Ambiguity

Ambiguity. What does this imply? I think for many of us this word immediately suggests a lack of clarity or resolution on an issue. I would like to explore this idea and how humans react to it.

I believe that it is hard for people to live with ambiguity. I believe it is a natural desire to want things concrete, clear. We want to know who is right and who is wrong or else we feel cheated. That is why American movies usually present a clear good and bad guy and that ends happily. The bad guy dies (after much mayhem to be sure) and the good guys win. Our aversion to ambiguity comes from a particularly moralist way of viewing the world. We believe that things are clear. People may argue about perspective, sure, but the only reason why they hold on to one perspective, we tell ourselves, is because they are either misinformed, stupid, or downright evil. Our religious thought, our national politics, and our personal relationships are all often marred by the belief that at any one moment one position is completely valid (which we take to be ours) and the other one is dangerously mistaken. This attitude is not specific to conservative or liberal circles, religious or irreligious groups. I believe that the assumption of right and wrong, absolute certainty, and demonization comes from a simple, but powerful emotion: fear. We fear ambiguity and uncertainty. We fear having to face the idea that things are just a lot more complex than we take them to be. We fear that if by giving in to the idea that from another person's perspective they just might be justified, that we give up everything that we have built our lives on. We fear having to face the realization that much of our emotional pain is self-inflicted through our insecurities and not the result of the malice of others. We keep ourselves in bondage, then, by holding too tightly to the chains of right and wrong. I often wonder if we can really say that anybody is truly evil.

Admitting that ambiguity in morality and right and wrong can exist in the world fills us with fear. But I think that this fear is often more the product of pride and self-righteousness than anything else. More often than not we are willing to look at other people who are in an argument and say how irrational they are acting. We tell them, if they would just think for a moment, they would see that both sides should let go of the matter and admit that both sides are a little bit right and a little bit wrong. This changes when we are involved in the argument. We immediately assume the position of victim and if reconciliation does take place it is only the result of us being gracious and forgiving; not admitting that we were a little bit wrong too. The aversion to ambiguity is strongest when it is personal.

Justification Through Faith

I have been reading through the first few chapters of Romans with the motivation of trying to better understand the relationship between faith and works. Although I do not have, perhaps, the greatest hermeneutical skills, I see clearly how Paul is arguing for justification by faith alone. I find Paul's arguments convincing. He argues in Romans 2 that those who were not Jews could be found righteous by God without the works of the law if they believed in Christ. He asks then in Romans 3 whether it thus is any advantage to being a Jew with the law at all? If people do not need special ceremonies or an institution to be saved, why perform the ceremonies or belong to the institution at all? Paul believes there is a purpose to being a Jew, but it seems to not be an advantage that comes from having the correct ceremonies but rather further evidence for the supremacy of faith over human works. Paul argues that the advantage to being a Jew is that "unto them were committed the oracles of God" (3:2). In other words, God sent the prophets unto the Jews and not unto other peoples. He chose the Jews so that they would believe on him. This is important to Paul because it shows that it was God's will that the Jews were chosen and not the will of the Jews. God's 'faith'--his grace and mercy--is stronger than the Jews actions. He proves this seemingly by playing on the Jewish sentiment that even the worst Jew is better than a heathen since the Jew chosen by God must retain some merit despite his unworthiness. Paul asks "For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? (3:3). God's grace is greater than our works even to the point that once we are chosen, our works cannot overrule God's decision.

I find this very interesting from a historical point of view. Paul wrote in a context where the emphasis on the efficacy of the ceremonies and institution were being trumpeted against a more progressive approach where the old institutions of Judaism were being challenged by the newness of the Christian doctrine. Later groups, the Lutheran and Calvinist reformers, would make use of Paul's arguments as they found themselves in a similar situation opposing an institution that emphasized ceremony and exclusion for both dogmatic and political reasons. I accept both extremes--non-institutional salvation and ceremony--as necessary aspects of human nature.

Determinism, Freedom, and Psychology

Lately, I have learned a bit about how psychology seeks to empower people. I have made several realizations about freedom as I have studied this. The beginning philosophical point for many psychologists seems actually to be an idea quite anti-thetical to the notion of freedom: environmental determinism. Along with rationalists like Spinoza, psychologists in the tradition of Freud see human behavior as a result of visceral, natural reactions to stimuli. Our feelings are determined by what seems to be a programmed response to certain situations over which it seems that we have little choice. When I see a bear on a jog in the mountains, I immediately get the sensation of fear and my next action--flight--follows naturally from this sensation. The decision time between this emotion and this action is very little. The same goes for anger and love; I act in a certain way when I encounter specific sets of stimuli. So, in general, psychologists posit that all human behavior in a sense comes from natural laws. We react in a determined way when we are stimulated in such and such a way. So how can we make free decisions or better choices other than just our natural instincts? Psychology suggests that freedom is possible in this model. The first key is recognizing that we do react most of the time automatically to certain situations with little reflection. You can come to this realization by trying to become more conscious of your emotional state through activities such as meditation, breathing exercises, etc. When you are feeling at any time a particularly strong emotion, one should stop and try to pinpoint what the emotion is that you are feeling. Stress? Depression? Anger? More often than not, these are emotions that at any other time we would not choose to feel. By stopping and realizing what we are feeling, we, in a sense, remove ourselves from the situation that gave rise to the emotion and we give ourselves a small window to make a decision. There is a window between stimuli and reaction in which free will exists. While we cannot choose to feel the stimuli and the accompanying emotion per se, we do choose how to react. By getting better at recognizing what emotions we feel, we in essence increase that short moment where all decisions are made. Most people don't make decisions because their actions have become programmed by habit.

The Limits of Art and Truth

I am taking a course on the German playwright and aesthetic theorist Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. Our most recent discussion focused on Lessing's attempt to differentiate between the plastic arts (painting, sculpture, even film) and writing. Lessing argues--against the current of his time--that the two mediums are essentially different as each has a different goal and different manner of working upon the viewer or reader. Lessing proceeds to give his opinion on what these mediums should depict in order for them to conform to their respective ends and restrictions. Because the plastic arts are visual and give us an immediate depiction of reality, it is necessary that they choose the "most pregnant moment" of an event to paint. The 'most pregnant' moment is not the climactic moment, however. It is not the moment when the bullet strikes the body, when the car hits the individual, or worse, when the sexual act is performed. Lessing believes that the plastic medium must conform to the rules of beauty--and those rules tell us that beauty is moderate. Beauty suggests, it does not shock. If we were to see everything, the moment of greatest distress, or gore, or climax, it would arouse extremely powerful feelings in the viewer that would overpower every other sensation or reflection on the action. Beauty should communicate gentle emotions such as pity, admiration, slight sorrow, etc. Everything else is distasteful and sensationalism.

Lessing's logic here is interesting. To him, art, although imitative, does not have as its object, simply the honest depiction of nature. It should not just imitate what occurs in real life. Art can therefore be restricted as to what it can depict. Lessing believes that science is different. In an aside, he states that since science's goal is truth, it cannot be restricted in any way. This attitude reveals an important aspect of Enlightenment thought. Science is set apart as a thing unto itself, apart from any restraints imposed by culture. It underlines the disingenuous of enlighteners. On the one hand they could argue for the need for moderation and pragmatism in politics that allowed them to accommodate a monarchy and limitations on freedoms. On the other hand, their belief in science as an ultimate truth-producing entity reveals their essentially radical nature: whatever 'science'(or more properly, reason) may tell us, must be followed since it is necessarily true.

The Egalitarian Society

We have been brainwashed by our time. Not that that is necessarily a negative thing. But it may help us to gain perspective and refrain from judging people who came before or other cultures today when they do not embody the same ideals as us.

An example of this is western civilization's belief in egalitarianism. Today, we operate under the paradigm that all government positions, job hirings, promotions, spots to study at a college, and judicial decisions should be decided on a merit basis and that every other way of choosing someone over another is ethically wrong. I am not disputing that this could be true, I just want to point out the fact that this is not the only approach that one can take. For most of human civilization, such decisions were based on relationship ties, not merit. Your fitness for a position was not a function of how good you could do a job but your identity, your membership in a group. This society has often been termed the corporate society. It is apparent in tribal societies, pre-modern European society, and is in fact alive today in western society even if we do not recognize it. Today we feel an aversion to a politician who advances a relative and immediately label it as nepotism and unfair. What we may not realize is that this was normal practice. It was expected that decisions should be made in this manner. On another level, society was understood to only be able to function on a class basis. One belongs to a certain class that has certain responsibilities. Society would not function if anybody could do whatever they wanted. Important responsibilities would be neglected since no one wants to do the bottom jobs.

Paradox

"Je edler ein Ding in seiner Vollkommenheit", sagt ein hebräischer Schriftsteller, "desto gräßlicher in seiner Verwesung." Ein verfaultes Holz ist so scheußlich nicht als eine verwesete Blume; diese nicht so ekelhaft als ein verfaultes Tier; und dieses so gräßlich nicht als der Mensch in seiner Verwesung. So auch mit Kultur und Aufklärung. Je edler in ihrer Blüte; desto abscheulicher in ihrer Verwesung und Verderbtheit. Mißbrauch der Aufklärung schwächt das moralische Gefühl, führt zu Hartsinn, Egoismus, Irreligion und Anarchie. Misbrauch der Kultur erzeuget Üppigkeit, Gleisnerei, Weichlichkeit, Aberglauben, und Sklaverei."

(The more refined a thing is in its perfectness, says a Hebraic writer, the more gruesome it is in its decay. Rotting wood is not as disgusting as a withered flower, and a flower not as repulsive as decaying animal. An animal is finally less abhorrent than a rotting human. It is likewise with culture and enlightenment. The more noble it is in its blossom, the more abhorrent it is in its decay and decadence. Abuse of enlightenment weakens the moral sense, leads to obstinance, egotism, irreligion, and anarchy. Abuse of culture fosters luxury, mushiness, superstition, and slavery.)

There are many thoughts I have on this quote. Although it may be wrong to take Mendelssohn's discussion of a topic (enlightenment) that has a particular meaning to his period (critical thinking) I believe it is not too much of a stretch to apply it to myself. Francis Bacon said that "a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." I think that mankind is prone to excess. Once he gets it into his mind that he is capable of seeing contradictions in belief, how some things work, and so forth, he thinks that he can critique everything. He soon realizes (hopefully) that this is not the case and, in fact, such an attitude causes harm. Just as God's ways are not our ways, I think that even what humans think is comprehensible reality may not be so comprehensible and man may never truly be able to dispense with mystery, awe, and ignorance when it comes to existence.

Discussion topic

Anger is merely a strategy to help us avoid sadness. Discuss.

Proofs of God's Existence

I am going to try to start posting again on my blog after an absence of eight months.

For my first entry, I will just share something interesting that I read today. It concerns the different methods employed by people to prove that God exists. Philosophy has divided them into four different categories. There are probably more ways in which God's existence could be asserted, but these seem to be the most prevalent throughout history. They are, 1) the ontological proof, 2) the cosmological proof, 3) the teleological proof, and 4) the divine encounter.

First, let's take the ontological proof. Ontological is a Greek word with a root that connotes 'being'. Ontology thus refers to the study of the nature of existence and being or the study of what can be said to exist. An ontological proof of God's existence is called such because many thinkers (such as Rene Descartes) have argued that God must exist merely from the the fact that the idea of God exists. Something cannot come from nothing and since we have the idea of God, it must come from something that really exists, i.e. God. It is thus a proof for the existence of God based on the existence of the concept.

Second, Let's consider the cosmological argument. Cosmology is the study of the universe and how it works. A cosmological argument for God's existence goes something like this: the universe exists and since everything that exists must have a cause, their must exist a 'first cause' to the universe. This 'first cause' must be the creator of the universe and this is God.

Thirdly, we have the teleological argument. This argument may seem similar to the cosmology argument but there is a slight and important difference. Teleology is another Greek term whose root is 'end' or 'goal'. Teleology connotes the study of the end goal of all things. If I am presented with any object and I ask myself 'what is the purpose of this object?' I am engaging in a teleological consideration of the object. I want to know what the goal of the object is. In regards to how this could be used as a proof of God's existence, when we look at the world, we usually see a system that seems to function with goals in mind. The universe seems to be 'designed' to support life, especially human life. If we look at the universe from a teleological perspective, it seems natural to conclude that if something is designed to do something, that there must be an intelligence behind it. The clockmaker is an analogy that is essentially a teleological argument for God's existence. If we came across a clock on a beach we would naturally assume that there was a clockmaker. The same goes for the universe.

Finally, we have the divine-encounter. This proof is different than all the others. It does not appeal to logic but to experience. The other proofs focus on the outward expression of an idea that is supposedly objective, logical, and natural to all human beings. They strive for a universal proof of God's existence. The divine encounter, on the other hand, simply argues that the subject has experienced divinity and therefore has knowledge of its existence. It may very well desire to share this knowledge with others but its proof is not necessarily contingent on the experience being 'logical' to other individuals. I prefer this proof over all the others because I tend to distrust logical proofs since logic and abstract thought does not necessarily tell me about the world but rather about how my mind functions. Both logic and experience can make powerful impressions on the mind, and indeed, we can have an experience because of logic, but often what is impressed on us so strongly fails to be something that can be expressed in universal terms such as logic.