Ok, it took me a little while to find out how to format this paper for presentation via html (thanks blogger, for being ancient lol). I will post a link here once I write a post explaining how I did it :-)
Benjamin Woodruff
Professor Jill Darley
English 103
19 April 2012
Inquiry (Approaches to Philosophy: Epistemology and The Real)
Not all abuses of authority are with bad intentions. People with intellectual authority may tend more often to forget how much power they hold over their impressionable disciples. Maybe they think there is no objective standard for right and wrong, good or bad, real or illusion, so they assume there wouldn’t be any harm in their conjecturing and blindly groping for answers from a universe which they think has no definite truth. While I may disagree strongly with some thinkers, I usually make it a habit to still show respect to people in general whether they do good or bad. After all, judgment isn’t for me to meet out, only it is a righteous task for a discerning mind to call out misguided leadership or false teaching. It only takes a little bit of leaven to make bread rise in an oven, and bad leaven (or too much leaven) can corrupt a whole loaf very easily. Imagine that leaven is a metaphor for knowledge or teaching, and the bread is the people (The Holy Bible: King James Version, Galatians 5.9).
Now, to address Plato, the first of three thinkers I will deal with. I see his overall message to be this: light is good, revealing reality truly, and the source of light is the same as the “universal author of all things beautiful and right,” and that man can attain ascension, enlightenment, beatification, or what have you, at the moment he opens his eyes to the ‘world of light,’ and then he goes on to discuss the process of convincing other ‘just men’ to take part in their responsibilities of the State; e.g., becoming enlightened, then going back to the underworld to foster goodness among ordinary men (Plato, 4). While difficult for me to find any good points from Plato, I’ll bring up that at least he thought that there was an objective, good, and moral standard in the universe, which man could tap into if he were doing the right thing. Where I will later differ with him, is exactly how one should go about attaining objective standards for truth or goodness. One other thing he seems to have going for him is that he clearly pities the lowly, down-trodden, and abused segments of society, and hopes that mankind will avoid hurting one another for the sake of their own deviant pleasure. He seems to say that good and evil are equally present in man, only that good is a later occurrence in his existence, and is only achievable through some effort (5). This kind of teaching leads directly into such heretical beliefs as held by Gnostic faiths, Theosophy, Church of Science, and others who all seem to have a minor twist on very similar philosophical and mystical practices, including freemasonry. The problem in the context of this essay is that it would take several pages at least to right describe the connections between these groups and Plato’s teachings, and several more sources would be needed for citation purposes. I think that if one is familiar with the ideas of gnosticism (that one can be enlightened by the search for and attainment of knowledge), it would be logical enough to make a connection to Plato.
I believe he was trying to say that there are other powers in the universe which we aren’t aware of, but that we can easily toss off our shackles and seek the advancement we could really benefit from, as a species. This is a nice, pretty, and yet delusional notion to many people, and, while I tend to also wish mankind could simply choose to stop being imperfect or flawed or whatever it is that causes war, crime, and generally immoral behavior, I don’t think for a minute that any spiritual or intellectual or moral high ground which man achieved on his own would help us in the end. If we define, for a moment, sin as the act of hurting another through the immoral acts which please our more base desires, we can approach the fundamental issue at hand: that some people believe ascension would or could negate the negative aspects of sin so that people could live in harmony, even by their own power. That, after the elect or leaders of mankind have risen to their heightened state, people will all share in that benefit by the return of their leaders to the lower domain is fantasy. People in privileged and powerful positions the world over have rarely given up their privilege or power to dwell with lower ranking automatons. Man is not the solution to man’s problem of having a tendency towards evil, in my view. Also, I tend to believe that the only supposed peace that can be produced by man’s own efforts (without the grace and forgiveness of the eternal Creator) would be a purely sinful one in which man sheds his inhibition and accepts vice and all immorality as being acceptable. In many ways, I would say that this illustration is extant in today’s society, which is why so many old folks tend to say something to the effect of, “The world is going to hell in a hand basket!”
Looking at the way people today seem to flock to Plato and other ‘moral authorities’ for guidance which is outside the realm of science, while not being so morally restrictive as religion, I tend to think people are simply delusional from too much (or bad) leaven. People are tired of the supposed hypocrisy of religion and the popular ideas of God, and they feel science is only applicable to the physical realm, thus it is clear why knowledge of a mystical nature would be such an attractive and wonderful support for a supposed new morality, in which people can evolve out of their flawed self, and into a new, perfect state of understanding. They could do whatever they want, and everything they would want would be good. They would be just like God, only better, because they wouldn’t be so darn inconsistent. While the Bible isn’t considered a worthy scholarly source of information to some people, it is interesting that the parable of leaven came to my mind when reading the allegory. The reason it is interesting, to me, at least, is that the very next verse (after the one I paraphrased above, in my intro) is “I have confidence in you through the Lord, that you will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he be” (The Holy Bible: King James Version, Galatians 5.10). To paraphrase this verse, I would say that Paul the apostle is expecting someone to be confusing or leading the people astray, and that he believed those charlatans would bear some judgment. I believe that Plato is one of these people, offering bad knowledge which seeks to restore man to some better state, ascending beyond matters of truth, morality, reality, and even God. While I find it entertaining that atheists often look to Plato, especially to his work, Euthyphro’s dilemma, for evidence in support of the nonexistence or logical impossibility of the Christian God, Plato was clearly not an atheist and didn’t seem to argue for the idea. If one doesn’t believe in God, however, or absolute right and wrong for that matter, then my argument probably doesn’t make a difference to them, which I’ll get into later, in regards to Nietzsche.
Okay, now it’s Bacon’s turn. I think that understanding the context of a speaker or writer is very important in the accurate assessment of one’s work. Case in point, my early thoughts on Bacon, based on the reading we were supplied, didn’t take into consideration that he believed in God. I applaud his interest in steering learning away from mysticism and occultism, which I talk about later, but I still think he could have done more to show that a scientific study of the universe is not inconceivably possible alongside a traditional belief in God. This is because of my belief that, in spite of the drastically advanced understanding we have of biological life (DNA, cell structures, the effects of physics, etc.) and the universe (sub-atomic particles, astronomy and astrophysics), humanity is no closer to explaining scientifically a way that life on this planet could be possible without the help of a supernatural being of some kind. I won’t take the time here to explain my evidence in support of this assertion, but I find it interesting that so many academics and skeptics still use science as their bright and shiny torch of logic and reason to help them combat the horrible menace known as theism.
It seems to me that Bacon is describing in his assessment of idols not a biblical type of distraction from God, but a distraction from searching for knowledge through a scientific (or at least quasi-empirical) process (Bacon, 9). It’s interesting that he addresses Plato’s and Aristotle’s ideas, in his first two idols, then touches on something different, which I call the Babel effect. What I think he is describing is the nature of man since the time shortly after Noah’s flood, when the people of the earth were changed by God due to their attempts to reach into the heavens by building a giant tower. According to the book of Genesis, chapter 11, verse four, the people said: “And they said, Come, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth” (The Holy Bible: King James Version). After this point, as everyone is probably aware, men were supposedly cast into confusion and scattered across the earth due to their differences in language. I believe that mankind’s slow progress in science and commerce is greatly due to this effect, whether it was indeed caused by God or not, and that many thinkers and rulers have yearned for a way to better control communication. While it’s probably good that he wants to improve mankind’s search for knowledge of the natural world by helping develop science, I don’t see a point in trying to make any universal jump beyond the language barrier. I don’t think international trade has helped anyone, frankly, except rich Americans and Europeans to get richer off of the unfair trade of labor and resources from the poor to these rich and powerful people. The issues of wealth, social status, and power, are not strictly secular topics of study made popular by such sociologists as Marx, Durkheim, and Comte, as much of the Holy Bible is a commentary on how to treat people equitably, especially in regards to the poor. Another interesting insight of holy scripture is that it is difficult for wealthy and learned people to get to heaven. Why? Probably because they are unwilling to part from their wealth, and, often in attempts at prolonging or enriching life to better enjoy their riches, they have a higher tendency to seek knowledge outside of what is necessary for understanding God; which can easily lead to a forgetfulness of the basic foundation of good religion—leading a morally rich life and saving up treasure in heaven, where it can’t be destroyed by nature or stolen by man (The Holy Bible: King James Version, Matthew 6.19). This is the very same moral capital I mentioned in one of my in-class reflections, which can be furnished upon request.
To me, ascending beyond or defeating the language barrier makes everyone more likely to rebel against God. This is what I glean from my knowledge of scripture and other understandings I have, so I don’t expect others to agree; I don’t believe these philosophers have so far intended to really benefit the likes of the ordinary person. Well, maybe their intentions may have been good, since I really have no way of judging that for myself, but I suspect that the things they propose and describe are only snares and traps for the commoners to not only give up more power to the wealthy (who may benefit very much from a new world order or at least world trade), but also to convince the people that it will be in their best interest to also seek knowledge outside of what God wants for us to know (see: the occult and witchcraft).
The parallels, etc., that Bacon references in his description and warning of the fourth idol, are interestingly something of interest to me on another note. He is making a reference to astrological knowledge and systems, which he says are made up, which I know, from experience, are definitely not made up. Astrology is a subject I studied in depth for no real reason, other than curiosity, when I was a teenager. I continued my study of this topic, and its occult relationships with the cosmos, well into my adulthood. Being quite familiar with the ideas he is referencing, I find it interesting that he is essentially stating a need for separation between science and mysticism. I think he probably would have talked about mysticism differently if he’d ever experienced it more closely (perhaps suggesting against all use or learning of it), but no one should be involved in the occult and expect to have a life without continuous trouble, which is why I eventually weened myself off of investigating the occult and why I’m glad he apparently didn’t get into it too much himself. I believe he was resisting Plato and others like him who used such practices of seeking and using mystical knowledge, and hopefully other Christians will continue to resist these kinds of practices: “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has also rejected you from being king” (The Holy Bible: King James Version, First Sam. 15.23). This line of scripture is specifically dealing with the kind of power gained through use of and search for knowledge through mysticism, which is rebellion because it takes a person away from worshipping God due to the amount of time and energy spent working in the occult. I think that if Bacon was deeply religious, the ‘false notions’ he warned about (8) wouldn’t be so much a threat to scientific truth as they would be to the truth provided by special revelation, in holy scripture. This is a basic teaching in Christianity, so I am surprised that he doesn’t see need of warning people against the idolatry mentioned above, as it relates to God and our relationship with Him.
I think I’ve dealt with Bacon enough; now for Nietzsche, my least favorite of the three. Even though he denounces the philosopher (which sort of makes him a hypocrite), he is no clearer or more honest than any of them in describing a reality that an ordinary person could possibly understand without a lifetime of ‘enlightenment.’ He has an interesting use of voice and almost sarcastic tones, but I’m supposed to be dealing with his content. This is difficult for me, because I don’t really see anything I like from him. I think the ‘clever animals’ he starts his story with are actually angels, who are, by ‘creating knowledge,’ actually delivering occult knowledge to the human race. This is a common theme throughout many ancient and more recent cultural practices, whether the knowledge (mysticism, magic, voodoo, sorcery, shamanism, etc.) comes from spirits (native Americans), demons (Veddhas of Sri Lanka), gods or aliens (Sumerians), sky people (Navajo), or from divine kings and high priests (Egypt), I believe this is what Nietzsche is indirectly remarking about. I think he is skeptical about the kinds of typical uses of occult knowledge which is more commonplace in high society and academia than ordinary people might suspect. Nietzsche starting out with a made up ‘world history’ reminds me of the false teachings of the people St. Paul warned of. I think philosophers, whether they knew it or not, were at least partially influenced by demonic spirits, receiving secret knowledge of their own and, in their own ways, warning others to try not to ‘misinterpret’ or believe in the fairy tales. It’s hard for me to discern truth from reality when these thinkers say we need to ‘open our eyes to the light’ and likewise doubt belief in the supernatural. I think their fear of the establishment has more to do with established religions than the deep thoughts of either high or low society.
Nietzsche says the intellect is a means for the preservation of the individual (43). This is true as far as it helps people to survive in nature; using raw materials and advanced bio-mechanical functions we have developed or been given in order to get food, shelter, etc. However, he talks about the evils of, what seem like, men of high society: the wealthy and powerful. See below for evidence. Sure, commoners in most groups probably do some of these things as well, but I think a person who works hard for a living certainly doesn’t preserve themselves by simulating fangs or horns; in behaving like a dangerous animal (43). His description of man’s intellect doesn’t seem to fit to all the people I’ve known in my social circles. Most ordinary people seem, to me, to adapt to social convention, but in such a way that promotes peaceful and lawful cooperation. When people stray from accepted values of their group, then they are forced to abandon hard work and adhere to crime, which is, I think, a great description for the greedy and destructive types that are the elites. This seems to better coincide with Nietzsche’s description, although I think he supposes that the sins of the well-off seep down or have a ‘trickle-down’ effect on the masses. In some cases they may, especially now days, exceedingly so through popularization of such immoral subjects of mainstream media (drug abuse, teen pregnancy, divorce after only a day of marriage, are all examples of what celebrities not only get away with, but seem to be praised for). I don’t feel that my values or ethics are extreme, and I don’t feel that I fall into a particular political mantra (such as marxism), but I can’t say I don’t pity the wealthy. They ignore the benefits of morality and truth, then collectively rejoice when people like Nietzsche explain that there is no such thing as truth, except for the lies we tell ourselves. Furthermore, trying to pose some observation of reality as being extra-moral is, to me, against the nature of God and the way people who live by religious teachings behave. He uses a popular argument against absolute right and wrong, which atheists tend to use often in my experiences with them, which is that if God is the cause for all good, and then we say God is good, we are basically saying that God is God, which doesn’t adequately describe His nature. Does a tree not proceed from a nut or seed of some kind? Does that make it impossible to tell which tree a nut will turn into? Did we somehow make that up at some point in a make-believe scenario? Is it impossible for people to know what God is like, if we say that He causes good and is known to be good? In a sense, Nietzsche is blurring the lines of reality with difficult language and flawed logical assessments about how language is imperfect, so it’s impossible to know we didn’t make everything up ourselves. To me, he wants to throw out the baby with the bath water.
I may not have originally planned to bring this discussion into so much of a religious context, but I’m glad that it took this direction. Sometimes people wonder why society, our nation, or the world at large have taken such a pitiful and immoral turn in the last several decades, and I would say that it is at least partially due to a revival or renewed interest of late in some of the worst ideas of the ancient world, whether they are occult or ‘philosophical.’ Some thinkers of less ancient times, even decent, Christian people, may have contributed to the charade, as a result of having been fooled or at least lacking wisdom in the teachings of their own doctrines, such as Bacon; although I don’t have problems with the scientific process or seeking knowledge of nature out of curiosity, which is natural to human beings, I think he misunderstood what truth really is. And some blatantly try to obscure truth and challenge the idea of goodness and rightness, such as Nietzsche, who says that society obliges all to lie herd-like (51). These observations of mine are brought to a point, in conclusion of this paper: basically, any Christian reader should seek truth and knowledge in the sources which—as we are taught—are holy and good, and other readers who are unfamiliar with the Bible may want to pick one up sometime.
Works Cited
Plato. “The Allegory of the Cave.” Readings For Writers. Ed. Jill Darley. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012. 1–7. Print.
Bacon, Francis. “The Four Idols.” Readings For Writers. Ed. Jill Darley. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012. 8–19. Print.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. “On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense.” The Portable Nietzsche. Ed. and trans. Walter Kauffman. New York: Penguin, 1982. 42–51. Print.
The Holy Bible: King James Version. Dallas, TX: Brown Books Publishing, 2004. Print.
