The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Religion, Steven M. Cahn (Editor)
The major theistic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, acknowledge the
existence of a supreme being. This being, God, is generally thought by these
religious traditions to be responsible for the creation and conservation of the
world. More than that, God is supposed to care about his creatures, to know
their innermost thoughts, joys, and sorrows, and to desire their flourishing. God
is thus thought to be personal, inasmuch as he has a mental life consisting of
beliefs, desires, and intentions. At the same time, however, theists insist that
God is a deity, a status they emphasize by claiming that unlike humans, God is
omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and perfectly good. Many
theists claim, further, that although humans live in space and time, God in some
way transcends these dimensions of human existence. These assertions about
God’s nature have undergone extensive philosophical examination.
One undertaking is to define the concept of a thing. Another is to determine
whether anything exists that fits the concept. A Greek mythologist can specify
precisely what a gorgon is without believing for a moment that there are, or ever
were, any gorgons. Even if we were to converge on a uniform conception of God,
it would still be an open question whether God, as so conceived, exists.
Some philosophers have sought to prove God’s existence by showing that,
unlike the case of the gorgons, God’s existence is entailed directly by the concept
of God. For these philosophers no empirical investigation is necessary or
appropriate: reason unaided by facts about the world can demonstrate the necessity
of God’s existence. Arguments that purport to accomplish this feat are called
ontological arguments. The most famous one was the earliest, formulated by
Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109). Anselm claims that anyone who reflects
adequately on the notion of God as “something than which nothing greater can be conceived” should come to realize that God must exist. Anselm’s argument
has fascinated and outraged philosophers since its inception.
click this to download
Thursday, September 11, 2008
FREE The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Religion, Steven M. Cahn (Editor)
FREE Nietzsche and Morality, Brian Leiter and Neil Sinhababu
Nietzsche and Morality, Brian Leiter and Neil Sinhababu
Nietzsche is often regarded as a paradigmatically anti-theoretical philosopher. Bernard Williams has said that Nietzsche is so far from being a theorist that his text ‘is boobytrapped not only against recovering theory from it, but, in many cases, against any systematic exegesis that assimilates it to theory.’¹ Manywould apply this view especially to Nietzsche’smoral philosophy. They would say that even when he is making positive normative claims, as against just criticizing existing morality, his claims have neither the content nor the organization characteristic of moral theory.
To me this common view is the opposite of illuminating. I take it as uncontroversial
that Nietzsche’s positive moral views fall under the general heading of what today
is called perfectionism. They are centred on a conception of the good, which they
commend actions for instantiating or promoting, but this conception does not equate
the good with anything like pleasure or the satisfaction of desires; instead, it locates the good in objective human excellences that for Nietzsche centre on the concepts of power and strength. Like other moral views, perfectionism can be developed as a systematic theory, and when it is, a series of questions arise about its structure and content. If one reads Nietzsche with these questions in mind, it is striking how often, without formulating them explicitly, he suggests answers to them. And when one combines those answers, the result is a perfectionist theory of a distinctiveNietzschean stripe. Perfectionism has been embraced by, among others, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz, Hegel, Marx, Bradley, Brentano, Rashdall, and Moore. More ........
download here
FREE Where We Stand - A Surprising Look at the Real State of Our Planet, Seymour Garte, Ph.D.
Where We Stand - A Surprising Look at the Real State of Our Planet, Seymour Garte, Ph.D.
One of the triggers that prompted me to write this book was my attendance at a small symposium in New York on technology and democracy. The panel members were, by and large, liberal academic social scientists who talked about the loss of empowerment of ordinary people in making decisions regarding their own futures vis-a` -vis technological developments. One of the speakers concluded his remarks by saying that it is always a mistake to think that problems caused by technology, such as pollution, loss of biodiversity, or damage to the ecosystem, could ever be ‘‘fixed’’ by technological solutions. Only widespread and complete social overhaul (not defined in any further detail) could accomplish this. The speaker then went on to say that in fact ‘‘there have never been any successful attempts at reversing the declining
trend in environmental quality and public health, and therefore technology
simply cannot be trusted.’’
Not that these books are wrong. All these problems are real. But is that all there is? Hasn’t anything good happened? Where do we really stand in terms of our quality of life, both in an absolute sense and in relation to our recent past? If things have actually been getting so much worse for so long, why aren’t we all dead already? According to many environmentalists of the 1960s and 1970s, by now we should all be either dead or living in a horrible world without light, air, or natural resources. In school and college curricula, courses on ecology and environmental science are often little more than catalogs of natural catastrophes.
click this to download
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Hagakure : book of the samurai
CHAPTER 1
Although it stands to reason that a samurai should be mindful of the Way of the Samurai, it would seem that we are all negligent. Consequently, if someone were to ask, "What is the true meaning of the Way of the Samurai?" the person who would be able to answer promptly is rare. This is because it has not been established in one's mind beforehand. From this, one's unmindfulness of the Way can be known.
Negligence is an extreme thing.The Way of the Samurai is found in death. When it comes to either/or, there is only the quick choice of death. It is not particularly difficult. Be determined and advance. To say that dying without reaching one's aim is to die a dog's death is the frivolous way of sophisticates. When pressed with the choice of life or death, it is not necessary to gain one's aim.
We all want to live. And in large part we make our logic according to what we like. But not having attained our aim and continuing to live is cowardice. This is a thin dangerous line. To die without gaming one's aim is a dog's death and fanaticism. But there is no shame in this. This is the substance of the Way of the Samurai. If by setting one's heart right every morning and evening, one is able to live as though his body were already dead, he pains freedom in the Way. His whole life will be without blame, and he will succeed in his calling.
A man is a good retainer to the extent that he earnestly places importance in his master. This is the highest sort of retainer. If one is born into a prominent family that goes back for generations, it is sufficient to deeply consider the
matter of obligation to one's ancestors, to lay down one's body and mind, and to earnestly esteem one's master. It is further good fortune if, more than this, one has wisdom and talent and can use them appropriately. But even a person
who is good for nothing and exceedingly clumsy will be a reliable retainer if only he has the determination to think earnestly of his master. Having only wisdom and talent is the lowest tier of usefulness.
According to their nature, there are both people who have quick intelligence, and those who must withdraw and take time to think things over. Looking into this thoroughly, if one thinks selflessly and adheres to the four vows of the Nabeshima samurai, surprising wisdom will occur regardless of the high or low points of one's nature.'People think that they can clear up profound matters if they consider them deeply, but they exercise perverse thoughts and come to no good because they do their reflecting with only self-interest at the center.It is difficult for a fool's habits to change to selflessness. In confronting a matter, however, if at first you leave it alone, fix the four vows in your heart, exclude self-interest, and make an effort, you will not go far from your mark.
Because we do most things relying only on our own sagacity we become lf-interested, turn our backs on reason, and things do not turn out well. As seen by other people this is sordid, weak, narrow and inefficient. When one is not capable of true intelligence, it is good to consult with someone of good sense. An advisor will fulfill the Way when he makes a decision by selfless and frank intelligence because he is not personally involved. This way of doing things will certainly be seen by others as being strongly rooted. It is, for example, like a large tree with many roots. One man's intelligence is like a tree that has been simply stuck in the ground.
We learn about the sayings and deeds of the men of old in order to entrust ourselves to their wisdom and prevent selfishness. When we throw off our own bias, follow the sayings of the ancients, and confer with other people, matters should go well and without mishap. Lord Katsushige borrowed from the wisdom of Lord Naoshige. This is mentioned in the Ohanashikikigaki. We should be grateful for his concern.Moreover, there was a certain man who engaged a number of his younger brothers as retainers, and whenever he visited Edo or the Kamigata area, he would have them accompany him. As he consulted with them everyday on both private and public matters, it is said that he was without mishap.
Sagara Kyuma was completely at one with his master and served him as though his own body were already dead. He was one man in a thousand.Once there was an important meeting at Master Sakyo's Mizugae Villa, and it was commanded that Kyuma was to
commit seppuku. At that time in Osaki there was a teahouse on the third floor of the suburban residence of Master Taku Nut. Kyuma rented this, and gathering together all the good-for-nothings in Saga he put on a puppet show, operating one of the puppets himself, carousing and drinking all day and night. Thus, overlooking Master Sakyo's villa, he carried on and caused a great disturbance. In instigating this disaster he gallantly thought only of his master and was resolved to committing suicide.
to be continued
