religion and philosophy’, issue 49, November 2017 _______________________________________________________________________________ Before starting work this morning I decided to check the BBC website to see what the main news headlines were. Exploring further I found myself confronted by numerous illustrations of what ‘philosophers of religion’ might call ‘The Problem of Evil.’ The inescapable truth is that the human condition is punctuated by suffering. At least twenty people had been killed in a bomb attack in Bangkok. The refugee crisis continued in many areas of Europe including France, Italy and Macedonia. Another headline reported the establishment of a new enquiry into child abuse in the Roman Catholic Church of Scotland. A tornado had struck the southern coast of Mexico, fires blazed out of control on the Idaho / Oregon border and a state of emergency had been declared in Ecuador due to growing activity in the Cotopaxi volcano. Reading these and many other similar accounts a question presents itself – ‘Are such events necessary and inevitable?’ Can one imagine a world without such brutality, pain and torment? And perhaps most challenging of all, does this world present itself as the creative work of a supremely perfect, powerful and benevolent personal deity who enjoys a loving relationship with all of his creation? Welcome to the study of what ‘philosophers of religion’ refer to as The Problem of Evil! There is an enormous amount of material available on this topic and therefore part of the challenge at ‘A’ Level lies in establishing a structured approach to your investigations.
    [Show full text]
  • On Pain and the Privation Theory of Evil
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by PhilPapers ON PAIN AND THE PRIVATION THEORY OF EVIL IRIT SAMET King’s College London Abstract. The paper argues that pain is not a good counter-example to the privation theory of evil. Objectors to the privation thesis see pain as too real to be accounted for in privative terms. However, the properties for which pain is intuitively thought of as real, i.e. its localised nature, intensity, and quality (prickly, throbbing, etc.) are features of the senso-somatic aspect of pain. This is a problem for the objectors because, as findings of modern science clearly demonstrate, the senso-somatic aspect of pain is neurologically and clinically separate from the emotional-psychological aspect of suffering. The intuition that what seems so real in pain is also the source of pain’s negative value thus falls apart. As far as the affective aspect of pain, i.e. ‘painfulness’ is concerned, it cannot refute the privation thesis either. For even if this is indeed the source of pain’s badness, the affective aspect is best accounted for in privative terms of loss and negation. The same holds for the effect of pain on the aching person. INTRODUCTION ‘Just as there is no target set up for misses, so there is no nature of evil in the universe either’. (Epictetus, Encheiridion 27) Philosophers since Plato have been making a striking claim about evil: evil, they said, is essentially devoid of being, an absence of good. This seemingly absurd statement became the standard conclusion of rationalistic investigations into the ontology of evil.
    [Show full text]
  • Problem of Evil Year Group: 12
    Subject: RE Topic: Problem of Evil Year Group: 12 The Problems of Evil Key Vocabulary 1 The problem Evil causes suffering and evil is incompatible with God’s attributes. Divine action God controlling events in 2 Logical problem Epicurus: God’s attributes are logically incompatible with evil. Either evil, the world benevolence or omnipotence must be wrong to resolve the inconsistent triad Divine Irenaeus said we are created likeness in God’s image and develop 3 Evidential problem Rowe: the quality and quantity of evil in the world causes religious doubt. to be his likeness Augustine’s Theodicy Hick’s reworking of Irenaean theodicy Dysteleologic Existence has no purpose 1 Original God is perfect so made a perfect 1 Irenaean Evil is an opportunity to grow from al Perfection world. It lacked nothing theodicy divine image to likeness. This is called ‘soul-making’ theodicy Freewill Autonomous and free 2 Privation Evil is the absence of good. The choices by the agent world has lost some of its 2 Hick Modern reworking of Irenaeus’ Inconsistent God’s omnipotence and original divine goodness theodicy triad benevolence conflict with 3 Harmony Angels and humans disobeyed 3 Epistemic God intentionally hides from us to evil God at the Fall and so harmony distance allow us to develop ended in the natural world – Moral evil Evil caused by human natural evil now occurs 4 Purpose Evil in the world is instrumentally intention good as it causes soul-making Natural evil Evil caused by natural events 4 Punishment All humans are punished for 5 Freewill Moral growth must be autonomous, Adam’s sin because God is just not forced by God Original God’s creation was good 5 Grace God sent Jesus out of love and to perfection and lacked nothing create to possibility of 6 Virtues We only learn virtues like charity in forgiveness and salvation suffering Privatio boni Absence of goodness (privation) 6 Freewill God had to give us freewill as it 7 Universal We all suffer and so are all saved and is more loving, despite the evil salvation go to heaven.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Evil
    3 The Problem of Evil For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good?1 espite being conceived in secular terms in much contemporary Dthought, the “problem of evil” has traditionally been a theological one concerned with the question of how to reconcile the existence of suf- fering, and hence evil, in the world, with the characterization of the Judeo-Christian God as benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Formally articulated by Epicurus (341–270 BCE) and originally quoted in the work of Lactantius (c. 260–340 CE), the “problem of evil” is tradi- tionally presented as follows: God either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and willing, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble and, therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?2 Presented syllogistically, the problem is this: God is benevolent. God is omnipotent (which should be taken to include omniscience). There is evil in the world. If the first two propositions are true, the third cannot be. R. Jeffery, Evil and International Relations © Renée Jeffery 2008 34 EVIL AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Now the third is true as a matter of observable fact.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evidential Problem of Evil
    To put it simply The Problem of Evil topic but simplified and sometimes a bit chattier than it should be. The Specification The problem of evil • The concept of evil (natural and moral) and the logical and evidential problem of evil • Religious responses to the problem of evil. Credit will be given for relevant knowledge of any theodicy, but candidates are expected to be familiar with the following: – The main themes of theodicies in the Augustinian tradition – The free will defence – John Hick’s ‘vale of soul making’ theodicy (from the Irenaean tradition) – Responses to evil in process thought Issues arising • The success of the theodicies as a response to the problem of evil • What poses the greatest challenge to faith in God – natural evil or moral evil? • Is free will a satisfactory explanation for the existence of evil in a world created by God? • The strengths and weaknesses of these responses to the problem of evil The concept of evil (natural and moral) and the logical and evidential problem of evil Natural (or non-moral) evil refers to evils caused by the natural state of things i.e. they are nothing to do with human intentions and choices. They are evils brought about by the laws of nature and the state of the world. We would include natural disasters and death under this definition. Moral evil refers to evils that have come about as a direct result of human intentions and choices. These are evils that simply wouldn’t have occurred if it hadn’t have been for humans.
    [Show full text]
  • Neoplatonism, Then And
    NEOPLATONISM, THEN AND NOW Date: 2-11-2014 OPENING WORDS Earlier this year, I undertook a twelve-week philosophy course at Sydney Community College, in Rozelle. It was a fairly easy- going, yet exhaustive course that saw us cover everything from the pre-Socratic philosophers of ancient Greece, right up to the musings of Jürgen Habermas in the twentieth century. We covered Descartes and Spinoza, Hegel and the Hindus, amongst others – the span of time we examined stretched over more than 2,500 years. Not at all bad for a course that only lasted three months. Needless to say, I found a lot to think about in this time, and in the months since – not least of all, which philosophical traditions I find myself most agreeing with. In the months since the course concluded, I have worked out that I am much more a rationalist than an empiricist, certainly much more a virtue ethicist than a consequentialist, and almost certainly a monist, rather than a dualist (that is to say, in a metaphysical sense, I find myself agreeing more with Spinoza than Descartes, and notably more with Hinduism than Christianity in its view of God and the universe). Though, I must admit, I’m still not certain whether my own personal philosophy fits in more with the analytic or continental tradition – I’ll have to work that one out. Seriously, though, I find philosophy fascinating – it is, after all, the study of and attempt to make sense of the general and fundamental problems of all existence, problems that every human being (provided they’re bothered to think about it) has grappled with since time immemorial, and continues to do so today.
    [Show full text]