I always thought about writing a book, but there's two major problems with that proposition. First, I am boring. Second, how can I compete with fictional novels about vampire romances? I was at Barnes & Noble in Ontario, OH this afternoon and God gave me at least a half day of some clarity. Fear comes in all sorts of ways. Whether it is financial, job-related, social, etc. And I think fear is the number one cause of cloudy thinking, at least with me. Today, fear seemed far away and clarity was welcomed, even if just for a bit. So, in order not to waste it, I wanted to jot down some things before I forget it all in the morning.
I love philosophy. I read lots of it. In fact, I received the multi-volume set of Coppleston's survey of western philosophy and I have been a kid in the candy store, savoring it as much as possible. I spent time reading and then re-reading Plato and Aristotle. Something about both of these guys seems even more clear than ever before. If I can use a boat metaphor, Plato and Aristotle are the boat and all current philosophical schools are barnacles growing on the outer hull of the boat. Those two guys, outside of Christ and Solomon rocked in terms of thinking about reality and how to explain it. But aside that realization, I began to think about metaphysics on my own, rather than fall back on theories and came up with some things I wanted to get off my mind and in writing.
Metaphysics is the study of being. That sounds very obtuse, but let me say it another way. Metaphysics tries to explain the nature of things...the nature of stuff or the universe. Why do things exist, rather than nothing? What is the nature of what's there? The pre-Socratics were stretching it to try to come up with an explanation about the nature of things, but to keep it short, all they were trying to do is try to explain why things change but yet there there is a stasis too, contrasted to change. Things change. Things stay the same. How do you explain that? That was their task and whether it was finding a binding essence that explained it, be it fire, water or atoms, they were all coming up short, crying out for some explanation. None came for a long time. Then comes Plato and he tries to explain change and sameness but saying that ideas are perfect and eternal and sort of imprint themselves on dead matter, so that the sensible world is nothing but an imperfect copy of these ideas. To Plato, things change because they are imperfect material copies of an unchanging and perfect realm of ideas. Aristotle, who found no good reason to figure out how to tie in the realm of these ideas to what's sensible, he tried to mix the cream with the coffee by saying that these forms or ideas are inherent in matter and matter expresses the actualization of the forms that were potential within it, like an acorn and a tree. Still come up with some problems. With Plato, he gives an explanation for ideas and concepts but at the expense of the sensible world. Aristotle tries to salvage the importance of the sensible world at the expense of the exemplary. Every philosopher since has failed to further this topic. In fact, post moderns have given up, simply abandoned the project and say that its all language and that's as far as we can go. Of course, that argument is weaker than the pre-Socratic views. So, what is the nature of things?
Things are comprised of stuff that is natural and stuff that is created. Through the senses and how the mind works, including the mind itself, we know a chair or a tree based on its purpose. The name is arbitrary. But when we see more than one chair, we see commonality of design and function. Chairs are for sitting. Once more, if I see a piece of the arm rest of a chair, that isn't a chair. It's part of a chair. If I see a chair back, seat with three of four legs, that is a chair, but a dysfunctional chair. The difference is enough parts to complete enough of the picture to conjure up the common design of chairs seen before and the understanding of what chairs are for. Does that make sense?
For natural stuff, its a similar concept, except natural things aren't made by humans for a purpose, even if humans can use things from nature to make other things for another purpose. Take a tree. A tree takes in carbon dioxide and gives off oxygen...provides shade, fertilizes through dropping acorns and becomes home for an entire habitat, in the case of forests and jungles. Eyes tend to see. Stars tend to give heat and provide gravitational influence. Rain tends to help vegetation, which provides food for living things. A brain contains a self-aware mind where the body and environment impacts it and it is a first cause that impacts the body and environment. The list goes on and on. But the ideas associated with chairs applies here too. We look at things nature based on what seems to be their function or end.
The forms or ideas are tied to material things based on design or end of those material things, rather than eternal realm of ideas or a pregnant piece of matter with potential. The telos or design of things tells us the function and the nature of what we sense. The concept of design is based on our sensibility on how we see things plus our rationale in the concept of purpose. When you see a chair, you know it is a chair based on 1) recognition from seeing other chairs plus 2) memory of realizing what chairs are for from seeing the very first one, forward. It's that simple. The nature of things is determined by purpose, design or function and a mind that properly functions to recognize it and also a part of it all. Again, language rules and definitions are arbitrary from the concepts of nature, design, purpose, etc. For example, a toddler can recognize spinach before she knows what to call it or how to say it or write it.
Are the only things that exist material/sensible? No. In this sense, Plato was correct and the nominalists were wrong. Realists believe, sort of like Plato, that there are non-material things that exist, as well as material things. Nominalists believe there's only physical or material things and all non-material concepts are handy illusions, rather than anything real. Nominalists believe that your idea of blue circles doesn't exist outside of your head. Nominalism reigns in all schools today because of the consensus of scientism and naturalism as the foundation for all knowledge. But there are obvious problems with nominalism. You can reduce blue circles as much as you want, in order to try to eliminate properties, relations and universals, like reducing blue circles to atoms and reflected rays to eye recepters. For example, the color blue is the aborption of all frequencies except the frequencies that bounce off and hit our eye receptors, giving us a blue sensation. But the explanation has properties like reduction, reflection. It has relations like sender and reliever, being the light waves and the eye receptor. There are universals, like atoms, rays, eye receptors. If you wanted to eliminate non-material entities, you would have to further reduce those properties, universals and relations, ad absurdum. You have to rely on the very things you want to explain away or eliminate, which are properties, universals and relations, in order to try to do it. So, you can't deny the existence of non-material entities. So, things like numbers, colors and morals can exist without being reduced to material explanations.
What about knowledge? This is sometimes referred to as the study of epistemology. How can we know something exists and its nature? How can we know anything? Skeptics believe that things called 'justified true beliefs' are impossible because of absurd problems that come up in trying to define what a justified true belief really is. But, regardless of the skepticism school you study, there is one common denominator. They all believe that any knowledge claim is guilty until proven innocent. In other words, unless you can perfectly explain any knowledge claim, you can't claim it as real knowledge or a justified true belief. How do you respond to these skeptical ideas? Well, its obvious. Of course there are some knowledge claims that require more than simple conclusions, like what the atomic weight of helium is. But there is knowledge that requires no deliberation. I know I am typing this. I know I had a steak for dinner. I know that when I turn on a switch, the light comes on. Now, I may be mistaken, but unless I have good reasons to doubt these claims, then there is no good reason to doubt them. So, my response is this: Any knowledge claim that has no good reasons to be doubted are justified and innocent until doubt can be established. A child understands this. A PhD has problems with this.
Knowledge also requires a mind that functions properly, the way it's supposed to. That binds metaphysics to epistemology. A working mind senses and critically thinks about what's out there as well as what is self-aware within us, whether it is pain, gladness or despair. All of this, whether it is metaphysics or epistemology, hinges on the universal and binding concept of purpose, design and proper function. In other words, the design of everything is the underlying foundation for philosophy. Without design, we can't discuss any of these things.
Now, regarding atheism and its sub schools of skepticism and nominalism: It seems gratuitous to begin with the knowledge claim that there is no God and use that as the foundation to arrive at nominalism or skepticism. Especially the latter. It would seem that atheism is a great big 'hold the phone' in terms of arriving at any conclusions. You can't prove the existence of God beginning with our tiny perspectives. But you can't conclude atheism for the same reason. However, when considering the nature of everything and knowledge, you can't discuss these things outside of design and design requires a Mind that's logically prior. If a chair is designed by a mind to help people sit, a Mind is behind the weak and strong force in our universe, gravity, multi-dimensions with only three spacial plus one temporal being sensed by people with minds that function to understand and comprehend. In other words, there's far more reason to believe in God than their is not to. This is Romans 1 in a nutshell and why Paul stresses design as the single important proof, even regarding morals as things that are 'self evident' so that we are 'without excuse.'
This has turned from a philosophical meandering to an apologetic one. However, if design or function underlies the topics of the nature of things and knowledge, then God or an Intelligent and Moral Mind is logically prior to design and makes it all tie back to God. Without God, you don't have a philosophy or a coherent world view. There's what you espouse and another way you live. With theism, you can live what you espouse without tension. Nominalism and skepticism and even sub-categories of logical positivism or deconstruction only work in a college classroom on a chalk board or a test. But they have no relavence in the real world. Abandoning God is the single most important reason why metaphysics has been abandoned, the prospect of true knowledge claims outside of scientific ones, impossible. And those conclusions are held in tension with living real life outside the classroom.
