thoughtful musings... & random statements

Frege's Puzzle and Naive Theory

2009-01-28T19:42:00.003-06:00

Nathan Salmon in Frege's Puzzle on the distinction between intension and extension:

"The intension of a singular term, sentence, or predicate is a function that assigns to any possible world w the extension the singular term, sentence, or predicates takes on with respect to w. The extension of a singular term (with respect to a possible world w) is simply its referent (with respect to w), i.e., the object or individual to which the term refers (with respect to w). The extension of a sentence (with resp3ect to w) is its truth value (with respect to w)--either truth or falsehood. The extension of an n-place predicate (with respect to w) is the predicate's semantic characteristic function (with respect to w), i.e., the function that assigns either truth or falsehood to an n-tuple of individuals, according as the predicate or its negation applies (with respect to w) to the n-tuple. Assuming bivalence, the extension of an n-place predicate may be identified instead with the class or n-tuples to which the predicate applies." p.14

Frege's Puzzle--Introduction

2009-01-26T22:25:00.002-06:00

Some definitions:

Purely general proposition: a composite purely intensional entity made up solely of further intensional entities such as attributes and concepts, employing purely conceptual representations of the individuals whom the proposition is about in place of the individuals and times themselves. (Fregean view of content)

Bach's Dilemma

2008-10-22T22:34:00.002-05:00

(1) If a referring expression functions referringly in some contexts and not in others and that fact is semantically significant, then the expression's semantic contribution to the sentence in which it occurs would have to depend on its sentential context.

(2) But this suggests that its very meaning, which presumably determines its semantic contribution, depends on its sentential context.

(3) The only way to concede that, and this is one horn of the dilemma, would be to abandon the Principle of Compositionality.

(4) The other horn of the dilemma is to accept the dubious implication that referring expressions are systematically ambiguous.

Since the only way to keep (1) is to reject (3) or (4) it seems that we must then reject (1). Bach's claim is that expressions don't refer, rather speaker's refer. So, if it is expressions themselves that refer and they need a context in which to refer from, then it seems that (3) or (4) is true.

On Sense and Reference -- Frege

2008-07-16T19:20:00.002-05:00

I have here understood any designation representing a proper name, which thus has as its reference a definite object (this word taken in the widest range), but not a concept or a relation, which shall be discussed further in another article. The designation of a single object can also consist of several words or other signs. For brevity, let every such designation be called a proper name.

The sense of a proper name is grasped by everybody who is sufficiently familiar with the language or totality of designations to which it belongs; but this serves to illuminate only a single aspect of the reference, supposing it to have one. Comprehensive knowledge of the reference would require us to be able to say immediately whether any given sense belongs to it. To such knowledge we never attain.
(Sense & Reference, p. 57-8)

The reference and sense of a sign are to be distinguished from the associated idea. If the reference of a sign is an object perceivable by the sense, my idea of it is an internal image, arising from memories of sense impression s which I have had and acts, both internal and external, which I have performed. Such an idea is often saturated with feeling; the clarity of its separate parts varies and oscillates. The same sense is not always connected, even in the same man, with the same idea. The idea is subjective: one man’s idea is not that of another. There result, as a matter of course, a variety of differences in the ideas associated with the same sense. A painter, a horseman, and a zoologist will probably connect different ideas with the name ‘Bucephalus.’ This constitutes and essential distinction between the idea and the sign’s sense, which may be the common property of many and therefore is not a part or a mode of the individual mind. For one can hardly deny that mankind has a common store of thoughts which is transmitted from one generation to another. (Sense & Reference p.59)

'God' - necessary, a posteriori

2008-07-11T15:37:00.002-05:00

I believe that 'God' refers to the divine substance. Furthermore, the divine substance = The Triune God. However, the divine substance = the Triune God is a necessary statement. Yet, OT followers of God were not aware of this meaning of God, therefore the divine substance = the Triune God is an a posteriori statement.

Muslims, God, & the law of non-contradiction

2008-07-11T15:16:00.002-05:00

So to review some of the previous discussion, I will explain how 'God' can refer to the divine substance that is the Triune Godhead.

Assuming that we hold to the following three statements:

(1) The Father is God.
(2) Jesus is God.
(3) The Holy Spirit is God.

I'm arguing that 'God' is not a proper name, because it doesn't semantically function like a proper name. An objection was presented to my view that sometimes 'God' is used to refer to the Father in the Bible and that was a problem for my view. In (1)-(3) 'God' occurs in the predicate position, however God cannot be identical to any one person of the Trinity for the following reason, there are properties that God has that any one member of the Trinity lacks. For instance, Jesus died on the cross, however the Father didn't die on the cross. Therefore, God died on the cross, but if we claim that God = the Father, then we commit the heresy of patripassionism (that the Father was crucified).

Here is an analogy to help better explain my view that 'God' refers to the divine substance.

(4) The Atlantic Ocean is water.
(5) The Pacific Ocean is water.
(6) The Indian Ocean is water.
(7) The Artic Ocean is water.

So we can speak about and refer to the Pacific Ocean as water, because it is water, however, the Pacific Ocean isn't identical to water, because the Pacific Ocean isn't identical to the Atlantic Ocean. So just as we can speak of God as Jesus or God as the Father, 'God' is not the name of Jesus or the name of the Father, though it can be used to refer to the Father or to the Son, but this is pragmatic reference and not an issue of semantics (or it may even be what is said).

Muslims affirm that there is one God, Allah. I take this to be a rejection of the Trinity, or to state this in a positive manner, this is an affirmation of a belief in a non-Triune God. Now, if 'God' refers to the divine substance and this divine substance means the Triune God, then clearly Muslims wouldn't refer to the same God that Christians refer to. In other words, 'God' must mean something different for Muslims than it does for Christians. We don't want to attribute any contradictory beliefs to Muslims, especially since they claim that they worship a non-Triune God, then it seems uncharitable to claim that they do worship a Triune God.

However, there is a problem for the Christian theist who claims that Muslims and Christians worship different Gods, since Muslims claim to worship the God of the OT. Yet, Muslims ignore what the NT teaches us about God and which is that God is a Triune God. So by explicitly rejecting a Triune God Muslims have broken the causal chain of reference. Since Israel, didn't explicitly reject a Triune God, then when they uttered the word 'God' they referred to God, although without knowing that God was a Triune God.

Water = H20

2008-07-05T17:42:00.002-05:00

If water is identical with H20, then necessarily, water is identical with H20. Analogously, if Christianity is true, then God is identical with the Triune God. Therefore, Necessarily, God is identical with the Triune God. So, although 'God' is a natural kind, 'God' means the Triune God. In other words, the only God that exists, is the Triune God, all other Gods are fictional objects, since there is only one divine substance and no other individual Gods other than the Triune God.

'God' as a Natural Kind

2008-07-01T22:28:00.002-05:00

Most people assume that 'God' is a proper name. If this is the case then we ought to apply the semantics to 'God' that apply to other proper names. However, it if isn't a proper name, and instead 'God' is a general term, then the semantics that apply to general terms apply to 'God'. Perhaps the first question we should ask is whether 'God' functions as a proper name. So let's use an example of a proper name:

(1) Bruce Wayne is Batman.
(2) The Dark Knight is Batman.
(3) The Detective is Batman.

The reason why I claim that the 'is' in (1)-(3) is the 'is' of identity is because the predicate term functions as a name. We can apply transivity of identity to (1)-(3) as follows:

(4) Bruce Wayne = The Dark Knight
(5) The Dark Knight = The Detective

Since, (1)-(3) showed that all the names in (4) and (5) were identical to 'Batman' we can assume that 'Batman' is a proper name. So if 'God' is a proper name, then it should function in a similar manner as the examples in (4)and (5)

(6) Jesus is God.
(7) The Father is God.
(8) The Holy Spirit is God.

However, orthodox Christians would reject the following assertions:

(9) Jesus = The Father
(10) The Father - The Holy Spirit

Yet, (6)-(8) shows that the terms in (9) and (10) are identical to God. It seems that the best explanation for the 'is' in (6)-(8) is that all the subject terms are consubstantial with God, that is, the subject terms all share the same substance. So it seems the best way to understand 'God' that 'God' functions as a general term. This is due to the fact that God is a substance. So when we use the word 'God' we refer to a divine substance.

Scooby-Doo, General Terms, & God

2008-07-01T01:05:00.003-05:00

According to Nathan Salmon, natural kinds refer to a species or a genus. Natural kinds don't refer to classes because there must be at least one member in a class in a world, w, in order for that class to exist. However, it seems that even in a world that dogs don't exist, 'dog' still refers to the species canine. With this in mind I present the following puzzle:

(1) Scooby-Doo is a dog.
(2) Dog refers to the species canine.
(3) If Daphne kisses Scooby-Doo, then she kisses a canine.
(4) Scooby-Doo isn't a dog, rather Scooby-Doo is a cartoon drawing of a dog, i.e. Scooby-Doo is a fictional object.
(5) The word 'dog' in (1) is ambiguous.

Let's take the following example:

(6) The Greeks worshiped Zeus.
(7) Zeus is a god.
(8) Gods are a species of divine beings.
(9) Therefore, the Greeks worshiped a species of divine beings.

However, (9) is false, once again Zeus is a fictional object, so the intentionality of the Greeks was directed at a fictional object.

Furthermore, if Christianity is true, then God is a divine substance, consisting of three persons (who are all consubstantial). So if this is the case, then 'God' refers to a divine substance. So let's assume that any occurrence of God that doesn't refer to the divine substance refers to a fictional object.

Summer Blogging

2008-05-20T14:47:00.002-05:00

I have been reminded about my recent dearth of posts. Hopefully, I can resume my blogging activities since I will be able to resume my philosophical reading.

My Master Argument???

2008-04-09T23:16:00.002-05:00

(1) God is a mass term.
(2) Salvation for Christians entails belief in Jesus as Lord. Salvation for Muslims entails belief in the non-triune God (a pure qualitative definite description).
(3) YHWH = The Triune God
(4) The belief in Jesus as Lord entails that one believes that 'God' is a mass-term in this context.
(5) The Muslim use of 'God' occurs in a count noun occurrence.
(6) The Triune God isn't identical to The Non-Triune God.
(7) Therefore, Christians don't believe in the same God as Muslims.

A Partially Descriptive Theory

2007-12-21T12:46:00.000-06:00

A partially descriptive name n is semantically associated with both a descriptive property PD and a referent o. The referent o is determined in part by having the property PD and in part by the same nondescriptive mechanisms that determine the reference of ordinary nondescriptive names – for example, by a historical chain of transmission leading back to o. The semantic content of n includes both o and D. The proposition expressed by a sentence n is F is the same as that expressed by the sentence [the x: Dx & x = y] Fx, relative to an assignment of o to ‘y’. This proposition is true at a world w iff o has the properties expressed by D and F at w. To believe this proposition is to believe of o that it has both properties.

-- Scott Soames, Beyond Rigidity (p.88)

Soames' Competence Conditions for Proper Names

2007-12-20T18:38:00.000-06:00

In order to be a competent user of a name n of an object o, two things are required. (i) One must have acquired a referential intention that determines o as the referent of n. Two ways in which this may be done are by picking up n from others who used it as a name of o, and intending use n to refer to the same thing they did, or by being independently acquainted with o and introducing n as a name for o. (ii)One must realize that to assertively utter n is F is to say of the referent, o, of n that it "is F."

--Scott Soames, Beyond Rigidity (p. 65)

Somes on Anti-descriptivist Arguments

2007-12-12T22:49:00.000-06:00

(1) Semantic Arguments -- "[These] show the referent of a proper name n, as used by speaker s, is not linguistically determined to be the denotation of any description, or set of descriptions associated with n by s."

(2) Epistemic Arguments -- "[These] show that what is known or believed by someone who knows or believes that which is expressed by a sentence s containing a proper name n is different from what is known or believed by someone who knows or believes that which is expressed by a sentence which results from substituting a description for n in s."

(3) Modal Arguments -- "These are intended to show that sentences containing names typically have different truth conditions than corresponding sentences containing descriptions, in the sense that sentences of these two types are typically true in different possible states of affairs."

--Scott Soames, Beyond Rigidity (p.19)

Natural Kinds and Proper Names

2007-12-04T00:14:00.001-06:00

I've been thinking a lot lately about how the term 'God' is used in the Bible and in natural language. Take the following occurrences of 'God' in the Bible:

(1) And God saw that it was good.

Clearly (1) 'God' is used to refer to a specific being. It seems as if the occurrence of 'God' in (1) could not be a natural kind but functions similar to the following:

(2) Tiger hunts by using stealth.

What if we changed (2) to the following and made it into a definite description:

(2') The tiger hunts by using stealth.

Now let's (1) into a definite description.

(1') And The God saw that it was good.

Something seems strange about (1') almost as if we are using it to pick out a particular unique being. However, the term 'God' seems to function similarly to 'tiger' in both examples.

Let's see if we can find an occurrence of 'God' as a natural kind.

(3) Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods?

Here specifically (3) is addressing YHWH and it seems to pick out YHWH as one among many gods. However, the speaker is claiming that YHWH is unique among the other gods. Yet, 'gods' is functioning as a natural kind. Similar to the following locution. Let's say that we're talking to Shere Khan and expressing to him is incomparable worth to other tigers.

(4) Who is like you, O Shere Khan, among the tigers?

So clearly 'god' can be used as a natural kind such as 'tiger'. Perhaps the difference between 'God' and other natural kinds is that we often use 'God' as a subject term the same way that we would use a proper name.

My initial intuitions about this are that 'God' is semantically a natural kind term, however, we do use it pragmatically as a proper name or a disguised definite description.

'God', A Prioricity, and Definite Descriptions

2007-12-01T15:43:00.000-06:00

The claim that is generally agreed upon is that a = a, is a priori. However, that then means that a = b should also be a priori. So let's examine the following identity claims:

(1) God = The Triune God.

(2) Yahweh = The Triune God.

(3) Yahweh = God.

Of the three claims above, it seems that (3) is probably a priori, perhaps (2), but definitely not (1). Is this because the term 'God' is a description or predicate? Not to reject any of the above identity claims, rather to examine whether a competent language user would know the truth-value of the identity statements a priori.

Davidson on Demonstratives; Stern on Metaphor

2007-06-15T15:07:00.000-05:00

One of Josef Stern's main arguments is as follows:

(1) If metaphors cannot be semantic then there are two other options (i) Davidson's view of metaphor, and (ii) pragmatic view of metaphor
(2) The pragmatic view of metaphor does not work,
(3) Hence, Davidson's view of metaphor is the only viable option.
(4) Davidson's theory of demonstratives are context-dependent semantics.
(5) If Davidson has context-dependent semantics for demonstratives, then if metaphor is sufficiently similar to Davidsonian Demonstratives, then metaphor is a semantic feature of language.
(6) Metaphors are sufficiently similar to Davidsonian Demonstratives.

So what is a context-dependent semantic rule? Indexicals and demonstratives are the most commonly used examples. Take the following utterance by Bill Clinton on June 15, 2007:

(7) I am the President of the United States.

Presumably (7) is false. Suppose George W. Bush were to utter the following on June 15, 2007:

(8) I am the President of the United States.

This is a true utterance. Both (7) and (8) have the exact same linguistic and syntactic structure, the only difference is who utters them. Indexicals such as 'I' always refer to the speaker, in that sense indexicals are context-dependent. Similarly to demonstratives such as 'that'.

(9) That is a baseball field.

Depending upon whether 'that' is actually a baseball field will determine the truth-value for (9).

According to Stern the same is true for metaphor. There are semantic rules that constrain the meaning of metaphor. Stern's claim is that metaphor follow some of the semantics of anaphora, that is, metaphor does not depend solely upon speaker meaning.

Ch. 2 sec. 4 Metaphorical/Literal Dependence II: Davidson on Referential Definite Descriptions, Malapropisms, and Metaphor

2007-06-11T20:14:00.000-05:00

Metaphor, for Davidson, is like referential definite descriptions. For referential definite descriptions Davidson believes that we can use something, i.e. a sentence, that is literally false to say something true. Keith Donnellan's example is that of reference to a man at a cocktail party. Bert is talking to Ernie about the man in the corner drinking a martini. However, contrary to what Bert utters, the man in the corner is actually drinking water. So the definite description, 'the man in the corner drinking a martini' is actually false, because it is the man in the corner drinking water. Bert does not know all the facts about the man, however, according to Davidson, he does say something true with the false utterance of the definite description. We use sentences for metaphor that are false.

Malapropisms are different from metaphor in that their first literal meaning undergoes a change and then means something different. Yogi Berra once thanked the crowd at Yankee Stadium on Yogi Berra Day "for making this day necessary", when what Berra really meant was possible.

Ch. 2 sec. 3 Metaphorical/Literal Dependence: Davidson's Causal Explanation

2007-06-09T16:05:00.000-05:00

Davidson views metaphor as similar to jokes and pictures. Take a joke, if we break down the individual words in a joke, the lexical meanings of the words themselves are not funny, yet the joke as a whole is funny. Metaphors make us see likenesses; the individual words, the constituents of the metaphor don't cause us to see likenesses but the metaphor as a whole does. That is, a metaphor is the totality of the utterance. However metaphors depend upon the ordinary (i.e. lexical) meanings of the words. That is, the utterance of a metaphor is created by the words used to compose the utterance. This creates a problem for Davidson, if the individual words make a metaphor, but the individual words themselves aren't metaphor, then how can metaphor depend upon the words. It seems as if Davidson is committing the fallacy of division. He admits that words have no metaphorical meaning, yet metaphor depends upon the meaning of words.

For Davidson the literal meaning of a sentence is its truth-conditions. Take the following sentence:

(1) Juliet is the sun.

The words keep their literal meaning but the sentence cannot pace Davidson because we don't know what it would mean for the truth of (1) to obtain. In other words, what would it mean for (1) to be literally true. Perhaps it is a category mistake to claim that a person is the sun, or it may be choice negation that (1) is false. We don't know what the world would have to be like in order for (1) to obtain. Davidson may just claim that the sentence is meaningful but false. For Christians this seems to present a problem take the following sentence:

(2) Jesus is the Lamb of God.

This appears to be a biblical metaphor that we would want to claim is true. Perhaps this is reason enough for the Christian to reject the Davidsonian view of metaphor. So for Davidson (2) is literally meaningful and merely false.

Since Davidson claims that it isn't the literal meaning of the sentence that gives rise to metaphor but only the words then changing the word order in a metaphor should not affect the metaphor. For instance:

(3) Man is wolf.

(4) Wolf is man.

According to Davidson (3) and (4) are the same metaphor because they both have the same words. So Davidson rejects that syntactic rules and the structure of the sentence contributes anything to metaphor.

Josef Stern claims that if we take Davidson's claim "the metaphorical depends upon the literal" to mean that the metaphorical use of a sentence depends on its literal meaning, then: (i) the literal meanings of the individual words so used to carry part of the explanatory burden; (ii) the literal truth-conditions of the sentence uttered play no explanatory role; but (iii) certain syntactic or logical-formal properties of the sentence do contribute to or constrain the metaphorical use.

Ch 2 sec. 2 If Literal Meaning, Why Not Metaphorical Meaning?

2007-06-08T23:49:00.000-05:00

For Davidson a theory of language is a theory of use with its purpose being to facilitate communication. Communication occurs when a speaker S's utterances are correctly understood by the interpreter I. So if I understands what S intends to say, then communication, i.e. understanding of a language has taken place. Davidson rejects the concept of language, if language is what philosophers and linguists have claimed that language is. For Davidson, language is shared understanding of utterances. So S and I both bring their own a priori understanding and in the process of communication are able to share their presuppositions with each other. This is what language is for Davidson.

It seems problematic for Davidson to have a concept of language having a literal meaning, since he rejects the notion of semantics as traditionally construed. The traditional concept of semantics is the notion that there are some rules and lexical meanings of words that are finite or fixed. That is, there are some parameters set based upon semantic rules that do not allow for there to be an infinite amount of meanings for a given utterance. Instead Davidson appeals to primary intentions and secondary intentions.

Davidson has two kinds of context-dependence, presemantic and postsemantic. Presemantic context-dependence is assigning a meaning or interpretation to sounds or words. That is the sound of i, could be 'I', 'eye, or 'aye'. Similarly for read, or lead. We use context to determine the meaning of the sounds or words. Postsemantic context-dependency is how an utterance is used, are we warning someone, promise, deceive, threaten, etc. The first meaning of an utterance for Davidson it possesses this meaning during all its uses. Metaphors are both presemantically context-dependent and postsemantically context-dependent. That is, metaphors are not autonomous of its secondary intention, and thus metaphor cannot be meaning.

Davidson things that metaphors are used to present a likeness between two objects. Yet, there is an argument against viewing metaphor as taking a likeness.
(1) Suppose metaphors are truth-valued.
(2) Romeo's utterance u of 'Juliet is the sun' is true if and only if Juliet is P, where P is a feature u makes us notice in virtue of which Juliet resembles the sun.
(3) P cannot be the meaning of u.
(4) Therefore, metaphorical meaning cannot be truth-conditions or propositional content.

However, metaphorical meaning can be something other than the two options ruled out in (4).

Chapter 2 Meaning and Use sec. 1

2007-06-08T00:18:00.000-05:00

In chapter 2 Josef Stern lays out Donald Davidson's position and arguments for metaphor. Stern's claim is that Davidson's theory of metaphor is the greatest threat to a semantic theory of metaphor, so if Stern can show that Davidson's approach to metaphor fails, we can then begin the argument for the semantic theory of metaphor.

According to Davidson metaphors mean what the words mean in their most literal sense. So the utterance

(1) Juliet is the sun.

is false. This is due to the fact that the words understood literally are false. Davidson is not concerned with what a speaker is saying, asserting, or trying to convey. Furthermore, Davidson rejects speaker meaning, i.e. pragmatics, as a way that metaphors receive their meaning.

Davidson claims that metaphors have no meaning due to the two following reasons: (i) it is not a feature of the word that the word has prior to and independent of the context of use, (ii) unlike literal meaning that explains why all utterances of one sentence have the same truth-conditions, there are no analogous cross-contextual regularities to explain for metaphor: Each metaphorical utterance in its context appears to express a different feature from every other one. So we need a way to have a semantic meaning for metaphors that meet the conditions of (i) & (ii).

Review: Metaphor in Context, by Josef Stern

2007-06-06T21:04:00.000-05:00

I am going to begin a blogging series over Josef Stern's book, Metaphor in Context. I don't know how many posts it will last, but I think it will be more than one post for certain. This is a very rich and in-depth book that deserves careful attention to detail and I hope by reading it carefully and precisely that I will gain much information in both the philosophy of metaphor and the philosophy of language.

Not much longer

2007-05-01T22:37:00.001-05:00

In 8 days the spring semester will be over.

Finally, I will be able to read more of what I want to read.

A Long Hiatus

2007-04-23T17:56:00.000-05:00

Well, I'm back to blogging, although don't expect my next post for another three weeks. (However, I may post between now and then...)

I will post this summer on my studying for comps, first up on the list, blogging through the divine attributes.

Cheers

Thought and Reference: Meaning and Reference

2006-06-27T00:50:00.000-05:00

According to Kent Bach there are three main domains of reference: (1) semantics, (2) pragmatics, and (3) epistemology. An example that Bach gives is proper names. Proper names would fall under the pragmatic and epistemic categories. Take the name 'John', we can use 'John' to refer to John the Baptist or John Smith. This is what makes it a pragmatic useage of the term 'John'. Also, which John that 'John' refers to seems to be an epistemic category. Hence, this seems to be the explanation that Bach would give as to why proper names fall under the (2) and (3) domains of reference.

To better understand philosophers of language from the 20th century Bach claims that we need to divide facts into three categories. First, there are facts about language. Second, there are facts about language use. Third, there are facts about the thoughts of language users.

For Bach there are two different types of reference, linguistic reference and speaker reference. This correspond with the semantics and pragmatics distinction. Pragmatics is concerned with communication, speaker meaning, and speech acts. Whereas semantic features of an utterance give the meaning of an utterance that a competent user of a language can understand about an utterance, apart from the context in which it was uttered. Semantics is concerned with types, pragmatics with tokens.

Reading Goals part 2: Philosophy of Language (well not entirely...)

2006-06-10T00:47:00.000-05:00

In addition to my philosophy of religion/theology reading that I have mapped out over the next 14 months I am also planning on reading some analytic (or some prefer anglophone) philosophy. I am going to being with two books that are an in depth survey of 20th century philosophy up to 1975.

Book 1a - Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Centure, vol. 1: The Dawn of Analysis, by Scott Soames
Book 1b - Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century, vol. 2: The Age of Meaning, by Scott Soames

Book 2 - Thought and Reference by Kent Bach.

Book 3 - Reference and Essence, by Nathan Salmon

Book 4 - Frege's Puzzle, by Nathan Salmon

Book 5 - Beyond Rigidity, by Scott Soames

Book 6 - Reference and Description, by Scott Soames

Book 7 - Descriptions and Beyond, edited by Marga Reimer and Anne Bezuidenhout

Book 8 - Theories of Vagueness, by Rosanna Keefe (note: if you would like to know what vagueness is ask my lovely wife, she can explain to anyone who is interested in vagueness what the sorites paradox is.)

Along with the nine books listed above I also plan on reading an assortment of philosophy articles concerned with philosophy of language and vagueness. We will see how that works out. Right now I am about 1/4 of the way through book 1a will post more on this when I finish...

Reading Goals - part 1: Philosophy of Religion & Theology

2006-06-10T00:32:00.000-05:00

So, it is 14 months and counting until I will be in school again. So I have some major reading that I plan on doing between now and August of 07. So here is the reading that I plan on doing in philosophy of religion/philosophical theology. Upon the completion of a book I will post on here to keep all of my two loyal readers updated on my progress.

Book 1 - The Trinity by Saint Augustine

Book 2 - Summa Contra Gentiles book 4: Salvation, by Thomas Aquinas

Book 3 - Anselm of Canterbury - The Major Works, this is just the compilation of Anselm's philosophical/theological work. The Bishop of Canterbury

Book 4 - and this one is a monster - The City of God, by Augustine

In addition to the 4 books listed above, I am also going to read all of the Faith and Philosophy Journals from January 2002, to whatever is the most recent journal that I have by August 07. Faith and Philosophy is the journal put out by the Society of Christian Philosophers.

To Boston We Go!!!

2006-05-26T02:18:00.000-05:00

My wife and I are going to Boston. Upon returning I will continue the outline of Naming and Necessity along with posting on some interesting topics in Augustine's The Trinity.

Grad School Application -- yes, I missed a whole month of blogging

2006-05-11T03:27:00.000-05:00

Well, I'm graduating from the University of Oklahoma with an MA in philosophy this Friday. However, that was not my goal in coming to OU, my goal was to graduate with a PhD. So, when I move from Oklahoma I hope to have a PhD or be well on my way to completing a PhD in philosophy. If I don't get a PhD, then I have failed in achieving my goal in coming to Oklahoma. However, now I am starting to believe that if I don't get into the PhD program it will be because of simple dumb luck more than anything else. It just seems that one mishap after another has been my experience at OU. I really don't know what to think about this whole experience. All I know is that if I don't get in, it is not my fault -- at least 100% my fault. I'll take maybe 25% of the blame. Obviously, I could have prevented much of this myself, yet, everytime that there has been a bounce of the ball, the ball has not bounced my way.

At the end of the day, God's soverignty is all that we can rely upon.

This is what a religion of peace looks like.

2006-03-28T00:04:00.000-06:00

Deputy Attorney General Mohammed Eshak Aloko told the AP that prosecutors had issued a letter calling for Rahman's release because "he was mentally unfit to stand trial." He also said he did not know where he was being held.

He said Rahman may be sent overseas for medical treatment.

Hours earlier, hundreds of clerics, students and others chanting "Death to Christians!" marched through the northern Afghan Mazar-i-Sharif to protest the court's decision Sunday to dismiss the case.

"Abdul Rahman must be killed. Islam demands it," said senior Cleric Faiez Mohammed, from the nearby northern city of Kunduz. "The Christian foreigners occupying Afghanistan are attacking our religion."

Several Muslim clerics have threatened to incite Afghans to kill Rahman if he is freed, saying that he is clearly guilty of apostasy and deserves to die.

Rahman, 41, was arrested last month after police discovered him with a Bible. He was put on trial last week for converting 16 years ago while he was a medical aid worker for an international Christian group helping Afghan refugees in Pakistan. He had faced the death penalty under Afghanistan's Islamic laws.

Lecture 1 (some notes) part ii

2006-03-27T12:24:00.000-06:00

Necessity

One of Kripke's major distinctions in necessity/contingent is that the necessary/contingent distinction is a metaphysical distinction. Whereas the a prior/a posteriori distinction is epistemological. Also, certainty, is an epistemological term. So for an x to be necessary, means that in any possible world W, x exists in W. An example of this is the Goldbach Conjecture, which states that any number n, greater than 2 that is a prime is odd. So for any two prime numbers that are greater than 2, p1 & p2, p1 + p2 does not equal n. If Goldbach's Conjecture is true, it is necessarily true, and if false, necessarily false. Yet, we don't have a priori knowledge of Goldbach's conjecture. If we ever do learn whether Goldbach's conjecture is true, we will know it a posteriori.

Kripke claims that a priori and necessity have been associated for two reasons. First, if something is is true in the actual world and true in all possible worlds, then we can see that in the other possible worlds that this statement is also a priori in other possible worlds. Although this does not seem correct. Second, if something is known a priori, then it must be necessary, since it was known without looking at the world. So Kripke's conclusion is that it isn't trivial to state that something is a priori necessary or to state that something is a posteriori contingent.

Kripke establishes the distinction between de re and de dicto modality by claiming that de re is essentialism. (I have never thought of de re in this way before.)

Here is an interesting puzzle, take the following two sentences:
'Nine is necessarily odd.'
'The number of planets is necessarily odd.'
Of course the first is true and the second is false.

Again, if we say that 'Nixon' was necessarily the president of the U.S. that is false. However, if we utter "'the man who won the election in 1968' is necessarily the winner of the election in 1968" this is true. Kripke will elaborate on this later, but this has something to do with fixing a referent. We cannot decide upon whether a property is essential or contingent without knowing the description, it is a meaningless question. Essential properties are what are used to establish identity across possible worlds, i.e. trans-world identity.

Names
What is the difference between the following two questions:
Is it necessary that 9 is greater than 7?
Is is necessary that the number of planets is greater than 7?
'9' is a rigid designator, meaning that in every possible world '9' designates the same object. Whereas descriptions, i.e. 'the number of planets', are contingent.

There is a non-circularity claim by Kripke for philosophical theories:
(C) For any useful theory, the accont must not be circular. The properties which are used in the vote must not themeselves involve the notion of reference in a way that is ultimately impossible to eliminate.
This principle seems to be aimed at Russell. For Russell defines a description as 'the so-and-so' (Kripke puts it as, 'the man called such and such'). Kripke doesn't elaborate much, and I may not understand Russell well enough to understand what is going on here. However, if one says, 'the man called "Walter Scott"', this violates (C).

Lecture 1 - Naming and Necessity (some notes) part i

2006-03-27T00:20:00.000-06:00

I'm reading through Naming and Necessity(hereafter N&N) for my paper on referring to God. N&N consists of three lectures by Saul Kripke, then after the lectures were transcribed he came back and wrote the preface. Kripke recommends that one read N&N in order of the lectures then read the preface. This is what I will do, starting with lecture 1, this morning, or this night, depending upon who you are.

One thing to remember about Kripke, he's a genius, a scary genius. However, he is notorious about having really thin-skin and not being able to withstand criticism. So there are many good and helpful arguments that he could attempt that would advance philosophy in general, that Kripke will not make. Simply, because Kripke can't stand criticism. So, many arguments that Kripke makes in N&N could be stronger, but to avoid being wrong, Kripke, hedges, haws, and hems.

Terminology:
'name' - proper name
'designator' - names and descriptions
'referent of the description' - the object uniquely satisfying the conditions in the definite description

Kripke's first substantive claim is that names are not definite descriptions. For Kripke, the form of a definite description is 'the x such that Fx'. However, The Holy Roman Empire and The United Nations aren't descriptions but names. This claim doesn't seem to be that controversial unless one is committed to a two-dimensional semantics of a sort.

Perhaps in mind here is Bertrand Russell (perhaps Frege too). For Russell, 'Walter Scott' is an abbreviation. The only names that exist are demonsratives such as 'this' or 'that' used in a particular manner when the speaker is acquainted with the object. Kripke differs from Russell, in that for Kripke names are not logically proper names and that descriptions have a sense. For a descriptivist theory of names, 'Napoleon' = 'the emperor of the French in the early part of the ninetheenth century; he was eventually defeated at Waterloo'. One of the problems with this theory that even Frege conceded is that names can have different senses. For instance 'Aristotle' could have the sense of 'the student of Plato' and another sense of 'the teacher of Alexander'. These senses are only contingent properties of Aristotle. So perhaps what we associate with names are really cluster of properties.

These clusters (Kripke also refers to them as families) can be used to either give meaning to a name, or fix the referent of the name. Really all the clusters can do is fix the referent of the name. For if we were to say, 'Aristotle didn't exist', then we would be saying something like, 'Aristotle has no meaning' which is a meaningless statement. So, the only option for the cluster theory is that it fixes reference.

Propositional Attitudes and the Gospel

2006-03-16T01:09:00.000-06:00

“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved." (Acts 16:31 ESV)

So what does it mean to believe in the Lord Jesus. In this passage I am not quite sure how to take it, however, since I am a Millian heir, I will take the typically referentially opaque context to be substitutable with an identical name or description.

(1) Adam believes that 'Lord Jesus' - in English and he is saved.

However, (1) doesn't seem quite right, so let me try the following revision of (1):

(1') Adam believes in that 'Lord Jesus' in English and he is saved.

Although (1') seems a bit convoluted I'm going to stick with this construction for now. My next concern is how should we take "The Lord Jesus" in this context. 'The Lord Jesus' could either be a definite description or a proper name. As a definite description there is one unique person (or object) that 'The Lord Jesus' picks out and that is the person of Jesus Christ, the second member of the Trinity. 'The Lord Jesus' doesn't seem as if it were a proper name, rather, it seems to ascribe the property of Lordness to Jesus. Take a similar construction:

(2) The King Louis

or

(3) the King of France

Both (2) and (3) seem to be a bit unsimilar to 'The Lord Jesus', we aren't quite sure what Jesus is Lord of, where in (3) 'King' is the King of France, and (2) seems to be incomplete, however there could be several kings, and we could be referring to the King Louis, as opposed to the King Edward. So I think that we could take 'The Lord Jesus' as a definite description.

In this case 'Lord' refers to Yahweh, because 'kurios' is the word for 'Lord' in the Greek OT, so when the NT refers to Jesus as Lord, the NT is making a Trinitarian statement. So, we can get the following:

(4) Jesus is Lord.

(5) Jesus is Yahweh.

but we also hold to the following,

(6) The Father is Yahweh.

Therefore, (7) Jesus is the second member of the Trinity.

So, Jesus is identical with the second member of the Trinity. (I realize that I was brief in my argument from Jesus is Lord to infer that Jesus is identical with the second member of the Trinity, however I'm working on propositional attitudes in this post.)

So a new argument is as follows:

(8) Jesus = Second Member of the Trinity
(9) Adam believes in that - 'Jesus' in English, and Adam is saved.
(10) Adam believes in that - 'the Second Member of the Trinity' in English and is saved.

However my problem is with 'the second member fo the Trinity', because this appears to be a definite description and I am not sure if one can substitute proper names for definite descriptions.

... it's late, more to come later...

Propositional Attitudes

2006-03-09T13:38:00.000-06:00

Let's say that there is someone, S, who believes a proposition, P. So there are two ways that S can believe a proposition:

(1) S believes P.
(2) S believes that P.

It is debated what the two differences are between (1) & (2), but one of the differences is that in (2) we would consider it referentially opaque. To illustrate what it means to be referentially opaque take the following example.

(3) Lois Lane loves Superman.
(4) Superman = Clark Kent.
(5) Lois Land does not love Clark Kent.

We could further elaborate on (3) & (5) into the following:

(3') Lois Lane believes that - 'I love Superman' - in English.
(5') Lois Lane believes that - 'I don't love Clark Kent' - in English.

Now we have a problem because Lois Lane has conflicting beliefs. She both loves and doesn't love Superman. How do we explain this? Usually we describe this as intensional beliefs. Although Superman and Clark Kent are members of the Kal El extension, they both present different intensional beliefs. So, 'Superman' is a different intension than 'Clark Kent'. Even though Superman = Clark Kent, since intensional attitudes are referentially opaque we cannot substitute Clark Kent and Superman.

However there is the Millian position that claims that a name exhausts its referent. So for the Millian one could take the name either 'Superman' or 'Clark Kent' and substitute them for each other. Although Lois Lane may not know that Clark Kent = Superman, Lois Lane does love the referent of 'Superman' and it just so happens that the referent of 'Superman' is the referent of 'Clark Kent'.

So, I will post more on this latter on how it relates to the gospel and belief in Jesus.

Summer Plans

2006-03-01T22:01:00.000-06:00

I've been slacking off on my blogging... a great deal. However, this summer I plan on posting critical reviews of the chapters of some books that I will read. This will accomplish a couple of things. First, it will improve my writing ability and force me to communicate difficult concepts into more simpler terms. Second, this will force me to read the books more carefully and allow me to learn more from them. Third, it will help my philosophy skillz, because I will be engaging in a philosophical dialogue with the books that I read.

It's been a while

2006-02-20T23:32:00.000-06:00

Well, this has been one of the longest droughts that I have had in blog posting in recent history. I don't have much to say really. Currently I am just doing some assignments on Plato.

Hopefully I'll have more to say later.

Applied Doctrines

2006-01-29T23:55:00.000-06:00

So, I have been thinking about a lot of different things lately. One item of interest that has been occupying my time lately is how do biblical doctrines apply to our lives. For instance take the doctrine of the Trinity, this is a foundational Christian doctrine, yet how does the Trinity effect the way that we live our lives. It seems that there are some big implications of this, and I think that I will try and sort some of them out tomorrow.

Two Thousand Years of Beautiful History

2006-01-29T00:12:00.000-06:00

One think that frustrates me more than anything else is the neglect of orthodox Christian docrtine. By orthodox Christian doctrine I mean biblical doctrine, that is doctrine that one must believe in order for one to be a Christian. Christianity has been around for 2,0000 years and there have always been beliefs that Christians have held. So it always confuses me when people or churches find a new biblical teaching. Other times they just neglect Christian doctrine all together and just imply that we ought to act like Christians without doctrinal beliefs. I often wonder if I know what a Christian community looks like because I don't know if I have ever seen a genuine Christian community. I'm very concerned that the Christianity of America is not the Christianity of the Bible. I don't know why we ignore the basic biblical teachings in the Bible, but this is a serious problem in the U.S.

Peace

2006-01-28T00:40:00.000-06:00

I think that I am beginning to understand the following verse:

28 "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29 "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. 30 "For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."
Matt 11:28-30 (NASB95)

When we understand who God is and the relationship that we have with God through Jesus we realize that every situation is a learning experience. What does this mean? Well, God is soverign, therefore God knows what He is doing. Whenever we find ourself in a difficult spot or position it is because God has put us in that position. If we are having a difficult time it is because God is going to teach us something through that difficult time. I realize that nothing in my life is an accident, nothing is random, but everything is well-ordered and designed so that I may progress in my relationship with God. This is what brings me peace. The fact that God is in control and God is molding me into the person that God wants me to be.

I went to church and a rap concert broke out...

2006-01-19T15:31:00.000-06:00

Has anyone heard the joke that goes along the following lines: I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out. What makes this joke funny is that there is so much fighting in a hockey game that the two are considered inseperable. Fighting is a part of hockey and vice versa.

Well, the other night when my wife and I were flipping through channels we watched several minutes of a church service. In this service the pastor/preacher was exhorting his congregation to clap, yell, and stand up among other things. Most rappers/rap groups have something called a 'hype man'. The paradigmatic example of a hype man is Flavor Flav. Flavor Flav's whole purpose was/is to get the crowd excited and cranked up. Joe C. was the hype man for Kid Rock. The hype man generally has no talent of his own other than to get the crowd's energy level to increase. This pastor/preacher my wife and I saw on T.V. seemed to have the sole purpose of increasing the crowd's energy. I really don't know how God is glorified when people that attend church to worship God get hyped up by the pastor. However, this pastor seemed to believe that he was getting these people in the pews to worship God. The most disturbing thing about the previous night is that this pastor is not alone in being a hype man for God. Many pastors are hype men for God. Church has become entertainment where people go to get emotionally hyped, then go home to continue with their lives as before.

Life

2006-01-08T16:52:00.000-06:00

You know life is a funny thing. If you stop to reflect upon what has happened, you begin to live in the past. If you think about the future you neglect the present. And, if you just live for the present, well, you mess up your future and eventually ruin your present. It seems the best way to live life is to emphasize all three aspects of one's life not neglecting any one over the others. However, even if one does this it still seems that life just slips away, this is where Christians seem to have hope. This is not all that we will experience, we will have eternal life. Yet, sometimes this eternal life seems so far away, so difficult to grasp, almost like a willow wisp. All too often Christians that I observe get caught up in the present life, what must I do to be happy, what are the seven keys to happiness? That type of concern. However, we cannot be so caught up in the future eternal life that we neglect this life either. It seems that the Christian life is a life of balance. So, we must realize that we ought to be willing to forsake all in this life for the sake of the future life, yet not neglect this life entirely due to our forward thinking about the future life. Both are important and ought to be considered when one makes a decision.

Buzzer Beater

2005-12-06T18:02:00.000-06:00

Well, not really...

I'm working on my papers, so far I've turned in one, have comments on another paper w/ a completed draft. My third paper I have a completed draft. So all I have to do is turn these papers in, after I finish my comments on them.

Anyway, I'll post again when I finish w/ my papers.

End O' the semester

2005-11-28T02:41:00.000-06:00

Why is it so difficult for me to remain calm and get my work done the closer it gets to the due date? It seems that I cannot relax and procrastinate even more when deadlines get closer and closer. Perhaps I am so tired I cannot focus so my mind wanders. Regardless, I am getting a good nights sleep tonight and making sure that I at least get 7 1/2 hours. I think that getting some rest will allow me to better focuse when I next study and attempt to write papers.

...At least I think it will.

Quiz Time

2005-11-26T16:07:00.000-06:00

I took this quiz about a year and a half ago, this time I have different results.

You scored as John Calvin. Much of what is now called Calvinism had more to do with his followers than Calvin himself, and so you may or may not be committed to TULIP, though God's sovereignty is all important.

John Calvin

93%

Anselm

87%

Karl Barth

53%

Friedrich Schleiermacher

53%

Martin Luther

47%

Jonathan Edwards

47%

J?Moltmann

27%

Paul Tillich

27%

Augustine

20%

Charles Finney

20%

Which theologian are you?
created with QuizFarm.com

Writer's Bloc

2005-11-20T02:24:00.000-06:00

Well, right now I'm working on a rough draft that is due on Monday. The rough draft is supposed to be a polished rough draft when I turn it in, but nonetheless it's a rough draft. My biggest problem and frustration when writing papers is writer's bloc. I was very frustrated by it yesterday when I was working on my paper. However, I think that I have developed a solution to dealing with writer's bloc... ready... here we go - keep reading what I have written. What? You ask me what kind of solution is this? A good solution says I. When I can't write anymore I go back over what I have previously written, and edit that. This gives me more ideas for writing and helps tighten my argument also. This is actually a really good solution for me to cure my writer's bloc. I must confess that it is stressful when one encounters writer's bloc. This stress then produces more stress, which makes it even more difficult to overcome writer's bloc. So, then I just re-read aloud what I have previously written.

Now, I shall return to my paper. Reading my paper outloud.

Johnny Cash - Hurt

2005-11-04T01:04:00.000-06:00

At the end of his life Johnny Cash got together with producer Rick Rubin and they covered a lot of different styles of songs. Some of the bands that were covered by Johnny Cash included, Soundgarden, Depeche Mode, and Nine Inch Nails. I think one of the most powerful songs was his cover of Nine Inch Nails hurt. Very powerful religious imagery. He basically speaks of the regrets in his life. There is one point in the video when he sings "I will let you down" and it flashes a picture of Christ. Then another line is "I will make you hurt," and it shows a picture of the nails being hammered into Christ's hands. He also sings of "[his] empire of dirt" then the video flashes to all the awards that Cash has won. Very powerful video. In some ways it seems to be a New Testament interpretation of Eccesiastes.

13 The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. 14 For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.
Eccl 12:13-14 (NASB95)

Practicality of Doctrine

2005-11-03T14:13:00.000-06:00

One of the things that vanHoozer is emphasizing in his hermeneutics book is the practical nature of doctrine. Doctrine is designed to help us live our lives as Chriistians. I can't think of any particular examples that he gives, but the main emphasis is that doctrine is not merely a propositional belief, but a belief that changes one's actions.

Another point of emphasis of vanHoozer's is that we are in a drama, the Bible is a dramatic book, a divine play so to speak. However, we are actors in this play. God calls us to act, not just sit passively. This definitely is a new approach to hermeneutics but an interesting one nonetheless. Too often people in churches believe that the Bible is a book to be read and quoted and venerated but it stops there. However, the Bible is a DIVINE book that calls us to act. It tells us how to act. It calls us to a relationship with God and to participate in God's works.

Hermeneutics & Theology

2005-11-02T11:18:00.000-06:00

I've been reading Kevin vanHoozer's new book, The Drama of Doctrine. It is definitely causing me to think about how I read the Bible. Often I think that we read the Bible without thinking about how it should affect our actions - but all too often we read it as a book that gives us information. Then, the pastor will make the information relevant for our lives. However, in The Drama of Doctrine, the idea is that the Bible the way it is calls us to action. We are called and asked and commanded to respond to God's words.

I'll post more on this later, as I continue to read through it...

All is well that ends well.

2005-11-02T11:15:00.001-06:00

I got a call today from the food and housing office telling me that they would release me from my lease when I brought a copy of my marriage liscense in.

Breaking the Lease

2005-11-01T23:12:00.000-06:00

So in about 5 weeks I'll be leaving for IL to get married to Jessica. After our honeymoon we will get back to OK around December 18. Jessica's apartment lease is up on the 22, mine, sometime in May. Now, I live in the University of Oklahoma student apartments. I signed a lease for one year, from May to May. I thought that I would be able to get out of this lease for my wedding. However, today, I went to the apartment manager and to give her a form for me to break my lease and she very coldly informed me that I couldn't. I was so taken aback I didn't even respond to her, I didn't know what to say. To be honest, I was really upset and still am about this situation. Jessica would have to drive to work about 45 minutes to an hour with traffic, one way. However, I did put in an application to break my lease with the university food & housing department. Jessica's theory is that the lady I spoke with today has no power - she is the apartment manager. According to Jessica, this lady probably has a domineering husband and then takes things out on people during the day. Hopefully I will be able to get out of my lease. I think the thing that upset me the most today was that the lady didn't even try to compromise or help me out, she basically signed the form 'no' and showed me the door. She wasn't even sympathetic. ...I'll try and study tonight, but I'm still pretty upset.

Peace and God's Soverignty

2005-10-28T18:06:00.000-05:00

This past week I have had a peace about my future that I haven't had since the semester started. I think this is because I have realized that despite what has happened in the past, God is still in control. And regardless of what happens in the future, God will be in control. This is something that is difficult to comprehend because we don't know where we are going, but God does. This is why it is so important to trust God. If we cannot trust God with our future then we will never have peace. This seems to be an antithesis to the American way of life, where you pick yourself up by the bootstraps and work your way to success. God's way to success is to trust Him. So, this is the current spiritual discipline that I am working on - to trust in God and His plans for my life.

Old Skool Music

2005-10-27T17:35:00.000-05:00

As I was working out last night I was thinking of some songs that I used to listen to by a band called NIN - actually recorded in the studio by one man, Trent Renzor, but hires a band when he plays live. Some of the lyrics I was thinking of are from a song called "Head Like a Hole":

God money I'll do anything for you
God money just tell me what you want me to do
God-money goes dancing on the backs of the bruised,
God-money's not one to choose

Another song was "Wish":

Wish there was something real wish there was something true

The last one is probably the most offensive "Slavery":

Don't open your eyes you won't like what you see,
the devils of truth steal the souls of the free
Don't open your eyes, take it from me,
I have found you can find happiness in slavery

It just made me realize how many Christians in the church actually do what NIN is singing about. How many megachurches worship big buildings and programs? How many churches are only concerned about how much they can build?

It seems like the song "Wish" is what the gospel is an answer to. The gospel points us to the work that Christ did on the cross. It is REALITY with all caps. If we don't aknowledge the life, death, and resurrection of Christ as the Reality of this world that has altered reality, we will never reach or change our culture. Too many people in the church think that a big building is what makes a good church. However, the church is no different from big businesses when all they are concerned about is buildings.

We need to preach what is real and true!

What do you Believe????

2005-10-23T01:22:00.000-05:00

For so long I have claimed that God is soverign, that is, God is in control. Nothing happens that God doesn't cause to happen or that God doesn't allow to happen. So everything that happens is due to God acting, or refraining from action. I believe this and I tell this to other people with extreme frequency, problem is, I forget to tell myself. When I struggle the most I forget that God is soverign, God is in control, God is not suprised. I know it's true, but I don't let my attitude and emotions reflect this knowledge. That is, I don't practice that God is soverign. It seems to me that if you really believe something your actions will reflect your beliefs.

I believe that emotions are similar to perceptions. So, when I am depressed or stressed, it is because I am blinding myself to the greater reality of God. The Bible declares that children of God possess eternal life - I am a child of God. What more could I ask for? Sometimes it is so easy to get caught up in everyday deadlines or past events where I could have done better, I miss the big picture. The big picture is eternity, how important is this week compared to eternity? It's insignificant.

I have a tendency to only care about the paper that is due next week or the reading assignment that I have. When I do this I neglect the significance of this live. Life is too short to be spent worrying about paper assignments or whether one will get an 'A'. Instead, every moment of life should be spend rejoicing at the opportunities that we have and embrace these opportunities. If you stop to reflect on failure, you allow the failure to effect your future. Learn from your failures and move on. Remember that God's Grace is more powerful than any failure that you may ever have.

Grace

2005-10-22T02:22:00.000-05:00

One of the things my old roommate used to give me a hard time about was being so hard on myself. He once told me that I beat myself up too much and need to stop it. One thing that is difficult for me to comprehend is grace, not just any ol' grace but the Grace of God. It is difficult to realize that you ARE forgiven. God is big enough, and powerful enough to offer forgiveness to His children. Instead of worrying about the past or the future, I need to remember that regardless of what happens, God will continue to dispense His grace upon me. I get easily stressed out and most of that stress is the result of past mistakes and concerns that I will make the same mistakes in the future. Tonight I have a peace that God's Grace is the important thing right now. If I fail school (which I won't) if I let myself down, God's Grace will still be given to me - it's alright. As a movie once claimed - God understands.

Musings

2005-10-20T12:28:00.000-05:00

I don't really have any deep thoughts at the moment. Just a lot of random thoughts right now. I have a paper due in about 10 days that I need to re-read some articles for, but other than that, it looks like smooth sailing for a while. I'm actually trying to find an Oasis song, but I can't remember what it was called. ...ah, just found it Live Forever.

--take care

Who is Real?

2005-10-20T01:17:00.000-05:00

You know that there are a lot of fake people out there. I was watching VH1 while I was working out (I was also watching ESPN) and the VH1 show was about super models. They mentioned on the show how some of the supermodels pay their hairdressers $80k a year. They also mentioned how supermodels had to have the most expensive jewelery and clothing. In fact, part of the criteria for clothing was that it looked expensive. Supermodels definitely seemed fake and superficial - they aren't real people.

Something else occurred to me while I was watching this show - politicians aren't real. Who knows who politicians really are, or the people that help out the politicians. The problem with the political process is that you have to sell your soul by making so many promises to get anywhere. Even people that help out with campaigns end up selling out. I'm sure that people get involved in politics for good reasons to begin with, but after a while they have to compromise in order to help people out. After a while, they forgot why they got into politics to begin with and now are willing to do anything to maintain their position. It's really depressing, so many people put their hope and faith into a political party or a political leader - all that will happen in the end is that the person will be let down. As much as politicians try to be real, they are just as fake as supermodels. They talk about the common man, when they are members of country clubs and have houses in Martha's Vineyard.

All I know is that God is real, and God won't let His children down. God does understand the common man (woman).

One thing about people...

2005-10-14T02:23:00.000-05:00

That I can't stand is unreasonable people. This is something that has bugged me more than anything else my entire life. There were always certain people that rubbed me the wrong way and I never knew what it was about them that drove me nuts. Now I know - I want absolutely, nothing to do with people that are unreasonable, can't compromise, and don't listen. I understand that some people hold to a specific worldview and believe that their worldview is correct. I'm not asking them to compromise on their worldview, I'm just asking them to concede that there more be some more gray areas than they previously conceded.

For the most part in the philosophy program at OU I hang out with the other Christian philosophers with two exceptions. My first year in the program one of the people that I spent the most time with was an atheist - not an outspoken atheist but an atheist nonetheless. My other friend in the OU department that isn't a Christian is a very vocal atheist. He definitely isn't afraid to voice his opinion about his atheism to other people. The sad thing is that I get along better with these two atheists than I do with some other Christians that I know of. To me this is a very sad thing. Christians ought to have the grace of the Holy Spirit operating in their lives.

I think that it is a very hard-headed person that I can't get along with or who doesn't enjoy talking with me. I'm easy going and well-read, there are a variety of subjects that I can discuss, which include: pro-wrestling, literature, philosophy, theology, all sports, pop culture, etc. Perhaps this shows that I don't focus on grad school as much as I ought to. This is probably an astute observation on my part. However, if you ever meet anyone who can't get along with me and I find unreasonable, when you encounter this person RUN AWAY and don't look back.

Livin' the Life

2005-10-04T11:54:00.000-05:00

Francis Schaeffer asked his readers to imagine the impact that 20% of the so-called Christians in the U.S. could have on our culture if they only lived what they supposedly believed. In other words, we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves and in particular love other Christians. Christians ought to exemplify love towards each other at the minimum. Furthermore, we are to love God more than we love ourselves. One of things that I am doing right now is going through pre-marital counseling with my fiance. From this I have thought a lot about the command for husbands to love their wives like Christ loved the church. Christ died for the church and put the interests of the church above His own interests. So, husbands ought to put the interests of their wives above their own. What kind of impact would Christianity have on the U.S. if non-believers could witness this type of behavior? I think the self-sacrificial love that Christ demonstrated towards the Church is an incredible illustration for marriage, and a difficult example for me to live up to. How amazing would that be to see the love of Christians? Sadly, some of the most arrogant, and rude people I have met have claimed to be Christians. Although I must confess, many of the rude and arrogant Christians have left the church and no longer profess themselves to be Christians. Nonetheless, while they profess to be Christians they profane the name of Christ and all that He stood for. It's a shame that more people can't put into practice what they actually believe or claim to believe. However, if you don't act upon your beliefs, then maybe you never actually had those beliefs to begin with.

Is God's omnipotence compatible with His impeccability?

2005-09-21T10:30:00.000-05:00

Omnipotence is typically defined as God's ability to do anything that is logically possible. So, it is logically impossible for God to make a square circle, or for God to make a married bachelor.

Impeccability is typically defined as God cannot sin.

So there appears to be an inconsistency here, God can do anything but sin. So, if God is impeccable it appears that He cannot be omnipotent. I think the most helpful way to think of this problem is to analyze sin as a negative action. Meaning that it is more difficult to refrain from sinning than it is to sin. In fact, if we define sin as missing the mark, or falling short of our goal, then we need omnipotence not to sin.

I would like to claim that for a being that is omnipotent and impeccable it is logically impossible to sin. To use an analogy, consider an omnipotent basball player. This baseball player can do anything he wants when he is at bat. Sometimes this baseball player chooses to strike out when he is at bat, full well knowing that he can hit a home run at any point in time. If we add a stipulation that this player must play his best at all times, then he can no longer strike out. We certainly wouldn't consider the ability to strike out something that we can do, rather we would consider it a failure. That is how we ought to conceive of God's sinning. God sinning isn't the ability to do something, rather, it is a lack of ability to refrain from sinnning.

Working the Brain Muscles

2005-09-20T01:16:00.000-05:00

Mondays I always plan on working out after class. However, I have my philosophy of religion survey course from 3 to 6 then from 7 to 10 I have a seminar on vagueness. What's vagueness about you ask??? Well, allow me to tell you what it is about. We are attempting to ascertain whether vagueness is a semantic, ontic, or epistemic feature of the world. But those aren't the only theories of vagueness, oh no! There is also a discussion of whether there is such a thing as higher-order vagueness. Higher-order vagueness is the idea that there are borderline borderline examples - or vague vagueness. Then you have borderline borderline borderline cases. Myself I'm an epistemicist, which rejects higher-order vagueness. After that there are logical solutions to vagueness. Needless to say on Monday nights after vagueness I'm exhausted by all of the thinking.

... yet, I think it's good for me to think

The Allergy Season

2005-09-16T09:57:00.000-05:00

My left ear is plugged up again. This is more annoying than anything else. For whatever I think that the type of pollen in the air effects my ear. Yesterday the pollen count was low - my ear was fine. But Wednesday and today the pollen count is high - my ear is stuffed. . This is what weatherbug has to say about the pollen count.

Predominant Pollen: Ragweed, Grass and Chenopods.

Today
The amount of pollen in the air for Thursday will be falling into the very low range. The cause for the falling pollen levels is falling temperatures, rising humidity and heavy rains in the morning and evening which tend to wash pollen out of the air.

Outlook
The quantity of pollen grains in the air for Friday will be greater than today's levels in the high range. This increase is due to seasonally normal weather conditions which are favorable for the production and dispersal of pollen. If you have these allergies, tomorrow will likely be more difficult outdoors.

Allergy Fact
Ragweed pollen grains are highly sculpted and have surfaces covered with large spines. Interestingly, this menacing appearance has nothing to do with its ability to cause hay fever

Emergent Church

2005-09-14T14:53:00.000-05:00

So, my friend from Austrailia took the theology quiz and scored as emergent postmodern. This was a week or two ago so I figured that I would eventually comment on this, though a little belatedly. Simply put, the emergent church wants first century Christianity without absolute truth. That isn't very helpful (sorry). So I will try to further eloborate on my position. The emergent church wants to hold that all positions are true, so someone who is in the emergent church would say that they are a protestant and a Roman Catholic. So, all of the contradictory positions in the theological world and emergentist would hold to. The emgergent church movement is also very experiential when it comes to worship - almost touchy-feely. Instead of relying upon revelation (the Bible) to learn about God they rely upon their feelings and experiences to learn about God.

I'm sure that there are other things for me to help better explain what emergent theology is but I need to read a paper on reduction for my naturalism class. So, I'll post more thoughts on emergentism later.

Sorities Paradox

2005-09-01T10:55:00.000-05:00

The problem of vagueness is derived from the sorities paradox. Here is a typical example of a sorities paradox:

(1) One grain of sand is not a heap.

(2) If one grain of sand is not a heap. [n + 1 is not a heap]

(3) Therefore, 100,000 grains of sand is not a heap.

The step that I reject is (2) maybe 3 or 4 grains of sand is a heap but there seems to be some point at which several (many) grains of sand becomes a heap. Another move made is the reverse march.

(4) 100,000 grains of sand is a heap.

(5) If 100,000 grains of sand is a heap, then 99,999 grains of sand is a heap [n - 1 is a heap]

(6) Therefore, one grain of sand is a heap.

I'm not quite sure where grains of sand become a heap, but there definitely seems to be some type of cutoff where sand becomes a heap.

Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

2005-08-26T12:45:00.000-05:00

For my phil. of religion survey we began by reading a survey of the ontological arguments for the existence of God. I think that this argument is a logical proof that God exists. However, I don't think logical arguments necessarily aid one in evangelism. By the way, ontological is a study of being.

(1) God is the greatest possible being: (i) God is all-powerful; (ii) God is all-knowing; and (iii) God is morally perfect, i.e. all-loving.

(2) The greatest possible being does not depend upon its existence from anything else, i.e. it self-exists or it necessarily exists.

(3) Therefore God exists.

Though this argument looks weak and simple the premises are very resillient. The move that the atheist has to make is that it is impossible for there to be a greatest possible being with the attributes in (1). This is why so much of philosophy of religion has depended upon defending God's omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.

I'll post on my vagueness class later on ;)

School is in session

2005-08-22T00:28:00.000-05:00

ahh, school is starting in 14 1/2 hours today (it's 12:28 AM) don't know if I'm ready for it or not though...

Liturgical Baptists

2005-08-19T13:24:00.000-05:00

I have spoken to a couple of friends about this topic. Now I am very intrigued, I would like to see a liturgical Baptist church started. Why? Because churches have become self-help resource centers. A church lives and dies based upon a pastoral staff's ability to recruit and give a sales pitch. The liturgy is based upon the Gospel and is God-centered not man-centered. Now don't get me wrong, I'm still holding to distinctive Baptist theology. However, the Baptist style of worship is becoming bankrupt and is not about God.

What are some differences between a liturgical service and a typical Baptist service. A liturgical service would have the Lord's Supper every week, recite a creed, responsive readings, perhaps incense, group prayers/confession, and would not have any musical solos.

Most Baptists claim to be non-creedal people, yet all the creeds are is a summary of what the Scriptures teach. I would suggest that if one cannot affirm the early church creeds (specifically the Nicene creed) then one is not a Christian. Creeds allow new believers to discern between heresy and biblical teaching. They are a confession of the community of believers beliefs. I don't know how creeds are any different from the sinner's prayer that all Baptists are supposed to pray before they get saved. Speaking of which...

Another reason to recite creeds during church service is to allow people to determine if they will side with the community of believers or not. We are saved through belief in Christ, not praying the sinner's prayer. Most people say, I was saved when I did X - usually X is praying a prayer. Hence putting the focus upon the individual who prayed. Yet, what if we recite a creed every Sunday and one of the lines in the creed mentions belief in Christ who died for our sins. If all the people confess this aloud and really believe it and mean it when they say it but haven't prayed the sinner's prayer are these people saved? I would suggest that they are saved. This is one more method to allow people to profess their belief in Christ. Altar calls are not the only method of having a non-believer to become a believer.

I also think that a liturgical service puts a greater emphasis on the community of believers than the preacher. There is a set order of service and people come to Church with a reverent attitude, rather than an attitude of looking to be entertained.

I'll post more on this later.

Class Schedule

2005-08-19T13:18:00.000-05:00

As the title says =)

Mondays:

3PM - 6PM Philosophy of religion survey: topics covered - problem of evil, ontological argument, and religious ethics

7PM - 10PM vagueness: problem of the heaps, if 1 grain of sand is not a heap, and if 2 grains of sand is not a heap, and if 3 grains of sand is not a heap, etc.... then 10,000 grains of sand is not a heap

Wednesdays:
7PM - 10PM Philosophical naturalism: how can we have objective standards for art, beauty, religion, knowledge, etc. if there isn't anything that transcends the physical world?

Speaking of God

2005-08-15T12:18:00.000-05:00

I think one of the key questions for Christians today is whether Christians and Muslims refer to the same God. Both Muslims and Christians would agree that they worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. However the problem is that the Christian God is a Triune God and the Muslim God is not Triune - in fact Muslims strongly explain how God is not a Trinity.

Since Christians would claim that God is necessarily a Triune God I will use this fact to explain how Christians worship a different God than the Muslims.

One thing I have yet to resolve is natural law or General revelation. I'm not sure what to do with this subject yet.

Find the nearest book

2005-08-15T12:12:00.000-05:00

Here's something I found on another blog. Do this:
1. Grab the nearest book.
2. Open the book to page 123.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the text of the sentence in your journal along with these instructions.
5. Don’t search around and look for the “coolest” book you can find. Do what’s actually next to you.

(1) The Blessed Hope by George Eldon Ladd
(2 - 3) What Christ has accomplished on His cross is a finished work, but the salvation of God's people is not complete and will not be brought to consummation apart from the glorious return of Christ.

Life in General thinks of MxPx album

2005-08-15T12:02:00.000-05:00

I have decided to post more mundane details about my life on my blog because all too often people comment that there are many posts on my blog that they don't read due to the philosophical nature of the post.

Anyway, today I didn't set my alarm and I slept til' 11:20 or so. I've set my alarm for the last 3 weeks even on Saturdays and last night I was so tired that I decided that I needed to sleep until my body felt like waking up - as opposed to allowing a pre-arranged time (alarm) to wake me up. Though, in the future I will continue to use my alarm clock to wake me up, regardless of what day of the week it is.

Shifting Gears

2005-08-13T01:27:00.000-05:00

All this summer I have had things in a pretty low gear ... well now it's time for things to start shifting into a higher gear. I have one more free week before school starts. After that, it's going to be a very, very, busy semester.

Going back to Colorado

2005-07-30T00:06:00.000-05:00

Well in about 8 hours my mom and I will drive to Breckenridge CO. I look forward to getting away and breathing the thin mountain air. I also look forward to getting lots of reading done. Hopefully I'll have many insightful comments and posts after getting back from CO.

Cell phone

2005-07-28T00:23:00.000-05:00

So, I have caved into pressure and now own a cell phone.

Did I sell out?

Sleeping Schedule

2005-07-26T10:13:00.000-05:00

This week I've been trying to alter my body's clock - by getting up every morning at 9:30am. So far I have been able to get up at 9:30am every morning, but I just feel out of sync. I've been getting up, previously before I began to alter my schedule, at 11:30am to 1pm. So this is a significant change for me - but nonetheless one that I needed to make.

I'm off to go read now... hopefully I'll stay awake *crosses fingers*

Who is richer?

2005-07-21T13:00:00.000-05:00

I'm meeting (at least supposed to meet) some guys tonight for our discussion group concerning intelligent design. I need to read two articles that we are discussing tonight so I really shouldn't be procrastinating and writing on my blog, but oh well...

I just finished watching season 3 of Smallville and I have just recently watched Batman Begins. Now, here is a question: who is richer Bruce Wayne or Lex Luthor?

I think the answer is Lex Luthor and here is why. Bruce Wayne is not concerned with accumulating wealth, all Bruce Wayne needs money for is to continue to fund the projects and weapons development along with research for Batman. So insofar as Bruce Wayne needs money to help him fight crime, that is what he needs to accumulate wealth for. Whereas Lex Luthor is attempting to take over the world. The means by which he is attempting to take over the world involves monetary gain. So, Lex Luthor needs all the money and power that he can get and control - he is seeking to gain an infinite amount of wealth and power. This is why I believe Lex Luthor is richer than Bruce Wayne. Lex Luthor may not be as smart as Bruce Wayne but he is able to spend all of his time and resources accumulating wealth, while Bruce Wayne spends a majority of his time and resources fighting crime.

Posterior Analytics

2005-07-19T10:27:00.000-05:00

This summer I have been attending a reading group for Aristotle's Posterior Anaylytics. The Posterior Analytics along with the Prior Analytics deal with formal logic. Since I am interested in logic I decided to make attending the reading group a priority of my summer. Aristotle is very difficult to understand so it is good to slowly read through the Posterior Analytics - but here is the catch - the reading group is reading through the Greek text of the Posterior Analytics. Nonetheless, reading a challenging philosophical text along with working through some Greek is helpful for me and good for me.

This is why our country is in trouble

2005-07-18T11:30:00.000-05:00

The seriousness of traditional churches scared many parishioners away, Osteen said, but the warm hug delivered by megachurches like his is bringing them back.

One time I was praying at this big event here in town and there were several other ministers there with me and the man that went right before me--He is a very well respected leader in the community and a very fine gentleman. But, he prayed about the most depressing prayer that I think I have ever heard. He said, 'God, you know how unworthy I am to even stand up here before you. God, you know what a wretched sinner I am. I don't deserve your goodness--and God how could you even use anybody like me?' On and on--man by the time he got finished I felt like I needed to go repent. I felt like I was about that tall. I just wanted to hang my head in shame. So let me ask you, how can we expect God's blessings? How can we expect His goodness if we go around feeling wrong about ourselves? I wanted to ask him afterwards, 'Did you really mean what you prayed?' You said you were 'Weak. You were defeated. You were an old sinner. You were unworthy.' Listen, I'm not going to declare that kind of junk over my life!...Well, you say, 'Joel, we are just all old sinners saved by grace.' No, the truth is we were old sinners--but when we came to Christ we are not sinners anymore. We are sons and daughters of the Most High God...Sure, we may sin every once in awhile. You may make some mistakes--but that doesn't make you a sinner. You've got the very nature of God on the inside of you.

(Joel Osteen, "Receiving God's Mercy," Tape #262. Daystar Television, April 17, 2005)

So, Christians no longer sin once they are Christians? That is news to me, I think it's news to Paul also. What about Romans 7? So is Joel Osteen a better Christian than Paul?

Is Anakin Skywaker Darth Vader (Part 2)

2005-07-15T02:23:00.000-05:00

After careful consideration I have decided that 'Anakin Skywalker' is a rigid designator. This means that regardless of who Anakin Skywalker is, he is identical with himself, and the term 'Anakin Skywalker' refers to Anakin Skywalker. Now, it's possible that Anakin Skywalker could have been called 'Jim Jones' but Anakin Skywalker would still have all the properties of Anakin Skywalker, even if he were named 'Jim Jones'. This is what a rigid designator is, it is a name that refers to an object itself, but a rigid designator is not a description of the object. If we try to describe Anakin Skywalker as the person who became Darth Vader, it is possible that Anakin Skywalker never turned to the dark side, so that would be a incorrect description of Anakin Skywalker. Or if we said that Anakin Skywalker is the father of Luke Skywalker it is possible for Luke to have never been born so this would be an incorrect description if Luke were never born. Thus, a rigid designator is not a description, it is a term that picks out an object. 'Anakin Skywalker' (picks out) refers to Anakin Skywalker and the term 'Anakin Skywalker' does not have any descriptive content.

Now if two different rigid designators refer to the same object then the rigid designators are identical. Here is an example: Mark Twain is identical with Samuel Clemons. Two objects are identical if they share all of the same properties. Here is the problem with Anakin Skywalker being identical with Darth Vader. It is not a necessary property of Anakin Skywalker to have turned to the dark side of the force. Yet, by definition Darth Vader is a sith and all sith necessarily have turned to the dark side of the force. So, Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker do not share all the same necessary properties. Using the dark side of the force is a contingent property of Anakin Skywalker. It appears that 'Anakin Skywalker' is a rigid designator, but 'Darth Vader' is not.

I propose that 'Darth Vader' is a partially descriptive desginator. 'Darth' implies that something is a sith lord. So, this is how Darth Vader can be identical with Anakin Skywalker because 'Darth Vader' is not a rigid designator but a partially descriptive designator.

Reading

2005-07-14T17:25:00.000-05:00

So, I have gotten a lot of reading done today - hooray for me!!!

Quizz

2005-07-14T17:23:00.000-05:00

Well, I'm not sure what to think about the quiz results:

You scored as Neo orthodox. You are neo-orthodox. You reject the human-centredness and scepticism of liberal theology, but neither do you go to the other extreme and make the Bible the central issue for faith. You believe that Christ is God's most important revelation to humanity, and the Trinity is hugely important in your theology. The Bible is also important because it points us to the revelation of Christ. You are influenced by Karl Barth and P T Forsyth.

Neo orthodox

89%

Reformed Evangelical

75%

Fundamentalist

75%

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

61%

Emergent/Postmodern

54%

Roman Catholic

39%

Classical Liberal

36%

Charismatic/Pentecostal

29%

Modern Liberal

11%

What's your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com

Quitter

2005-07-14T13:10:00.000-05:00

So, for a long time I've been playing an online text-based game: ogame.org.

I've finally quit, which is good b/c ogame is very addicting. Hopefully I'll have more time to blog again which is very important. I feel free now that I've given my accounts away. One account I was ranked #208 and the other account I was ranked #103. I can't remember how many people played but in both universes there were over 8,000 people. Perhaps both universes had over 9, 000 people (each universe). So, I was ranked pretty high, the people that now have my former *sniff* accounts are very happy. AND, I'm happy too, cuz I don't have to worry about getting fleet crashed or raided anymore, that is now someone elses concern. WOO-HOO!!!

Not paying attention

2005-07-13T14:12:00.000-05:00

So obviously by the lack of comments on my blog not many people have visited it in the last month.

I kinda feel outta sync right now. My fiance has moved to the same area as me and now I'm having to adjust to a different schedule than the one that I've had for the past 5 years.

I'll post some thoughts on philosophy/theology in a couple of days *crosses fingers*

An Update

2005-06-18T02:41:00.000-05:00

I've slacked off on writing my thoughts on my blog. It's good for me to post what I am thinking especially when I read a lot of philosophy and theology. Blogging helps me to sort my thoughts out, even if most of my readers don't understand my thoughts. Usually after writing something out, I understand it better than before.

This summer I have been attending a Greek reading group - we are reading Aristotle's Posterior Analytics. Not that I am great at reading Greek, but it is helpful. Anyway, usually after we are finished reading we go out to a restrarant and hang out. This last Tuesday a professor showed up who is from India and happens to be a punjabi. If any if my readers have seen the greatness of Bend It Like Beckham, you would know that Jess is punjabi. Well, the prof said that BILB accurately portrays the punjabi families. Absolute greatness!!! Next time I watch BILB I'll know that it is an accurate movie and that will make it even funnier.

So, I have started working out again after a month hiatus from the gym. It's always tough to get back in the groove but I'll manage.

Currently I'm reviewing my symbolic logic, then I will move on to modal logic. Logic is something that you can never be too good at in philosophy. So, my fiance may get frustrated because at times I may revert to making statements in predicate logical forms. But I'm sure she won't get too frustrated. Speaking of fiances - she's driving down this Wednesday, so I am flying Southwest Airlines to St. Louis. Then, from St. Louis we will drive to her apartment in Oklahoma City.

Gnosticism & Works Salvation

2005-06-13T13:36:00.000-05:00

As a result of my summer reading I've become more and more convinced that the so-called evangelicals in North America really are semi-gnostic and hold to a works salvation. Let me explain.

First off the gnosticism. Most Christians if you asked them what happens when you die they would claim that we go to heaven. I'm not really sure what happens immediately upon death other than we go to be with Jesus. So, technically if Jesus is at the right hand of the Father, and the Father's dwelling place is heaven, then we go to heaven. Yet, most Christians would also assert that our body is just a shell and when we die the real person the soul/spirit goes to heaven. This is false and is not a biblical teaching. The Bible teaches that it is the whole person that is important. So, only a part of us goes to be with the Lord and we wait with our Lord to be reunited with our glorified bodies for the resurrection day. Most Christians are really Platonic in their view of death, i.e. bodies are bad and souls are good.

Second works salvation. Faith is a gift from God. Salvation comes through believing in Jesus Christ. Yet, people often brag about their faith. They will mock theologians claiming that they need more faith. Fair enough, we all need more faith. Yet, if faith is a gift from God (Eph. 2: 8-11) we should never put down others who don't have more of it. Instead we ought to pray for them. Salvation is often seen as something where you need faith to believe. So someone is not saved because they choose not to believe or their faith isn't strong enough. Sounds like faith is the work in this instance. One might say, my faith is stronger than yours, that is why I became a Christian. If we view faith as a gift from God, as we ought to, we would never make this claim. Instead we would be much more humble about the faith that we do have. Instead faith is preached as the medium to achieve salvation and faith is the result of an individual's effort to produce it.

Is Anakin Skywalker Darth Vader?

2005-06-05T18:40:00.000-05:00

So, the main question is, is Anakin Skywalker identical with Darth Vader. In other words, for every property that Darth Vader possesses does Anakin Skywalker possess? (I owe this question to my friend LJ.)

The primary puzzlement about this question is a statement by Obi Wan Kenobi - Darth Vader is more machine than man. Anakin Skywalker was a man, and then was dubbed Darth Vader by Emperor Palpatine upon Anakin Skywalker's conversion to the darkside of the force. Now, if we follow Saul Kripke on names then both 'Darth Vader' and 'Anakin Skywalker' are rigid designators. That is, names are not descriptions of an object. Here is the problem though, if two rigid designators are identical then they are necessarily identical. Therefore, if Anakin Skywalker is identical with Darth Vader, then he is necessarily identical to Darth Vader. Yet, it seems possible that Anakin Skywalker may have never converted to the darkside. I don't know where to take this question. Darth Vader is a sith, and sith are necessarily converts to the darkside of the force, so that is a necessary property of Darth Vader. Anakin Skywalker does not have the property of necessarily using the darkside, therefore Anakin Skywalker is not identical to Darth Vader. Hence Obi Wan Kenobi was correct when he declared Luke's father and Darth Vader to be two separate persons.

Truth

2005-05-29T19:37:00.000-05:00

Is the truth important?

Most people would answer 'yes' but by their actions the answer would be 'no'. A lot of times in Christianity, in order to avoid conflict we don't call people out on false doctrines. I had a prof. at SWBTS who was convinced that everyone on TBN was a legitimate Christian - despite heresies that may be declared by some of those tv preachers. Right now I am reading a biography about Jonathan Edwards - the greatest American theologian, and perhaps the greatest American thinker. It is amazing how much opposition he faced by people who wanted him to maintain the status quo. Edwards was voted out of his church that he pastored because he only wanted Christians to receive communion. He argued that there ought to be visable signs of conversion. Now, Edwards loosely interpreted visable signs. His purpose was to show the community how serious the Lord's Supper is, however, people who didn't claim Christianity believed that it was their right to receive the Lord's Supper. I don't know why people who aren't Christians would want to participate in communion, this baffles me. Yet, knowing that he would lose his position as pastor Edwards maintained his biblical stance in the face of opposition. It saddens me today in the church that truth is not as significant as unity or growth. Unity is only important in so far as God is glorified, the same with growth. God is not glorified through unbiblical unity. Nor is God glorified with false teaching. However, unity in many ways is the easy road to take - just ignore someone's false doctrine or gossip about it. The Bible is explicit, we are to confront others 1 on 1, then if that individual doesn't repent we ought to confront them with 2 or 3. It is hard to confront people, most of us don't like confrontation - myself included. Yet, in order to honor God, we must honor and preserve the truths that He has given and revealed to us.

Official Story

2005-05-25T22:22:00.000-05:00

Ok, my internet friend has requested that I tell the official proposal story, so here it is:

I proposed to my friend from IL on Thursday, so here are the events of Thursday. We drove to Chicago to go to lunch at Frontera Grill. Which is Rick Bayless's restraurant. Rick Bayless has a cooking show on PBS and specializes in authentic Mexican food. When my friend was in TX last we made some of the recipes together for her b-day dinner and for dessert made flan. So, we decided that it would be a good idea to try out Frontera Grill - it is ranked #2 casual dining in the United States. The prices are about the same as On the Border or Don Pablos. Lunch was great.

After lunch we drove about 45 minutes to the sand dunes in Indiana on the beaches of Lake Michigan. The waves on Lake Michigan were picturesque and beautiful. It was about 50 degrees so we kept warm w/ some blankets and watched the waves. Then the sun came out and it warmed up I asked my friend if she would spend the rest of her life w/ me. Then I asked her if she would marry me. She was totally surprised, because I hid the ring in my wallet. She had looked for a ring box, but didn't see one. Then my friend spent the rest of the day looking at the ring.

It was a 1.22 carat ruby on a solitare white gold band. The ruby measures about 6.2 mm in diameter.

Summer Reading

2005-05-25T02:23:00.000-05:00

It seems that the summer has officially begun... now it's time for summer reading.

Hopefully tomorrow, I can update everyone w/ some scintilating philosophical thoughts from my summer reading.

My trip to IL

2005-05-19T12:13:00.000-05:00

Well my trip to IL was a success - I have come back engaged! The wedding will be December 10! Hooray for me!

Last papers

2005-05-11T05:11:00.000-05:00

Just emailed my last paper - I'm too tired to properly focus on Aristotle's modal logic right now... in about 7 hours I will be on a plane headed towards Chicago. I had better get some sleep.

End of the Semester

2005-05-10T22:48:00.000-05:00

Well, hopefully by 4am this morning, I will have emailed all of my professors my papers.

Then at 12:50 I will fly to Bloomington/Normal IL.

Screech (err Dustin Diamond) lives!!!

2005-05-06T01:33:00.000-05:00

Check this out, it's Dustin Diamond aka Screech Powers answering questions of an online chat. The occasion was that the mascot for the Washington Nationals is named Screech.

that time of the semester

2005-05-05T13:38:00.000-05:00

It is now officially that time of the semester...

What time would that be? The time when there is so much stress it's difficult to sleep yet the stress makes me continually tired. Ahh, the paradox of the end of the semester. Everything can be cured by a good nights sleep, that is, if you can get to sleep ;)

Pragmatics or Syntax????

2005-05-05T01:18:00.000-05:00

So in my philosophy of language seminar today, we all stayed 50 minutes after class discussing the syntactic features of the following utterances. These are the cases that make me love philosophy of language.

(1) The chicken cooked.
(2) The chicken overcooked.
(3) My foot is on fire.
(4) My foot is in the fire.

So what are the differences between (1) & (2)? What do you think (1) & (2) mean when you utter them? What are the differences between (3) & (4)?

We were discussing whether the features of the utterances are bases ypon syntax, or usage. There seems to be something that I think is a syntactic element in the above utterances, but I don't know what it is...

It's too much Aristotelian Logic for Justin - well, not any more

2005-05-04T04:05:00.000-05:00

So, I was very overwhelmed the other night and some of tonight with my Arisotle paper. As I recently explained the square of opposition, now apply the modal operators 'necessarily' or 'possibly' to the categorical sentences. Quick review: Aristotle has 4 categorical sentences, a e i o. I will list them out
a = All p's are q's
e = No p's are q's
i = some p's are q's
o = some p's are not q's
So now, you take the categorical sentences and add 'necessarily' or 'possibly'. So categorical sentence 'necessarily'a = necessarily all p's are q's. This is de dicto modality, because the sentence 'all p's are q's' is necessarily true, it cannot be false. Now, if I wanted de re modality I would say, 'all p's necessarily are q's'. A de re modality claims that the subject necessarily has the predicate attributed to it. So let's use the example of 'All humans are rational'. A de re expression of this sentence is: 'All humans, necessarily, are rational'. That means that if you are a human, then you are rational. (Now, whether or not rationality is a property of all humans is a different question, this is just an example.)

So the problem with Aristotle's modal logic is that he doesn't do a de re or de dicto modality. What he has is a modalized copula - and I am not really sure about what this is or how it is different from a de re modality. So, if I don't understand the difference by the time I finish writing my paper, I will argue that the author who presents the view of the modalized copula commits the logical fallacy of making a 'distinction without difference'. Otherwise, I will argue in my paper that he presents a sucessful argument.

Aristotle paper

2005-04-30T23:10:00.000-05:00

WOO-HOO!!!!

I think that I finally narrowed the topic down for my Aristotle paper. I knew that I was going to write on Aristotelian logic, I knew it would be modal logic... AND NOW I KNOW THAT I AM GOING TO WRITE ON DE RE/DE DICTO MODALITIY!

For those of you who don't know, de dicto is loosely translate as "of what is said" and de re is loosely translated as "of the thing". I'll explain more later.

It is started

2005-04-30T15:27:00.000-05:00

I began typing my paper for modal epistemology yesterday - finished 6 complete pages and was partway through a seventh page. It's that time of the semester when I am tired all the time due to stress. Makes it difficult to read because I am tired. Yet, it is a good feeling getting those 6 pages done, but when I think about how soon the semester will be over and how much work I still have to do, my stomach and muscles clench up. Gotta work through the stress. Now, it's time to work on my Aristotle paper.

Ahhh - Aristotelian Logic

2005-04-28T03:23:00.000-05:00

So, I'm going to update twice in one day - well, technically it's now Thursday, but I'm still awake.

Aristotle has what is referred to as the square of opposition

A (all p is q) E (no p is q)

I (some p is q) O (some p is not q)

It's called the square of opposition due to the way the axioms are set up. If E is true, the I is false, and vice versa. If A is true, then O is false, and vice versa. If A is true, the E is false, and vice versa, but both A and E can be false. If A is true, then I is true. If E is true, then O is true. It's possible for both I and O to be true. This is the basis of Aristotelian logic.

I'm writing my paper on modal logic, which then adds a 'necessary' or 'possible' before the logic axioms. So, necessarily all p is q, and so forth. Anyway, when I learn more and think more about it, I'll write more =)

Modalities

2005-04-27T19:56:00.000-05:00

So, I'm writing a paper on Aristotle's modal logic. I still don't know what I will say about it - only that I am writing on it.

For epistemology I am writing on modal epistemology. Specifically, the modal skepticism of Peter van Inwagen. Modalities are possibilities. In the actual world the Boston Red Sox won the most recent world series, however, it is possible that the Detroit Tigers to have won the world series. This is a particular type of modality called a "counterfactual". What van Inwagen argues is that we don't know what is possible. I am going to examine his argument and hopefully refute him. We have intuitions concernig what is actual, it seems that our intuitions for what is possible isn't different from our intuitions of what is possible.

I keep promising to update my blog more than once a day - hopefully tonight I will update my blog with what I have read and learned. My whole purpose for this blog was to organize my thoughts about what I was reading and writing on. I need to take advantage of the blog.

Not much

2005-04-23T13:43:00.000-05:00

Just wanted to update for the sake of updating my blog. Not too much is going on here in Norman, OK. The semester is almost over, I have 2 1/2 weeks to finish writing my last two papers. I haven't really started working on them, but I'll do some reading today, tomorrow, and Monday. Hopefully I'll get a good jump on them this weekend. I'll try and update my blog later today with one of my paper topics.