A Net in Time

Curriculum and book reviews, faith, homeschooling and more!

philosophy

Willard Van Orman Quine

By 4 Comments

We are on letter Q this week.  One of the harder letters to do for a letter of the week eh?  🙂  I hit up Willard van Orman Quine who was a philosopher from the 1900’s.   And man of linguists.  He believed that language is all about knowing WHAT to say and WHEN to say it.

Willard Van Orman Quine

Basics of Quine’s Philosophy

Quine believed the language was a social art.  Language didn’t mean the same thing to every person.  For instance the word rabbit to some could mean “furry creature that hops”, to another “food”, to yet another “pest”.  It could just be a word that someone uses when they see some animal.  

Words are meaningful to us and we can become used to the ways that other people use them.  This use does not mean that the word MEANS the object, it’s just a word that person uses when that object is seen.  This means that the use of language socially is what makes it meaningful. 

Overtime how people use words change as well.  Take for instance in Old English pretty used to mean crafty and cunning, this later changed to clever, and now over time tends to refer to good looks.  

Also words used in the past frequently are less so today. Words such as bestow, assay, baseborn etc. 

All of this means that our language is never settled.  We learn what words to use from the people around us.  So ultimately, language is a social art form more than anything else.  Just a way to express ourselves to others.

quote from willard van orman quine

The Language Cycle

The formation of language works like this. 

Words are meaningful to us.

WHY?  Because we get used to the ways in which they are used by others. 

Their use by others does not mean there is a link between words and actual things.

It’s just the way they are being used socially that makes the words meaningful.

Therefore Language is a social Art. 

Concrete examples

When I was teaching my logic/debate class last year one of the conversations we got into “bunny hug” or “hoodie” or “kangeroo jacket” or “hooded sweatshirt”.  All mean the same thing but could leave a person completely confused depending on where you live.  Which title is appropriate is socially relevant.  A social artform if you would. 🙂

What do you think of Willard Van Orman Quine ‘s view of language?

If you would like to know more about Quine, you can read his page in the book I linked above, or visit the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Others in this Series

Philosopher William James

By 2 Comments

“Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does.”.   These words sum up the ideas of philosopher William James.   Isn’t that an interesting statement?  If you thought this way, how would it change your life?

William James, philosopher

Historical Facts about William James

New York born on January 11, 1842, this American philosopher became known as “Father of American psychology”.   James had an unhurried education, and indeed it took him a while to figure out what he wanted to do. He started out with art, worked through chemisty, anatomy, etc.  He worked for a while as an assistant to a naturalist until he got fed up with that and returned to medical school.  Studies happened in Germany as well.   Even though he was never really trained in psychology, he was the first educator to teach on the subject. 

What William James believed

James was a pragmatist.  A pragmatic psychology “is a philosophical movement that includes those who claim that an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, and that unpractical ideas are to be rejected.” (source)

James formed his philosophy around the idea that if it makes sense, do it. 

For instance: If you are lost in a forest looking for a path.  If the path looks like it goes nowhere, so you act upon that, giving up and doing nothing you have made your thought a reality.  But if you are lost in the same forest and see a path that appears to end in your salvation (food, shelter) and therefore follow it and are saved. Again, you have made your thoughts a reality.  Therefore we should act as if what we do makes a difference. Because what we do DOES matter. 

William James quote

More on James’ philosophy

The basic assumption of a pragmatist is that we learn mostly by doing.  Our knowledge is only worth something to us if it is is useful.  It needs to explain something, or help us do something.  Once knowledge is redundant, proven incorrect, or otherwise doesn’t serve us it is forgotten. 

“For James, the truth of an idea depends on how useful it is; that is to say, whether or not it does what is required of it”.  Knowledge, therefore is true, if it doesn’t contradict other known truths, and works for our purposes.    ….

James said “The truth of an idea is not a stagnant property inherent in it. Turth happens to an idea. It becomes true, is made true by events.  Its verity is in fact an event, a process.”  (source)

.When we put an idea into action, we prove it true.  It only has the POTENTIAL to be true until we act upon it.  That action can be by physically using it, or by using other knowledge that we know to be true as it’s point of verification.    These ideas are different than facts.  Facts merely exist.  Our ideas about those facts can be true or not true. Ergo, back to the forest idea.  

If you are in forest the fact is that the path goes somewhere, but if you believe that somewhere won’t be of aid to you, you won’t take it.  And since you won’t take it, your idea about that fact makes it true.  This is a simplistic explanation.  Ideas that are outlandish aren’t true just because we act upon them.

Ideas need support to be true. Each idea needs to 

  • be useful
  • withstand criticism
  • justify itself
  • have other evidence to weigh in it’s favour 

How Does God factor in?

James wasn’t convinced that God was real, but he believed that for the person who believes in God, that belief is vital to them. He did think there was more the world than what we see, but couldn’t really be pinned down as to what that was. (check this source)

It allows a believer to lead a more fulfilling life, overcome a fear of death, be healed from illness etc.  So whether or not God is real becomes inconsequential as the idea becomes truth to the person who believes.   In the end it’s the experience that matters. 

William James quote

Reactions

Wow.  I am positive there is much about how James puts his philosophy together that I don’t quite understand. To have a life built around experiences seems so radical to my mind.  I was raised to think and use knowledge as a basis before the immediacy of experiences. To not put experience before thought (even though sometimes in the immediate I go with the experience. For instance, when I grab a chocolate bar as a quick fix instead of thinking my way through what I truly need, more sleep or perhaps a walk.   But to have a framework of ‘act like what you do matters’ (which in and of itself is a interesting challenge), but to have experience being the trump card in life.  Hmm… I don’t know.  It sits wrong.  What do you think of philosopher William James?

What if we did though.  Live our lives, as believers, like what we do matters.   Not in the pragmatic sense of James, but in a God-focused way. 

For instance, it matters if we praise God for the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the house we live in, and so forth.  It MATTERS that we thank him.  Can we live our lives showing this difference? It makes a difference how we live our lives as believers.  We need to show that attending church services,  going to bible studies, and volunteering is different than being a sports fan, or a weekend shopper.  We need to act like having God in our lives makes a difference.  Is there room on our lives as believers to have this type of pragmatic approach?  

Asking the question, what do you think?

Other Philosophy Posts

alphabet

Other Alphabet Blogging Posts

Edmund Burke, philosopher

By 2 Comments

Edmund Burke is a politically based philosopher with a conservative bent.   He studied society and it’s affect on people.  In the 1700’s people tend think of society and the material ways it benefits (or doesn’t benefit) people involved in it.

Burke thought it was really important to also consider the human element of society and how we personally benefit each other through music, science, art and emotions such as virtue.

Edmund Burke

Basics of Burke’s Philosophy

Consider that people across the world have a need for creative and emotional expression.  We have moral, material, scientific and artistic needs that we simply can’t meet all on our own.   Therefore we need others to help meet those needs.

“How do we meet those needs?” asks Burke.  We meet them by referring to the customs and traditions of the past whenever we can.   When the past is not enough we, as a society, agree to help each other.   This way all of us can benefit from the efforts we all put in.   This is an agreement we all come to, ergo society is a contract between the world’s peoples.  

Divergent Opinions

Some individuals dispute the claim the Burke was a philosopher.  They consider him for a political theorist rather than a philosopher.  He spent more of his working career in politics so tends to talk via political overtones.  He digs deeper and thinks more broadly so generally is considered a philosopher and not just a political theorist.

Edmund Burke quote

Overview of the life of Edmund Burke

An Irishman born in 1729 Edmund Burke grew up concerned about relations between the Irish and the English.  He helped improve British administration in India and opposed the French Revolution. He actively sought to limit the power of British royalty.   His ideas formed the basis for the Conservative Party.  He died in 1797.

edmund Burke

Fleshing out His Ideas

Since we are more than animals, society is more than just economic or material advantages.   Society seeks after the common good (our agreements on customs, norms, and values).  As such, society changes over time to reflect not only the past but current thought processes.  Change needs to occur slowly as that’s the natural progression. Fast-moving changes do not benefit society (ergo his opposition to the French revolution).

On the other hand, he was a supporter of the American Revolution as it was a slow change, predicated by the needs of that society.  He urged the British government to strive to understand the colonists and work with them while maintaining their right to receive taxes.

edmund burke quote

Nuggets of Truth

I have to admit, I struggle with this one a bit.  I see what he is saying (for the most part) and agree that society is more than economic or material gain.  Each philosophy, if not fully founded on the truths of scripture will be at fault. 

My biggest struggle I have with Burke’s idea that society is a contract, is that he doesn’t see society as what it truly should be.  He sees it only as a way for us to get what we want and need.  Yes, he sees it as more than just economic gain but includes the harder to quantify things as well, but his focus is on individual need and how society helps us gain that.

Society is not just a means to gain advances in science or education. It is more than just seeking the common good or a way to express our moral outlook. Being part of society goes beyond our own individual needs. It is a way for people to showcase the glory of God through helping of each other, showing grace to each other, and exemplifying the attributes of who God is, to a struggling world around us.

Society helps us to see our faults, offers correction and encouragement, helps to sharpen our wits and minds, and gives us something to stand for or against. A faith-based society doesn’t help each other only to meet our own individual needs, but to help because it’s what we aught to do. What God calls us to do. We need to remember that.

Now the lad and I were talking about all this at supper and he mentioned this.  I will try to write most of what his thoughts were.  Sorry if I miss anything.  🙂  Society is good and it’s what we need. God has put it in place for us and part of meeting our needs as a society means, as a contract between us, is that as society meets our needs we meet the needs of others.   It might be a forced meeting of needs, but it is still a shared action.  As Christians, we’re more inclined to meet the needs of others because God calls us to do so.  AND we find contentment in doing so because we know we are living as we should. 

So what are your thoughts in this?

My Sources

I mostly used The Philosophy Book to help me understand the theories presented.  I also looked at the following sources:

SchoolhouseTeachers

ABC Blogging Series

alphabet

George Berkeley, Philosopher

By Leave a Comment

Born in Ireland, George Berkeley had a strong desire to found a seminary in Bermuda. He never achieved his end but he did serve within the church as Bishop of Cloyne.  He was an empiricist like John Locke, but he came to difference conclusions. 

george berkeley

Like all empiricists, George Berkeley saw experience as the primary way to attain knowledge.   He decided that what we perceive are ideas not the things in and of themselves. This thought pattern is called: Everything is an idea and not a physical thing. 

The progression of his thought goes as follows

  • all knowledge comes from perception
  • what we perceive are ideas, not things in themselves
  • a thing in itself must lie in outside experience
  • so the world consists only of ideas
  • and minds that perceive those ideas
  • A thing only exists in so far as it perceives OR is perceived.

It is not that he denies the existence of the external world but believes that the only way to gain knowledge is through experience, and experience comes only from our perceptions.  Since all our perceptions are merely ideas, we have no way to prove that anything more exists than ideas.

The question arises then.  If I stop observing things, or if I am no longer being perceived, do I disappear?   Berkeley’s response to this is that God perceives everything all the time.  Therefore, since God perceived things all the time, nothing ever disappears.

Quote by George Berkeley

None of us though share the same mind, hence why people perceive the world around us differently.   My idea of what an pumpkin looks like isn’t exactly the same as how someone else sees a pumpkin, and definitely not the same way God would see that pumpkin.  So the only way that I know that something exists is if I personally see it, which means only I can cause changes to the physical world around me. Which means I need to have the idea to do so, and since I can’t come up with ideas on my own, I need to rely on someone who perceives everything.  Ergo I must rely on God (since he is the only one who can perceive everything) to supply with the idea to change the physical world around me. 

Did he find truth?

Isn’t it interesting that Berkeley is aware of God’s eye being on us all the time.  That he perceives us all the time.  So a tree can fall in the forest (or a sparrow can lose a feather) God perceives, and therefore it happens.  And then the idea that everything is immaterial, only ideas, and it’s ideas supplied by God that change the world.  Isn’t that just a fascinating notion.

I see these ideas that Berkeley had and I think he is trying to show the dichotomy of faith.  As Christians we know that God knows everything.  He knows our past and our future.  He gives us freewill to act, but he also knows that actions we will take before we even know we are going to take them.  How does one truly explain this?  Is Berkeley somewhat close?   I don’t know. 

In seeing the reliance we must have in God and how that would shape our perceptions of it, I see that as spot on.  Really.  Not necessarily the everything is an idea part, but that firm reliance on God to shape our thoughts, feelings and perceptions about that which is around us.   I find myself intrigued. I can see his struggle to understand it and to think deeply upon it. 

To go to my worksheet on George Berkeley, click here or on the image below

George Berkeley questions

 

Gottfried Leibniz, philosopher

By Leave a Comment

Gottfried Leibniz lived in 1646 -1716, he was a rationalist from Germany.  He thought that there were two kinds of truth, the truth of reasoning and the truth of fact. A rationalist claims that knowledge is gained by rational reflecltion alone. 

gottfried leibniz

What made Leibniz unique was that he divided truth into two different paths.  His thinking was that Everything in the world has a distinct notion… this notion contains the truth about that thing, including how that thing connects with everything else.   So you look at the thing and all it’s connections by rationally reflecting on it. That reflection will lead you down two different paths.  Reasoning… this finite fact is final truth.   And Fact … this infinite reasoning can only truly be understood by experience in order to reach a truth.

He explained his thought process in his book Monadology.

He believes that everything in the world is connected by notions, and that each notion is connected to other notions.  To truly understand a thing you need to be able to follow those how those notions connect to each other.  Understanding those connections will lead you to things that are rational truths, and to truths you can’t really understand unless you experience them due to our limited ability to reason our these rational truths.  

Discovering monads

This leads to the discovery of monads which are simple substances isolated from everything else.   Each monad represents completely the hole whole of the universe, and every monad is synched which is how God created everything.  All these individual monads completely synched and individual.   The human mind is a monad and since it holds the universe completely it is possible therefore for us to be able to understand everything completely, but we can’t determine everything in a finite way.  For instance I can’t go to a star and measure it’s surface temperature, so it’s a matter of figuring how to do so!  

There is admittedly some struggle between understanding where the truth of reasoning and the truth of fact separates. As the finiteness of reasoning can bend into the infinite truths of fact (such as the example of the star’s temperature).  We can guess (infinitely so) at what the star’s temperature is, but if we accurately use equipment to do so, it becomes a finite fact of reason.

Leibniz goes on to differentiate between necessary and contingent truths as well.   Math, for instance, is a necessary truth.  1 + 1 will always equal 2.  But saying it’s “raining in Spain”, may or may not be true and even if it were true in some areas it might not be in others. These contingent truths are ones that only God can truly see.   God has eternal truth.  God is the only one who always understand.  “God understands everything through eternal truth, since he does not need experience”

leibniz quote

Did he find Truth?

Leibniz saw God differently than people.  He’s spot on with understanding that God is so much more and understands everything already.  He also saw that everything has a spark of knowing all truth. His Monads as containing all truths of the universe…. Such an intriguing notion don’t you think?  

Gottfried Leibniz, philosopher Share on X

My Thoughts

In Romans 1 we are told that everything knows the truth of God

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

When I read of the monads in Leibniz’s ponderings, these verses came to my mind.  If the monads hold the truths of the universe… we can either find them as we seek for truth, or turn our reasoning to alternative explanations.  Our experiences in the world help us to discover more truths.  Dividing them into fact or reasoning seems understandable as there are somethings that are just true … I can’t change the fact that our cat Milo is a tuxedo brown tabby.  I can’t reason out that his colour is anything other than what it is.  I can ponder how genetics came into play, and why his markings turned out as they did.

Free Printable

You can find it here find it here.  Probe into Leibniz further.

Benedictus Spinoza

By Leave a Comment

Benedictus (Baruch) Spinoza lived from 1632 to 1677, and was  among the most important  philosophers of the mid-17th century.  His philosophy tends to be hard to pin down but he is generally considered a Rationalist.   He is of Jewish birth who lived in Amsterdam after migrating from Portugal to escape the inquisition.  He was a successful merchant which put him in touch with the modern thinkers of the day.  As his thinking and philosophy gradually diverted from a Jewish way of thinking he was excommunicated and lost his standing as a businessman. 

Benedictus Spinoza

He tended to look at things from the vantage point of substance.  Substance is that which makes a thing a thing regardless of the state that it is in.   His argument is that there can only truly be one substance and that all other things derive from that one substance. 

For him that one Substance was God or nature.   That God or nature provides for EVERYTHING else.  In that it makes it, causes it’s purpose, defines it’s shape and what it is made of.    In these four ways God causes everything to be. 

Benedictus Spinoza

Therefore if something changes it’s mood, or it’s shape, or form… it is directly caused by God or nature.  This means that everything has a mind and body… even rocks and plants and animals.  Some of those things might have a very, very minimum mind but since they were caused to be by God or nature, it was there in some form or another.    His belief structure was very close to Pantheism (where one thinks that God is the world and the world is God).   His philosophy is closer to Panentheism where the world is God but God is somehow more than the world. 

Spinoza though, doesn’t believe that God or nature existed before the world did.  He believes that God or nature is self-explanatory and gives explanation to everything else that exists.   God is the substance that makes everything else real and have meaning.

Benedictus Spinoza

Seeking After Truth?

I can see Spinoza’s Jewish roots coming out in his theories.  Seeing how God is connected to everything.  I wonder at his rejection of God as the Creator, existing before the world began.  I was struck at the thought that mood changes are the result of God/nature’s action.  There’s some truth in that I think eh?   For not a sparrow can fall without the will of The Lord.  Just makes it more personal.  Yet God doesn’t cause us to sin so our swift anger or brief hatred isn’t his will.  I can see how Spinoza would have trouble cause I have trouble too.   Knowing that God sustains all and is in all, and yet having to try to separate out our deliberate human action with out tendency to sin.  Where does God stop?   He doesn’t really, yet we have free will.

I do know that by God’s providence this world is sustained…from the rains that fall, to the birds that fly, and whether my garden does well or not.   Doesn’t mean my plants are God though!  🙂

I do have trouble wrapping my mind around the notion that a rock might have a mental will of it’s own, but then again, I would have had trouble a couple years back wrapping my head around the idea that plants make noise when they are damaged.  Go figure that!

I know I don’t spell out in detail all that he thought, I just give some of the nutshell…but what do you think of Spinoza?   Do you find any truth or see his struggle in making sense of God?

Want to think more?   Check out my free printable.

Seeking After Truth : Blaise Pascal

By Leave a Comment

Blaise Pascal lived from 1623-1662, he grew up the child of a government functionary who was fascinated be the sciences and math.  He was homeschooled.   Pascal grew up fascinated by maths, writing his first paper at age 16. In mathematics, he was an early pioneer in the fields of game theory and probability theory (in fact he invented the first digital calculator called the Pascaline). In philosophy he was an early pioneer in existentialism. He became of a Christian  which lead him to abandon his maths and devote himself to religious writings.  His book Pensees comes out of those writings.  He died in poor health.  You can learn more about his inventions here. 

His goal in the Pensees was to bring the nonbeliever to such despair they would turn in faith to God.   This book was finished post-humously. It was written with ex-Catholics in mind (libertins), those who had left the church due the influences of skeptics.

Pascal believed that one’s imagination was a powerful force, one that shaped our thinking and was very prone to error.  Despite that, he thought that imagination often overrode their sense of reason.  For instance, imagination often causes us to trust people we have no business trusting. Our imagination can lead us to discovering beauty, justice, truth or happiness on occasion, but ultimately what it generally shows us doesn’t really exist, ergo Imagination leads us astray. So what imagination shows us is actually, for the most part, false. 

His goal in all this was to show libertins that the life of pleasure they had chosen was false.  It wasn’t founded on fact.   They have been misled by the power of imagination. 

quote from Blaise Pascal on background of water

Pascal’s Wager

As so we introduced to Pascal’s Wager (learn more here).  We have a choice.  We can bet that God doesn’t exist and risk losing everything we have. OR we can bet that God does exist, and potentially gain everything.  It’s not rational to risk losing everything, ergo belief in God is the most rational choice we can make. 

blaise pascal, seeking after truth series

Seeking After truth?

I think about Pascal and how he believes that our imagination lies to us more often than not.  Think of how often we judge people based on their outward appearance, we imagine things about them…. things like the sloppy dresser doesn’t care about their appearance, that angry face means a bitter heart, that a sharp dresser has it all together or whatever.  We make judgement calls all the time.   BUT we shouldn’t be, should we?

God tells us not to judge a person by their outward appearance but instead to try to see their heart. After all, we are to seek after God’s own heart right?   He looks to the heart, he doesn’t let outside appearances influence his call on their heart, or his ability to love them.  

Are the judgements we make sometimes correct?  For sure.  BUT more oft than not, are they really?  That’s what we are called to consider here isn’t it?  Is what our imagination feeds us accurate?  Do we need to look deeper and really think on it?  To consider the truth (or lack there of) of our judgement call?

Free Printable!

To look into Pascal’s thoughts more, here’s a handy worksheet for you. 

Others in this series:

Thomas Hobbes.
Francis Bacon.
Rene Descartes.