Postmodern Thinking

A Commentary on Paul Bloom's "The Duel Between Body and Soul"

2004-09-10T15:17:00.000-07:00

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: The Duel Between Body and Soul

"People see bodies and souls as separate; we are common-sense dualists."

Paul Bloom writes an informative article on the dualistic “common-sense” of modern man. Bloom addresses the assumption human beings tend to make, by characterizing the soul as something separate from the brain—that the activity in the brain is really reactionary to the “thought.”

Bloom, using commonsensical language here—scientifically speaking in this sense—may not provide an adequate case for materialism. I think it important to discuss the merits of this existential thing we call “The Will.” Nietzsche described human beings as having some sort of “Will to Power.” This notion prescribed human beings with the creative force to be artistic and noble. He ascertained that the nobility of man was one that focused intensely on The Will and further, on life—as opposed to the Christian notion, which focuses primarily on death.

Bloom discusses the various modern approaches to dualism. He says that Americans primarily believe that a soul flees the body once the body perishes and “ascends to heaven or descends into hell, while” he continues, “people from other cultures believe that it enters a parallel spirit world, or occupies some other body, human or animal.” Americans being Christian or Jewish (though a Jew’s “Hell” is something completely different from a Christian’s) and other cultures seem to be Hinduism or Buddhism, where this “parallel spirit world” would be the Brahman or The One—by cycling through various reincarnations—respectively. I am generalizing here, obviously, given a history of religious cultures is not necessary in order to make my point.

What is necessary, however, understands that what these cultures are trying to pinpoint, is a philosophical nature of man. Christianity finds the present “human” life to be abhorrent compared to what comes after death. A man who has experienced salvation will break away from his material body when he dies and have everlasting life in the spiritual realm of heaven. In this sense, Christianity worships death.

The spiritual component that Nietzsche is talking about, however, is the nature of man being one of creativeness and nobility. He appeals to ancient Greece when he describes this nobility (cf. Nietzsche’s The Genealogy of Morals). This Dionysian philosophy of Nietzsche asserted the intuitive creativity of mankind and thusly worshipped life as opposed to death.

The problem then becomes one of epistemology. Is this materialism that Bloom is asserting correct? Unfortunately, science relies on an empirical epistemology first and foremost and suffices to say, cannot get away from this perspective, by definition. Given, science is a philosophy of methodology it is impossible to discuss things such as metaphysics, or more accurately, anything that is beyond the senses, if you will.

Because of the limitations of science, scientists make assumptions regarding the physical world. For example, this idea that matter exists and is a substance that is the substance of all things is a fabrication in order to facilitate the properties of science. Without this fundamental “thing,” science has no foundation. However, in defense of science, the substance of all things is not necessary in order to practice day-to-day experiments.

But to the philosopher, this is one of the more pressing issues. When Democritus presupposed that all things were made of atoms, Aristotle questioned the purpose of things, the ultimate design, and the cause for physical change. Other pre-Socratics, such as Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and probably Hermotimus “vaguely” grasped two of the causes, “matter” and the “source of movement.” Aristotle cites two examples. (1) Anaxagoras who ventured “reason” as being the “deus ex machina” for the genesis, only used this when he could decipher no other cause (perhaps in the same way apologists use dialectical arguments only to prove their understood theology). (2) Empedocles seems to grasp the idea more reasonably, but still not quite reasonably enough. He makes “love segregate things, and strife aggregate them.” His thought, then, introduced the “dividing” of [the “good” and “bad”] cause. This posited more than one, and contrary, “sources of movement (cf. Aristotle’s Metaphysics A.3.985a10-985b4).”

It seems as though modern science has adopted the view of that which was accepted before Plato and Aristotle, but perhaps with a jargon more “scientific.” For both, by and large, held that man learns mostly through experience, but that certain “Ideas”—in Platonic thought—are previously known, insofar as one can associate anything to these “Ideas” for one cannot learn of these “Ideas” simply through experience (cf. Plato’s Pheado 72e-77a). Aristotle appeals to popular opinion and weighs its positive and negative aspects, searching for true knowledge.

The practicality of Aristotle does not limit his thought, nor does it break completely with Plato—despite Platonic idealism—but allows for some sort of causal proofs of the “greatest things,” even when speaking of universalities. Further, it seems that perhaps modern science needs to take a second look at its predecessors, asking themselves, “What exactly are we attempting to conquer?” That is to say, does modern science understand nature in the sense that Aristotle attempted to understand it? Or does modern science skip the issue of understanding completely? Insofar as the latter is correct, it seems to me that we must go back to the source and perhaps humble ourselves to what maybe the most reasonable account of the perplexities of nature and its attempt to understand these perplexities, simply by asking the important questions.

And by doing this, Mr. Bloom, the issue ceases to be simply common sense.

The US: An Aristotelian Governed Utopia?

2004-08-30T12:18:00.000-07:00

Forget the Lockean notion of individual liberty in his arguments against soverienty or even Thomas Jefferson's heavy borrowing from his Second Treatise on Civil Government in his conception of our own constitution. Lets honestly look at the realism of our democracy and not some whimisical delusion of idealistic liberal jargon of what TJ meant in our constitution when TJ himself was so profoundly influenced by Locke in the tenets made in his treatise. Beyond Locke's hatred of King George the 3rd, certaintly we must ascribe the motivation for the elimination of any Monarchal system is rooted in a personal taste and not neccesarily empirical evidence or even consistent theory. History (i.e. the Roman Empire) speaks for itself in the great achievements of a society based upon a ruler of the proper magnitude in wisdom, arete, intellegence and cunning. Of course Rome was a repulic much akin to even a democracy before Ceaser, Augustus and Claudius, leading us to postulate by reflection and recorded documents an inherent weakness within a stagnant well fed senate being something akin to inertia. The question is whether this fat, divided, and blameless (ironically divided near the election) congress we have in the discrict of Columbia is actually being successful in excluding themselves as blaimless servents of the people, and have convinced the common folk they have the aristotelian middle class power in there hands by a sleight of hand illusion. One thing I am certain is that "The President" was set up by our founding fathers as what they must have viewed as a neccesary and important institution in government, whether they peered into the future of the House of Representatives or just understood the lessons of history and perhaps had a small inkling of platonic idealism. One notion we must consider and give credence is plausable complete decimation of the instution in question through an ambigously plotting congress and senators corrupted by the clinging sounds of payoffs from special interest, and in the process leave the important decisions, the decisive ones, the ones that Julius Ceaser utilized to secure and strengthen the Roman empire ('Saved I these men that they might murder me?", Julius Ceaser after being stabbed by the members of the senate: Suetonius) in the hands of sheep who more oft-represented interest of personal gain rather than a ruling middle class that Aristotle so practically and 'meanly', yet ironically both idealistically and unrealistically conceived.

What is philosophy?

2004-08-28T10:16:00.000-07:00

Perhaps a relevent initial post will answer the basic question: "what is philosophy?"

Philosophy comes from the Greek terms, philia--meaning "love [of friendship]"--and sophia--meaning "wisdom." The term was coined by Pythagoras when an emperor called him "wise"; to which he replied: ou sophos all philosophos (="Not wise but trying to be wise"). Henceforth, the term "philosophy" means a) literally: love of wisdom; b) coined from "trying to be wise." Morever, the term simply means, one who is not wise, but is working at it; and has a love, or longing for it.

I find it's colloquial use, however, quite insulting. The idea that any man can have "a philosophy" as if the term would be interchangeable with an opinion! Although Pythagoras and his troupe of elegant Oriental robe-wearing elitists were very proud of themselves, Pythagoras understood the concept that while a thinker contemplates the great mysteries of life, once he understands them he can no longer contemplate them--he just knows or, he has wisdom. Defending his elitism, then, is simple. This concept is quite a humbling idea, however, it is not humbling relative to other human beings (*wink wink*).

So, let us get our fancy robes, remember to never eat beans, and start philosophizing!

Welcome

2004-08-25T17:49:00.000-07:00

Welcome to Postmodern Thinking, a blog devoted to philosophical discussion and review. Feel free to comment on any post, however, any irrelevent posting (i.e., not specifically about the subject at hand, will be promptly deleted). Members are chosen at the discretion of current members only. Do not ask to become a member--if we decide to invite you, it will be based on a) personal experience, or b) specific comments you have made that we have found intriguing. Non-members, please feel free to peruse the discussions and comment yourself! Remember, if you are a non-member and also not a Blogger, you MUST post your name at the end of each comment in order for us to know who you are. Members must have a Blogger account, so you may as well get one now. Thank you and enjoy! Back to Postmodern Thinking.