Uncategorized

A Prayer for Peace

by Dave Seng

Lord, we entreat Thee on behalf of the countries where the horrors of war are ravaging the land. Uproot from the minds of the leaders the desire for gain and the pride of conquest. Put an end to the shedding of the blood of men, women, and children. Give wise counsel and strong influence to all nations that stand by, that peace may soon be restored. Let men speedily learn the lessons that Thou wouldst teach them in the devastation. Let Thy Christians everywhere be given the Spirit of prayer to come before thee strongly in these days of distress. Let us discern the times and behold the visitation meant for our good. Help each one of us in our several callings and spheres of life to be a power for the preserving of peace among men and nations. O Lord, Thou wouldst make us weary of a sin-torn world; teach us well to run our race and in Thy name to battle with every obstacle of love, till Judgment Day ushers in the reign of perfect peace in Christ Jesus, our Lord. Amen

Lutheran Book of Prayer, 1941

Book Reviews, Intellectual History

Review: Hegel: A Very Short Introduction

by Dave Seng

I am a fan of the Very Short Introduction series published by Oxford University Press. The series covers topics of history, literature, philosophy, and the sciences among others. Almost any academic subject is treated and the books are easily digestible and comprehended. I often recommend the series to those who ask me for an introduction to a philosopher or topic but do not want to immediately dive into a dense textbook. These books are great for anyone who wants a basic understanding of a topic, looking for a source that will aide their reading in the subject, or is beginning to read in a particular field and looking for a solid point of departure for further study. I have read several of these short introductions and gained valuable insight from them. I use one chapter from Floridi’s Information: A Very Short Introduction as required reading in one of my classes.

As I am currently reading through the works of Georg W. F. Hegel (primarily his Philosophy of Right, and Philosophy of History), I took a small detour and picked up Peter Singer’s Hegel: A Very Short Introduction. Hegel is an important thinker, but he not easily discernable. I found Singer’s short introduction to by helpful and what I needed to get back on track with my Hegel reading. So if you are interested in finding a “quick-start” guide to understanding Hegel, at least at the basic level, I recommend Singer’s Hegel: A Very Short Introduction. For me, Singer provides all the necessary explication of Hegel’s main ideas that I needed to make my reading of Philosophy of Right much more meaningful.

Singer divides this introduction into six chapters: Hegel’s Life and Times, History With a Purpose, Freedom and Community, The Odyssey of Mind, Logic and Dialectics, Aftermath. It would be beyond the scope of this review to break down each chapter. However, I will try to demonstrate why this introduction is worth reading, especially if you are interested in understanding the thought of Hegel. The two most important concepts to understand in Hegel’s philosophy is his idea of Geist and his conceptual theme of dialectic.

After situating Hegel in his historical context, Singer highlights and explains the most important aspects of Hegel’s philosophy. This is really helpful because Hegel was one of the last great system builders of the Western intellectual tradition. In other words, Hegel was among the last to attempt to make sense out of such perennial questions as (What is reality? What is the ultimate good? What is the total meaning of things?) and answer these questions in a complete and systematic way which makes sense out of reality and experience as a whole. Today, due to postmodernism, grand narratives of reality have fallen out of fashion. Hegel’s great interpretive scheme of the world is a cosmic one—a spiritual one really—grounded in mind or what he calls Geist (the German word for mind or spirit) it is where the English word for ghost comes from and also, interestingly, the word geyser. Hegel’s conception of Geist, then, is something like an immaterial life force or purposeful spiritual ‘world-mind’ that encompasses all reality (some translations of Hegel’s works use the term ‘world-mind’ for Geist). For Hegel, Geist, is the complete totality of all reality, including being and becoming, the mental and external, finite and infinite—everything is grounded in Geist. (As we sill see below, much of Hegel’s philosophy seeks to bring unity out of conflicting paradigms or opposing forces, for now it is enough to know that everything is grounded in Geist and the dialectic is the process that Geist uses to bring about unity from opposites). Singer explains that Geist is both a spiritual or mental force in the world and it is central to Hegel’s philosophical system. Singer puts it this way, “So crucial is this idea that Hegel actually says that the whole object of the Philosophy of History is to become acquainted with Geist in its guiding role in history” (60). So when reading Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, or his Philosophy of History, it is helpful to understand that Hegel is trying to explain how the world-mind, or Geist is driving society, nations, ethics, law and history.

The concept of dialectic is also important to Hegel. In Philosophy of Right, Hegel is careful to distinguish his method of dialectic from that of Socrates and Plato. Dialectic, means ‘conversation’ and in philosophy, in the classical sense, dialectic means the rational and analytical investigation of truth through conversation and dialogue. According to Hegel, however, Plato’s dialectical method does not go far enough. Hegel thought that coming to greater clarity about something through conversation did not serve a greater historical purpose. For Hegel, dialectic is the process which Geist reconciles conflicting ideological forces in history. Singer explains that there is nothing mysterious about Hegel’s line of thought. He further points out that Hegel developed this formula in his work on logic. The dialectic starts with an assertion or proposition, the thesis, moves to a second stage which is the opposite of the thesis, the antithesis, and is unified in what Hegel calls the synthesis. Hegel applies this line of thinking to various movements in history from classical Greece, the Reformation, and the French revolution to name a few. A really quick example might help. In political economics a Hegelian dialectic could look like this—Thesis: Capitalism (private property is allowed) Antithesis: Communism (private property is not allowed), Synthesis: Fascism (private property and enterprise is allowed as long as the producers obey the dictates of the totalitarian State) this is oversimplified, of course, but Hegel’s dialectic is an attempt to show the unification of opposing ideas in a new idea. The thesis would be the first stage in history, the antithesis would be the second state in history, the historical working out of the opposite idea, and the synthesis would be the final stage of some kind of new intellectual or historical unity. For Hegel, however, the dialectic does not stop at the synthesis. The synthesis becomes the foundation of a new thesis and the dialectic moves on to greater and grander abstraction.

Some scholars have doubted the importance and significance of Hegel’s dialectic. To Hegel, it was very significant. It is assumed that the reader is familiar with it in Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. It was also an influence on Marx, who modified the formula to what he called dialectical materialism. Marx made the dialectic a purely material phenomenon. Singer’s introduction does a great job explaining these ideas and he clearly demonstrates the influence of Hegelian philosophy on other thinkers such as Marx and how those ideas have influenced the world around us. Singer’s short book Hegel: A Very Short Introduction is very helpful for those who want to gain a better understanding of Hegel and his importance in intellectual history.

Works Cited

Singer, Peter. Hegel: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2001.

Being, Natural Theology, Philosophical Theology

SPINOZA’S PHILOSOPHICAL METHOD AND AUGUSTINE’S NATURAL THEOLOGY: PART Three of three

by Dave Seng

Part one can be found here.

Part two can be found here.

It is true that natural theology reasons to a transcendent God based on the properties of being and the natural world, but the God that natural theology reasons to is far from an afterthought, or built on fictions. Many of the great Western philosophers such as Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas employ natural reasoning, appeal to being and becoming, logic, and the principle of causality to conclude that an eternal and necessary God exists. This is a very different approach than that of Spinoza’s and is worth investigating. From the standpoint of natural theology, it is illogical to presuppose that God exists in a sound deductive argument. Furthermore, according to natural theology, self-creation is a self-contradiction, and pantheism is impossible due to the laws of logic, contingency, and the principle of causation. Using this foundation, Augustine provides a helpful analysis from the perspective of natural theology.

Classical philosophers have found that natural theology is a powerful and thoughtful way to think about the existence of God. In fact, many thinkers of Western antiquity have used some form of argumentation based on the nature of Being, or reality, to reach their theological or cosmological conclusions. Natural theology is the approach many classical theologians and philosophers use to conclude the existence of a transcendent God. It is not a uniquely Christian way of argumentation either, because Plato, Aristotle, Jewish, and Muslim thinkers have used or adopted various versions of natural theology. Natural theologians and philosophers tend to focus on forms of the cosmological argument which reasons that God must exist as the ultimate cause of the contingent, physical universe.

There are many forms of the cosmological argument. In general, the argument follows from the contingency of the universe and usually adopts this line of thought: contingent, or caused, being depends for its existence on some uncaused being.1 The universe is a contingent being, therefore, the universe depends for its existence on some uncaused being. Another way of the putting the argument is this: Something exists (myself, Being, etc.). Nothing cannot produce something. Therefore, something exists eternally and necessarily. It must exist eternally because if there was absolutely nothing, nothing would exist now because nothing cannot produce something. Non-being cannot produce being. Further, it must exist necessarily because not everything can be contingent. All contingent beings require a cause due to the principle of causality—whatever comes to be (contingent being) has a cause. In general, most Western philosophical theologians argue from some aspect of Being whether it is contingency, motion, apparent design, or causality and conclude that because nothing cannot produce something, something transcendent must exist.2 The following analysis from Augustine provides additional insight into the nature and characteristics of Spinoza’s God and philosophical theology. In addition, Augustine appeals to logic and the natural order to make his case for the existence of God.

Interestingly, Augustine applies the law of noncontradiction when it comes to the nature and existence of the universe. The law of noncontradiction says that nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. As a property of being, the law of noncontradiction is fundamental to all thought, science, language, and is necessary to avoid definitional equivocation in correct reasoning. In addition, as a property of being, the laws of logic cannot be denied.3 The law of noncontradiction cannot be rejected in correct reasoning because it is self-evident and based on the idea that being and non-being are opposites and points to the nature of what is (reality). For something to exist, it cannot both exist and not exist at the same time or same relationship.4 To exist means to stand out of non-being or nothing. Being and non-being are opposites. Further, it is impossible to deny the law of noncontradiction without using the law in the denial. To say that the law of noncontradiction is false, assumes that the opposite of the claim is true. Opposites cannot both be true, which is the reason that the law of noncontradiction is foundational to all correct reasoning. This is important to keep in mind as Augustine draws on the law of noncontradiction and appeals to reality when he argues for the existence of God.

Augustine believes that the universe did not create itself and provides this natural theological argument based on the law of noncontradiction,

Earth and the heavens also proclaim that they did not create themselves. “We exist,” they tell us, “because we were made. And this is proof that we did not make ourselves. For to make ourselves, we should have had to exist before existence began.” And the fact that they plainly do exist is the voice which proclaims this truth. (Augustine, Vol. 16, 114)

Augustine is simply making the point that something cannot exist before it exists. If something did exist before it existed, it would have to be, and not be at the same time and same way, which is impossible according to the law of noncontradiction. In order for the universe to create itself, it must be before it is. Something cannot exist before it exists. Augustine thinks that self-creation violates the law of noncontradiction. According to the law of noncontradiction, the concept of self-causation is a contradiction. It is like saying there is an “uncaused effect” which is logically incoherent. Therefore, philosophers who hold to the natural theology methodology reject Spinoza’s concept of self-causation.

A natural theological approach rejects Spinoza’s rational presuppositionalism. The reason why, is that Spinoza’s methodology is circular in its reasoning. The presuppositional approach asks one to assume or presuppose that God exists in order to prove that God exists. According to Spinoza, God “is in itself and is conceived through itself” and “cannot be conceived unless existing.” In other words, “God is” (presupposition, one cannot think of God unless existing), therefore “God exists” (because a Perfect Being must exist). This is the heart of Spinoza’s methodology and presents an error in logic because the conclusion is present in the premises.5 It is the informal fallacy of begging the question. When the conclusion is present in one of the premises, the argument fails because it is circular and begs the question. It does little practical good when investigating the question of whether or not God exists, to assume that God exists in the first place. Finally, according to Augustinian natural theology, Spinoza’s pantheism is not correct because a transcendent cause of the universe is necessary. If the universe is contingent there must be something that is uncaused to create anything that may or may not exist. Self-creation is a self-contradiction.

On the question of God’s existence, Spinoza tells the inquirer to study the divine nature first (611), but the very question is whether or not the divine nature exists at all. On the other hand, a good valid and sound deductive cosmological argument will not (or should not) be circular. The existence of God is not assumed in a valid cosmological argument.6 Of course, no conclusion in a deductive argument can be stronger than the premises, but that is exactly where the conversation should take place (and does take place between philosophers of religion). Throughout intellectual history, there have been many doubts, challenges, and questions applied to the premises of natural theology and the cosmological argument, and that is perfectly good and appropriate. The circular reasoning of Spinoza’s overall rational presuppositionalism, however, is not helpful.

1 A contingent being is that which may or may not be or exist, any being which can be or can be made to exist or not exist.

2This is the general line of reasoning found in Aquinas’s “Five Ways” on pgs. 12 – 13 in Aquinas I, Vol. 17.

3 The three primary laws of logic are noncontradiction, excluded middle, and identity. They were first explicated by Aristotle in his Physics and Metaphysics. Here we will only focus on the law of noncontradiction.

4Many things in the world exist in relationship to one another. I, however, cannot both be my father’s father and my son’s father. That is a different relationship. Similarly, I may be the biological father of my son, but if my son were to be adopted by someone else, that would entail a different legal relationship.

5Another example of circular reasoning is Descartes’s statement, “I think, therefore I am”. Descartes presupposes an “I” and then concludes that an “I” exists. The conclusion is the premise of the argument and therefore, circular and invalid. Thankfully, Descartes later changed his statement to be understood as a self-evident first principle.

6This is true for any sound and valid argument whatsoever. The conclusion should never be a premise.

Works cited

Augustine. The Confessions, The City of God, On Christian Doctrine. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 16. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.

Spinoza. Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 28. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.

Great Books, Intellectual History, Natural Theology

Spinoza’s Philosophical Method and Augustine’s Natural Theology: Part Two

by Dave Seng

Part one can be found here.

The presuppositional method of Spinoza’s philosophy is an important part of the structure of his metaphysical system and generally follows Descartes’s reasoning. Spinoza does not argue for the existence of God discursively, deductively, or dialectically in the way Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, or Aquinas frames a cosmological argument, reasoning from an effect (the universe) to a cause (God).1 Spinoza believes that God necessarily exists because the notion of perfection proves that he exists. Spinoza puts it this way,

Perfection consequently does not prevent the existence of a thing, but establishes it; imperfection, on the other hand, prevents existence, and so of no existence can we be more sure than the existence of the Being absolutely infinite or perfect, that is to say God. For since His essence shuts out all imperfection and involves absolute perfection, for this very reason all cause of doubt concerning His existence is taken away, and the highest certainty concerning it is given,—a truth which I trust will be evident to any one who bestows only moderate attention. (593)

Spinoza reasons that both perfection and existence are properties of being and since God is the Perfect Being, God’s existence follows because existence is a necessary part of being. For Spinoza, God is the Perfect Being and substance of the universe. In fact, Spinoza thinks that those who reason from the natural order (what is) to the conclusion of God, “have not observed the proper order of philosophic study” (610). He explains,

For although the divine nature ought to be studied first, because it is first in order of knowledge and in the order of things, they think it last; while, on the other hand, those things which are called objects of the senses are believed to stand before everything else. Hence it has come to pass that there was nothing of which men thought less than the divine nature while they afterwards applied themselves to think about God, there was nothing of which they could think less than those prior fictions upon which they had built their knowledge of natural things, for these could in no way help to the knowledge of the divine nature. (611)

As a rationalist, Spinoza believes it is wrong to start with the “objects of the senses” because he thinks all knowledge comes by reason alone. After all, as Descartes famously insists, the senses can be wrong. Natural things, according to Spinoza do not provide knowledge of the divine. Arguments from natural reasoning, are based upon “fictions.” Instead, Spinoza thinks it is best to start with the existence of God, assumed or presupposed, and rationally describe the divine nature from there. “The divine nature ought to be studied first” according to Spinoza and he reasons that any natural argument from existence to an eternal and necessary Being is philosophically backwards. He thinks natural theology makes God an afterthought. In addition, Spinoza believes that God must be presupposed, or assumed, when it comes to the existence of the natural order, “Every one must admit that without God nothing can be nor be conceived; for every one admits that God is the sole cause both of the essence and of the existence of all things” (610). In other words, according to Spinoza, when considering the question of whether or not God exists, it must be assumed there is a God because “nothing can be nor be conceived” without God. A genuine inquiry into the existence or non-existence of God is not a viable option for Spinoza because God must be assumed and all reasoning must start from there. Spinoza repeats this assertion on page 611 of his Ethics, “individual things cannot be nor be conceived without God.” One reason why Spinoza takes this position is that he believes that all things and people are really a part of God. If all things are a part of God, it is unreasonable to discount the existence of God.

Spinoza, goes further than Descartes, however, and equates God with the universe which is pantheism. This is an important difference between Descartes and Spinoza. Like Descartes, Spinoza is a rationalist in his epistemology, unlike Descartes, Spinoza, is a pantheist in his theological perspective. Pantheism is the philosophical and theological position that equates God with the universe. With pantheism, the universe and God are one entity. In other words, the natural world and God are the same thing. According to Spinoza, “whatever is, is in God” (594) and “…in nature … only one substance exists, namely God” (600). Spinoza further claims that, “Hence it follows with the greatest clearness, firstly that God is one, that is to say … in nature there is but one substance, and it is absolutely infinite” (594). Finally, Spinoza concludes “All things which are, are in God and must be conceived through Him.” (597). Spinoza thinks that God is in all and all is in God. Spinoza’s metaphysical commitments ultimately lead him to conclude that all reality can be reduced to one thing, natural substance, which is God. The individual, particular things of this world are simply modes or attributes of the universal substance of God.

Spinoza, assumes or presupposes the nature of God’s existence because he is a rationalist, meaning that he believes all philosophic knowledge can be acquired through reason alone, apart from sense experience, or any appeal to external reality. God must exist because God is the perfect Being. God is in all and all are in Him. Spinoza’s rationalism also leads him to conclude that there can only be one substance in the universe and that substance is God. Further, Spinoza thinks that God, or the universe, created itself. He believes that the universe is the cause of itself (590). One of his earliest axioms in the Ethics is “that which cannot be conceived through another must be conceived through itself” (589). Later, he concludes, “for the thing whose nature (considered, that is to say, in itself) involves existence, is the the cause of itself and exists from the necessity of its own nature alone” (emphasis added, 599). For Spinoza, the reason why the universe exists is because the universe, which is God, made itself. Spinoza’s philosophical method for arguing to the existence of God is very different from Augustine’s.

Next time, we will examine how Augustine’s natural theology is different from Spinoza’s and why self-creation is a logical contradiction.

1Plato argued for a Demiurge or God-like artisan of the universe based on the reality of Being. Aristotle argued for a “Prime Mover” reasoning that an actual uncreated being is necessary to actualize the potency of the universe. Augustine and Aquinas also argued from the reality of Being to the creator Christian God. All thinkers agree that non-being cannot create being.

Works Cited

Spinoza. Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 28. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.