From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Apr 29 2005 - 06:49:29 BST
Matt:
You ask a question which touches on my philosophy, but in your inimitable
style you attempt to answer it with a history lesson. So I'm going to try
to answer it in metaphysical terms of my own choosing.
> What I want to know is what "freedom is given to us
> by reason" means. Personally, and I know Sam agrees with me, and not for
> any specific religious reasons mind you, I think saying that "freedom" is
> given to us by "reason" as opposed to "Christian theology," which is just
a
> substitute for God, plays into people like Platt's hands. The reason is
> that the Enlightenment reaction to religious fanaticism was something like
> "Reason fanaticism." ...
At least two MoQers have responded to my "reality check" by expressing their
belief in a semiotic reality. I don't particularly like that term.
Semiosis smells of nihilism to me, and I believe the attempt to define
reality as a "semiotic process" is a copout. But if anything is semiotic,
it's reason. I'll agree that the Enlightenment disparaged man's faith and
pointed him toward reason with the assurance that it would ultimately
resolve his quest for Truth. Of course, no scientist believes that, but our
secular culture has bought into logical positivism with a vengeance -- some
of it displayed in this forum.
I maintain that logic (the science) and reason (the method) are specific to
finite human beings. This may be why Aristotle defined reason as "the
essence of man"; it's the universal language for conceptual thought and
expression. But arguments from reason can only give us answers that are
universally acceptable, not ultimate truth. Which is why I call it semiotic.
Now it is one thing to say that the design of the universe is "reasonable",
but quite another to claim that it came into being by the power of reason.
It is reasonable to assume that it has a purpose, and that its purpose is
meaningful to the "rational creature" who inhabits it. Is it reasonable
that man cannot know that purpose? Yes -- if one considers what would
happen to his freedom if he could.
I have a lengthy dissertation on Freedom at the end of my thesis, for anyone
interested. I'll simply sum it up here to answer your opening question --
and you'll be pleased that I can do it without Christian theology. If
you'll accept "purpose" in place of "reason", you may also accept the idea
that man is here to affirm and appreciate the values of his existence. You
may even concede the plausibility (for a "believer") of a reciprocal
relationship between the Designer and the value-sensing creature. If man
were created with the capacity to possess absolute knowledge, the value of
existential experience would be pointless to him. Like Pirsig's analogy of
the non-sailors who have no pragmatic need to see the "green flash of the
sun" and so don't, the all-wise man would be oblivious to all value.
Thus, for those (like yourself) who acknowledge man's autonomy as a free
creature, it's "reasonable" to assume that this discriminating creature
exists to exercise free choice in the incremental evaluation of his
life-experience, and that his choice of values has a teleological meaning.
Is it "reason" that creates man and provides him with this cornucopia of
values? No. Is the ontology "reasonable"? (You be the judge.)
At least, that's my answer.
Now go back to your battle with "religious fanaticism".
Peace,
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 29 2005 - 07:48:14 BST