Speaking absolutely and going to extremes. We must always think of the middle ground when we speak, trying to avoid extremes. For one, there are always three sides of a story. Your side, the other person's side, and the true side. Whether one is equal to the other, no one knows. Also, one should not forget that prima face carries circumstances that cannot be immediately inspected. Either these will mitigate, or aggravate. Hence, we must not pass absolute judgment, that is, without considering that there is the middle ground to contend with.
For example, when asked about the primacy of matter or form, it is always easy to say "matter is more important", or "form is more important". But, two thousand years of history prove that the debate lingers on. When one focuses on one extreme, the other extreme rebels in a form of Hegelian dialectic. Hence, an overstated thesis produces an antithesis, and the resulting chaos, hopefully, produces the synthesis. However, the chaos may take thousands of years to resolve.
When I was in grade 5, we were told to side with either democracy or socialism. This is a social studies class. Once in front - I forgot which side I was - but there, I gave the positive side and negative points of each. I was 10 or 11 that time. There was silence after that. The kindly Mr. Montero chided me in jest, saying, "We should take a side. This is a debate." Everyone laughed at me. Before I sat down, I answered, "Why should there be a debate?" I still feel the same way. Perhaps, it was caused by being the laughing stock that day. At 10 or 11 years old.
Using univocation and equivocation interchangeably, or in the same respect. Univocal predication happens when you speak in one sense, and mean the same for all terms using the term. But, sometimes, we cannot mean the same for all terms. When we say Simba is a lion, and Sir B. is a lion, we don't mean the same lion in the same respect. The first term refers to the animal, while the next term refers to being either courageous or ruthless. Clearly, the use in the second term is a literary device and should not be taken univocally. Both are called lion by equivocation. Speaking equivocally is not per se wrong. Only, when you use it too much, and more so, if it gets used in reasoning, then what is the province of literature becomes intermingled with logic. Plato once wrote that if we clear our terms, there will be no debates. "The night is dark. Darkness is the absence of light. But, light is the opposite of heavy. Therefore, the night has something that is opposite of heavy." Of course, the reason for indicating univocation here is because of the ontological arguments on the univocation, equivocation, and (following St. Thomas) analogy of being. As a summary, the problem of univocal and equivocal predication deals with clarity of terms, and mostly redound to logic.
Considering who is speaking rather than what is spoken. When we become personal and attached to personas, rather than ideas, we dismiss the truth and beauty of other ideologies. For example, Marx is always associated with Communism and atheism. When one reads of Marx, he is already dismissed as enemy of religion. As a consequence, we forget that the early apostles "share everything in common", and are in fact, the first communists. Also, we don't get to learn the ideas of Marx in economics. There was a time when the Church followed Plato instead of Aristotle, mainly because of Augustine. When the Islamic philosophers discovered Aristotle, and translated his writings to Arabic, they wreaked havoc against the philosophy of Plato. Gradually, Europe went Aristotle's way, and then, the Church gradually realized, through Aquinas, that we should not burn Aristotle's books, but find out what truth can be found therein. Now, I dare say the same with Da Vinci's Code, Sartre, Hume, Russell, etc. Because, in the end, as Aquinas said, we should regard the truth spoken, not the person who is speaking. It is a shift from personality to ideas.
Relying on names to prove/disprove something. As a corrolary to the above, we should not reason from "names" or labels. Durant regards the Middle Ages philosophers from the Church as mere Scholastics. Later, that term became associated with pedantic, meaningless blabber. But, the problem is there is not a single thought within "Scholasticism". Occam, Albertus Magnus, Scotus, Aquinas, Augustine, etc were all given the labels "Scholastic", but they are not in agreement even on the critical question of "How do we know?" In the same way, when one speaks of being against orthodoxy, he is labelled as an existentialist. When one questions about the certainty of man's cherished beliefs, then he is labeled as a skeptic. When one speaks of not being sure about the proofs of God's existence, he is dubbed as an atheist. Somehow, I think that this is due to the laziness of man's mind. They do not want to ratiocinate - reason step by step - hence, in order to summarize a view, he labels somebody as one, hoping that it is sufficient and helpful. Do not rely on labels. When one reasons through labels, there is error in generalization, and we regard personalities and not ideas. Do not regard the labels. As Carl Jung said, every individual is an exception to the rule.
*Relying merely on definitions. Definitions are abstractions from reality. In Aristotelian lingo, it is the differentiation of one existent from other members of the same genera. When we defined man to be "rational animal", we are saying that "Man is an animal" or that "man" belongs to the genus of "animal". Further, we are saying that compared to animals, man differs in that it is "rational". Now, what I am saying here is that we should not rely too much on definitions in trying to prove something. For example, if we define "unicorn" as a "horse with one horn", we cannot reason from that definition, saying for instance that "since unicorn is a kind of a horse, then it runs faster than a human", since horses generally run faster than humans. Definition does not imply existence. The ontological proof of St. Anselm, and its "improvement" care of Descartes are examples of reasoning through definitions. It may sound subtle, but it is devoid of substance.
*Not defining properly used terms. Kant and the German philosophers were understandably, but unforgivably, fond of using terms that have not been properly defined. In logic, we say that reasoning by ambiguation is a fallacy. Argumentum ad absurdum? 
*Relying on divine promulgations to prove what we assert as logical propositions. I think that this is clearly the most fallacious of all logical fallacies. Kant started out greatly in his Critique. Only, when it comes to the heat of the philosophical battle, he had to save his Puritan tradition, and squeezed the idea of God. It is akin to the proposition (which, I admit is literary in nature) that "if God were non-existent, it will be necessary to invent him".
We should not reason immediately from the point of view of the infinite because there is no clarity of its existence. What more, its essence? What more if such propositions end in the admittance that in God, existence is equal to essence. In this kind of reasoning, we end up in circles. Will Durant said that this results in subtlety, not wisdom. Here is the departure point with St. Thomas. St. Thomas started with his Summa proving already the existence of God in the second question. That, I think is too soon. Now, it may be fit during such a time. But now, it is rarely the case. If, at second question, you tackle the existence of God, it will not be enough to convince of the reasons therein. Of course, it is understood that Summa is a summary.
Argumentum ad Deus (forgive the Latin, I can't find my Latin guide), I call it. It is arguing from God. Euthanasia is evil. Why? Because God dislikes it. It is simplistically foolish, but let us not reason immediately from that point of view. If there is a need to reason later, let us first reason from matters of fact. Which, will make our arguments stronger.
The problem will ultrarealism is that it reasons using the infinity of mathematics. Whence, God = infinity. Descartes reasons first from the existence of one, then posits infinity, then reasons the existence of 2, 3 and so on. Like mathematical induction, he reduced all of philosophy to abstract terms. The first step was alright. When he immediately posited God in that there is clearly the existent God, else there is a malevolent being playing around with our mind etc.... then, everything is reduced to rubble. For mathematics, it is probably acceptable. In reality, it is not.
*Speaking in finality. Research always keeps an open mind because further studies on the same subject may prove previous ones to be wrong. Saves you a lot of embarrassment.
*Not starting from experience. If reasoning will start from a priori principles, they won't be conclusive, even though it is backed by an eight-hundred-page explanation. Again, the process matters primarily. If the starting point be gunned down, every deduction from that starting point falls as well. We must start, and derive our knowledge from, experience. It is the only way to go.
*Not considering what the other is saying. As a corollary to the point raised above on not considering the person but the ideas, in our quest for truth, it is important to consider all points of view. We cannot dismiss the reasons and ideas of Muslims, or Jews, or atheists, for the reason that they are wrong. In our quest for truth, as in mathematics, we will realize that there may be many paths to the one truth. And if they lead us to different truths, either those truths are merely part of a bigger truth, or they are not truths at all.
*Proceeding in reasoning as if nothing was accomplished prior to our existence. From above, it is thus only rightful that we proceed in our quest for truth, by considering all the accomplishments of previous generations. Although it is good to develop the paths to the truth on your own, it is best to "stand on the shoulders of giants", to consider things according to what the past thinkers thought of them, only, this time, we will be applying the advancement of science and technology, and modern thought.
*Refusing to consider the evidence of scientific research
*Obstinately refusing to assent to believing a testimony from a reliable source, considering the content of what is being proposed, and the person of the testimony-giver who can not be doubted on things pertaining to his/her own expertise.
*Looking down to previous learning and not improving on historical thought.
*Focusing only on the errors of past thinkers.
Original article above was first written on 1/11/2008
No comments:
Post a Comment