General Philosophy:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
An online encyclopedia with numerous articles on various areas of philosophical inquiry, including individual philosophers. Included in each entry is a bibliography for further readings, should the reader desire to look further into a topic. As it stands, this is still a work in progress (a “dynamic reference work,” in the SEP editor’s words) with many entries yet to be placed online, but it should prove useful.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Most of the articles in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy are original contributions by specialized philosophers around the internet; these are identifiable by the author's name at the foot of the article. Others are are temporary, or "proto articles," and have largely been adapted from public domain sources. They are identifiable by the inclusion of the initials IEP at the close, and will in time be replaced by original articles
Philosophical Movements:
Deconstruction
Deconstruction—J. Douglas Kneale (The Johns
"Deconstruction"
is the name given to a radical and wide-ranging development in the human
sciences, especially philosophy and literary criticism, initiated by the French
philosopher Jacques Derrida in a series of highly influential books published
in the late 1960s and early 1970s, including (in translation): Of Grammatology,
Writing and Difference, Speech and Phenomena, Margins of Philosophy, and
Dissemination. "Deconstruction," Derrida's coinage, has subsequently
become synonymous with a particular method of textual analysis and
philosophical argument involving the close reading of works of literature,
philosophy, psychoanalysis, linguistics, and anthropology to reveal logical or
rhetorical incompatibilities between the explicit and implicit planes of
discourse in a text and to demonstrate by means of a range of critical
techniques how these incompatibilities are disguised and assimilated by the
text. In one of its typical analytical procedures, a deconstructive reading
focuses on binary oppositions within a text, first, to show how those
oppositions are structured hierarchically; second, to overturn that hierarchy
temporarily, as if to make the text say the opposite of what it appeared to say
initially; and third, to displace and reassert both terms of the opposition
within a nonhierarchical relationship of "difference."
Deconstruction—James Faulconer (
Some
words are their own worst enemies. Deconstruction is one of them. Like
existentialism, special, liberal, conservative, and postmodern, its meaning is
often so vague as to be useless. Coined, more or less, by the contemporary
French philosopher, Jacques Derrida, the word deconstruction began its life in
the late sixties, but it has only become part of the American vocabulary in the
last ten years or so. In that time, however, it has moved from a technical
philosophical term adopted by literary critics for their related uses to a word
that pops up in offhand remarks by everyone from botanists to the clergy.
Whatever its original meaning, in its now widespread use, deconstruction has
come to mean "tear down" or "destroy" (usually when the
object is nonmaterial).
Phenomenology
Phenomenology—David Woodruff Smith (Standford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy)
Phenomenology
is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the
first-person point of view. The central structure of an experience is its
intentionality, its being directed toward something, as it is an experience of
or about some object. An experience is directed toward an object by virtue of
its content or meaning (which represents the object) together with appropriate
enabling conditions.
Phenomenology—Paul B. Armstrong (The Johns
Phenomenology
is a philosophy of experience. For phenomenology the ultimate source of all
meaning and value is the lived experience of human beings. All philosophical
systems, scientific theories, or aesthetic judgments have the status of
abstractions from the ebb and flow of the lived world. The task of the
philosopher, according to phenomenology, is to describe the structures of
experience, in particular consciousness, the imagination, relations with other
persons, and the situatedness of the human subject in
society and history. Phenomenological theories of literature regard works of
art as mediators between the consciousnesses of the author and the reader or as
attempts to disclose aspects of the being of humans and their worlds.
Postmodernism
Postmodernism—
James Faulconer (
Begin by noticing that postmodernism cannot be defined descriptively: we cannot identify an intellectual viewpoint as postmodernist by comparing the characteristics of that viewpoint to a check list of the characteristics of postmodernism. Rather than being a set of doctrines or beliefs, postmodernism is a way of questioning the dominant intellectual and cultural beliefs of our time, the beliefs of modernism. To be postmodern is to take up a position of questioning within modernism, not to supercede its dogmas with a new set of dogmas. As result, there is no such thing as postmodernism per se. Postmodernism is a group of divergent thinkers who share this questioning of modernism, especially the questioning of modernism's unifying tendencies, tendencies that most postmodernist believe lead in the direction of totalitarianism, intellectual as well as political.
The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge—Jean-François Lyotard
A work by Jean-François Lyotard, who coined the term "postmodernism."
Realism
Realism—Alexander Miller (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The nature and plausibility of realism is one of the most hotly debated issues in contemporary metaphysics, perhaps even the most hotly debated issue in contemporary philosophy. The question of the nature and plausibility of realism arises with respect to a large number of subject matters, including ethics, aesthetics, causation, modality, science, mathematics, semantics, and the everyday world of macroscopic material objects and their properties. Although it would be possible to accept (or reject) realism across the board, it is more common for philosophers to be selectively realist or non-realist about various topics: thus it would be perfectly possible to be a realist about the everyday world of macroscopic objects and their properties, but a non-realist about aesthetic and moral value. In addition, it is misleading to think that there is a straightforward and clear-cut choice between being a realist and a non-realist about a particular subject matter. It is rather the case that one can be more-or-less realist about a particular subject matter. Also, there are many different forms that realism and non-realism can take.
Relativism
Relativism—Chris Swoyer
(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Relativism is not a single doctrine but a family of views whose common theme is that some central aspect of experience, thought, evaluation, or even reality is somehow relative to something else. For example standards of justification, moral principles or truth are sometimes said to be relative to language, culture, or biological makeup. Although relativistic lines of thought often lead to very implausible conclusions, there is something seductive about them, and they have captivated a wide range of thinkers from a wide range of traditions.
Individual Thinkers:
Hans-Georg
Gadamer (1900-2002)
Hans-Georg Gadamer—Jeff Malpas
(The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Hans-Georg Gadamer is the decisive
figure in the development of twentieth century hermeneutics. Trained in
neo-Kantian scholarship, as well as in classical philology, and profoundly
affected by the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, Gadamer
developed a distinctive and thoroughly dialogical approach, grounded in
Platonic-Aristotelian as well as Heideggerian
thinking, that rejects subjectivism and relativism, abjures any simple notion
of interpretive method, and grounds understanding in the linguistically
mediated happening of tradition. Employing a more orthodox and modest, but also
more accessible style than Heidegger himself, Gadamer's
work can be seen as concentrated in four main areas: the first, and clearly the
most influential, is the development and elaboration of a philosophical
hermeneutics; the second is the dialogue within philosophy, and within the
history of philosophy, with respect to Plato and Aristotle in particular, but
also with Hegel and Heidegger; the third is the engagement with literature,
particularly poetry, and with art; and the fourth is what Gadamer
himself terms ‘practical philosophy’ (see Gadamer,
2001, 78-85) encompassing contemporary political and ethical issues. The
‘dialogical’ character of Gadamer's approach is
evident, not merely in the central theoretical role he gives to the concept of
dialogue in his thinking, but also in the discursive and dialogic, even
‘conversational’, character of his writing, as well as in his own personal
commitment to intellectual engagement and exchange. Indeed, he is one of the
few philosophers for whom the ‘interview’ has become a significant category of
philosophical output (see Hahn, 1997, 588-599).
Gadamer's Philosophical Hermeneutics—Robert J. Dostal
Robert J. Dostal's
introductory chapter to The Cambridge
Companion to Gadamer.
Gadamer and the
Philosophy of Education—Pádraig Hogan
For
a philosopher whose main concern has been to investigate the inescapable
features of human understanding and of the kinds of encounters with inheritances
of learning through which it takes place, is surprising that Gadamer has written very little specifically on education.
An active philosophical career, spanning more than seven decades, has seen (up
until 1996) the publication of sixteen books and over 350 articles, increasing
portions of which are translated into English, Italian, French and other
languages. Five short essays of his on higher education - chiefly in
Gadamer’s Hermeneutical Openness As a Form
of Tolerance—Richard E. Palmer
My
paper today will try to see what Gadamer’s
hermeneutical openness can contribute to achieving greater tolerance today,
since tolerance is the general theme of this conference. In this paper I assert
that Gadamer in his hermeneutical openness represents
a special kind of tolerance that is relevant to the present-day world. I will
try to explain at least some of what Gadamer offers
towards the topic of tolerance.
How Hans-Georg Gadamer
Offers Openings to a Postmodern Perspective—Richard E. Palmer
Gadamer’s
philosophical hermeneutics is neither a clever method that will solve every
problem nor is it a program with a specific political/ ideological content.
Rather, as philosophy, it looks at assumptions and presuppositions. It looks
for other ways to think about a problem and resources for thinking differently.
He does make us aware of limits of certain modern assumptions at the root of
our thinking and our problems. Gadamer’s contribution
supplements rather than excludes that of other thinkers. Philosophical
hermeneutics basically harmonizes with other postmodern thinkers—but they still
need Gadamer! No single thinker has the answer. One
can certainly profit by turning to the writings of Heidegger, Foucault,
Derrida, Lyotard, Adorno, Habermas, Düssel and Ken Wilber, among the many thinkers trying to
move beyond the constricting thought forms of modernity. But Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics also offers resources
for this passage, this voyage, to a new, better era, and era of more tolerant,
cooperative, peaceful thought forms. For this task, we need to have a critical
understanding of the limits of modern structures and in addition the means of
moving beyond them. I believe Gadamer’s philosophical
hermeneutics is, and will continue to be, relevant to both of these needs.
The Relevance of Gadamer's
Philosophical Hermeneutics to Thirty-Six Topics or Fields of Human Activity—Richard E. Palmer
My
paper will address five key questions. If you are already familiar with
hermeneutics, you may wish to skip the first two or three sections:
Jacques
Derrida (1930-2004)
Derrida, Jacques—Jean-Michel Rabaté (The
Johns
The difficulty
of introducing a major contemporary philosopher such as Jacques Derrida (b.
1930) in a reference work presenting central issues of literary criticism is
double, and this danger, this hesitation on the threshold, has already been
systematically thematized in the writings of the
philosopher himself. First, there is the danger of oversimplifying, of
pigeonholing, of reducing, of defining artificial boundaries, when facing a
movement of thought that constantly evolves so as deliberately to defeat and
baffle all preordained categories. Then, there is the danger of being merely
mimetic, of just repeating strategies and gestures that have been identified
with a signature, with an author (and may well have been anticipated by other
writers), and that tend to be singular, unrepeatable, yet endowed with
universal validity. However, the possibility of bypassing such an initial aporia exists, and it consists in considering the
fundamentally affirmative nature of Derrida's thought and writing rather than
in stressing the "playful" or "negative" element of his
textual practices.
Jacques
Derrida—Jack Reynolds (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Jacques
Derrida is arguably the most well known philosopher of contemporary times. He
is also one of the most prolific. Distancing himself from the various
philosophical movements and traditions that preceded him on the French
intellectual scene (phenomenology, existentialism, and structuralism), in the mid 1960s he developed a strategy called
deconstruction. Deconstruction is not purely negative, but it is primarily
concerned with something tantamount to a ‘critique’ of the Western
philosophical tradition, although this is generally staged via an analysis of
specific texts. To simplify matters, deconstruction seeks to expose, and then
to subvert, the various binary oppositions that undergird
our dominant ways of thinking.
For the Love of
the Things Themselves: Derrida's Hyper-Realism—John Caputo (Slought Foundation)
A fascinating presentation by John Caputo regarding
Derrida's 'hyper-realism" (available in Real Media and Windows Media
formats).
An
Interview With Jacques Derrida (with Nikhil
Padgaonkar)
An
interview on “love.”
An
Interview with Jacques Derrida (with Michel Rosenfeld [Cardozo])
Famed
philosopher and deconstructionist Jacques Derrida is a professor at École des Hautes Études en Sciences Socials in
Jacques
Derrida on Rhetoric and Composition: A Conversation (with Gary A. Olson [JAC])
While
Derrida has, of course, had much to say about writing and rhetoric, this
interview is his first extended discussion of rhetoric and composition per se.
He describes his own growth as a writer, proposes a model of composition
instruction, discusses problems compositionists
should avoid, and comments on a range of other related topics, including liberatory learning, social constructionism,
logocentrism, and feminism.
Jacques Derrida and Biblical Studies—Yvonne Sherwood (Society of
Biblical Literature)
But
deconstruction was never about destruction, nor was Derrida just about
"deconstruction." Deconstruction was never about taking a
troglodyte's club or, as Derrida himself jokingly put it, a "crowbar"
to texts. One has to wonder, incidentally, how we got to such a strange place
where deconstruction is widely denounced as nihilism and, at the same time,
everyone seems to want to claim that they are "deconstructing."
Confusedly, we seem to love that little term that smacks of technical rigour, even as we are drawn to it as a target for all that
we deem most dangerous.
Relative Thinking—Richard Lea (Guardian Unlimited)
The death
of Jacques Derrida prompted a flood of barbed jokes and criticism of the
so-called "anything goes" branch of philosophical thought with which
he was most closely identified. What is it about relativism that gets us so hot
under the collar? Richard Lea investigates.
Remember
Jacques Derrida (
Jacques
Derrida died in
Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)
Heidegger, Martin—Gerald L. Bruns (The
Johns
The
early philosophical career of Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), culminating in the
publication of Sein und Zeit
(1927, Being and Time), is dominated by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's old
question, Why is there something rather than nothing? Heidegger's idea is that
the philosophical tradition has lost the sense of this question. Being, like Nothing, is an empty category. There are no conditions in
which it makes sense to speak of it. It is not a philosophical problem, unless
it is just the problem of the copula, the "is." The history of
philosophy, or of ontology or metaphysics, is,
Heidegger likes to say, the history of the "forgetfulness of being."
Martin
Heidegger (1889-1976)—W. J. Korab-Karpowicz
(The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Martin
Heidegger is acknowledged to be one of the most original and important
philosophers of the 20th century, but also the most controversial. His thinking
has contributed to such diverse fields as phenomenology (Merleau-Ponty),
existentialism (Sartre, Ortega y Gasset),
hermeneutics (Gadamer, Ricoueur),
political theory (Arendt, Marcuse),
psychology (Boss, Binswanger, Rolo
May), theology (Bultmann, Rahner,
Tillich), and postmodernism (Derrida). His main
concern was ontology or the study of being. In his fundamental treatise, Being
and Time, he attempted to access being (Sein) by
means of phenomenological analysis of human existence (Dasein) in respect to
its temporal and historical character. In his later works Heidegger had
stressed the nihilism of modern technological society, and attempted to win
western philosophical tradition back to the question of being. He placed an
emphasis on language as the vehicle through which the question of being could
be unfolded, and on the special role of poetry. His writings are notoriously
difficult. Being and Time remains still his most influential work.
Ereignis—Martin
Heidegger in English
A site with articles on Heidegger's thought ranging
from his magnum opus, Being and Time,
to his relationship with the Soviet Socialist Party, including some online
texts by Heidegger himself. Very interesting and informative.
Audio Lectures—Philosophy 185 (Being and Time, Division I)
Hubert
Dreyfus' lectures on Heidegger's Being
and Time, Division I (Spring 2004).
Are
All Interpretations Possible?—Alexander Kremer
Two
fundamental criticisms made by traditional hermeneutics against philosophical
hermeneutics are that the latter deny the possibility of objectively true
interpretation, as well as assert that all interpretations are possible on the
basis that they cannot be measured. In my paper, I argue that the first
criticism is well-founded, while the second is not. I contend that
interpretations can be decided according to two relational criteria: (i) which interpretation has a more comprehensive horizon;
and (ii) which one is derivable from the other.
The
Problem of Science in Heidegger's Thought—Daniel Videla
In
this paper I deal with the status of science in Heidegger's thought.
Particularly, I pose to Heidegger the question whether science can constitute a
problem for philosophy, once one has cast doubt on philosophy's rank as first
science whose prerogative is to establish the truth-criteria of the particular
sciences. To express it with the convenience cliches
always afford, this is the question of knowledge in the postmodern epoch. The
paper traces the transition from the early "fundamental ontology" to
the late notion of a thinking that is to come at the end of philosophy. It will
include some reflections on the role of an education for science at the end of
modernity. The texts analyzed include Being
and Time, "What calls for thinking," and "The end of
philosophy and the task of thinking."
Carnap and Heidegger: Parting Ways in the Philosophy of Science—Patrick A. Heelan
This
critique focuses on the contextual phenomenology of the Lifeworld
of human culture where research takes place, and on an existential hermeneutic
of experimental performance. This study makes possible the assignment of
different epistemological and ontological roles to theory and praxis,
assignments that undermine the general validity of basic epistemological and
ontological assumptions of the analytic/empiricist platform for the philosophy
of science. Theory in this critique is assigned to technological design for the
purposes of environmental control, while praxis is assigned to ontological
understanding for the purpose of human culture. Scientific theories then have a
'Janus-like face'; one side looks in the direction of
computational and technological control which is not constitutive of scientific
knowledge but is merely a resource or tool for multiple praxes, the other looks
in the direction of human culture which is ultimately constitutive of
ontological scientific knowledge.
Coping with Things in Themselves: Heidegger's Robust Realism—Hubert Dreyfus
The
deflationary and the robust realist positions are each part of the heritage
that Heidegger has left us. Consequently, I shall, in my first section, present
the deflationary realist’s arguments against independence. Then, in the second
section, I shall show that, although Heidegger pioneered the deflationary
realist account of the everyday, he sought to establish a robust realist
account of science. In the third and final section, I shall draw on Saul Kripke’s account of direct reference to work out
Heidegger’s account of formal indication, and using this worked-out version of Heideggerian rigid designation, I will argue that we do,
indeed, have practices for achieving access to things that are independent of
all our practices.
The Primacy of Phenomenology over Logical Analysis—Hubert Dreyfus
In
what follows, I will argue that Searle’s logical analysis of the constitutive
role of mental representations fails to take seriously the distinction between
absorbed coping and social norms, on the one hand, and attentive action and
institutional facts, on the other. Granted that Searle can extend what he means
by a propositional representation so as to cover the whole range of
comportments and social phenomena, I seek to show that, in so doing, he covers
over an important logical and phenomenological distinction between
context-independent and context-dependent representations and that this
distinction is crucial for understanding the causal role of intentionality.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
(1889-1951)
Ludwig
Wittgenstein—Anat Biletzki and Anat Matar (Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy)
Considered
by some to be the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, Ludwig Wittgenstein
played a central, if controversial, role in 20th-century analytic philosophy.
He continues to influence current philosophical thought in topics as diverse as
logic and language, perception and intention, ethics and religion, aesthetics
and culture. There are two commonly recognized stages of Wittgenstein's thought
-- the early and the later -- both of which are taken to be pivotal in their
respective periods. The early Wittgenstein is epitomized in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.
By showing the application of modern logic to metaphysics, via language, he provided
new insights into the relations between world, thought and language and thereby
into the nature of philosophy. It is the later Wittgenstein, mostly recognized
in the Philosophical Investigations,
who took the more revolutionary step in critiquing all of traditional
philosophy including its climax in his own early work. The nature of his new
philosophy is heralded as anti-systematic through and through, yet still
conducive to genuine philosophical understanding of traditional problems.
Ludwig Wittgenstein—Jules David Law (The Johns
Ludwig
Josef Johann Wittgenstein (1889-1951) is generally considered to be the most
influential thinker in modern Anglo-American language philosophy--a leading, if
not founding, figure in the history of ordinary-language philosophy, speech-act
theory (see Speech Acts), positivism, logical positivism, and analytic
linguistic philosophy and an important contributor to the philosophy of
perceptual psychology and the tradition of moral realism. Although
Wittgenstein's influence has been less persistent and direct in the realm of
literary criticism and theory than in academic philosophy, there is a diverse
and growing body of "Wittgensteinian"
writing on literary issues, including certain brands of psychological and
ethical criticism (e.g., Stanley Cavell), numerous
writings concerning the nature of the literary "image" (W. J. T.
Mitchell in Wittgenstein and Literary
Theory), "ordinary language" critiques of "theory" (W.
J. T. Mitchell, ed., Against Theory;
John M. Ellis in Wittgenstein and
Literary Theory), "speech act" criticism focusing on the
contextual understanding of literary expression (Charles Altieri),
and a small body of work concerning the relationship between rhetoric and what
Wittgenstein called "forms of life" (Cavell;
Henry Staten; Frank Cioffi in Wittgenstein and Literary Theory).
Papers on Logic:
An Introduction to Logic—Kevin Winters
A work in progress, this text will eventually serve as a basic introduction to logic, logical inference, and general fallacies. It will cover basic logical terminology, Categorial (i.e. Aristotelian), Truth-Functional (i.e. Stoic), and Quantificational (i.e. Frege/Russell/Whitehead) Logic, along with examples and exercises. It is hoped that this will be useful for apologists, thinkers, and the average Joe/Jane alike. As always, suggestions on clarification or questions on unclear concepts is welcomed.
Papers on Theism:
Worship Worthiness and Finite Theism—Kevin Winters
“…our Evangelical critics
have come to the conclusion that the LDS God-concept is beneath our worship,
finite beyond repair, and incoherent, hence the small ‘g’-‘god.’ While it is
undoubtedly true that the LDS have not done a large degree of philosophical
reflection in relation to their faith, I believe the claims to irrationalism
are premature. Here I will argue this point. After presenting the preconceived
notions that bring our critics to these conclusions and a brief critique
thereof, I will use one case study of LDS theism and demonstrate the
inadequacies of our critic’s criticisms in dealing with such. In the end, I
hopefully will have demonstrated that God, as conceived in the LDS faith, is
worthy of our worship and praise.”
Omniscience, Foreknowledge, and Free Will—Kevin Winters
My work, small as it is, on the question of Omniscience and Free Will. I propose that they are not compatible and that we cannot be fully free unless God is not truly omniscient. I also propose another way to view God’s foreknowledge whereby He does not become impotent. Still a work in progress, but the basic ideas are there.
Re-vision-ing the Mormon Concept
of Deity—Blake
Ostler
“I
want to focus on a concept in the Mormon scriptures that is rarely discussed --
the concept of divinity-as-such. This concept has been obscured in
Mormon thought in part because of the emphasis on the distinctness of the
divine persons. Mormons have focused on the distinct divine persons as
separate, corporeal individuals to the almost complete exclusion of any notion
that there is also an important sense in which God is one… While there are
severe logical problems with the classical formulations of the Trinity, I
believe that Mormon scriptures provide a coherent and fully scriptural way to
view God as three divine persons in one Godhead.” (From Element: An E-Journal of Mormon Philosophy and Theology)
Objections to Anthropomorphism: An LDS Response—Kevin Winters
“The LDS conception of God is unique within the Christian world in that they posit an anthropomorphic being: one of body, parts, and passions. This view has been attacked on many grounds. We will consider three: God in man’s image, limitation of God, and classical dualism/nature of matter.”
Papers on Epistemology:
The Limits of Skepticism: Descartes as
an Example—Kevin Winters
“In his famous Meditations, Descartes proposed
‘to demolish everything completely and start again right from the foundations’
to prove the existence of a stability in knowledge,
one that will withstand all questions and doubts. In this desire, Descartes is
attempting to epitomize and extend the bounds of skepticism to its absolute
limits in order to find a truly unassailable truth.
“Did Descartes succeed in his desire of achieving ultimate skepticism? Did he truly reach the ultimate depths, the ground zero, of skeptical inquiry?”
Prolegomena to Kant: The Critique of Pure Reason—Kevin Winters
“In
the following paper I will attempt to provide a basic framework from which one
can approach Kant’s Critique [of Pure Reason]. I will provide a
brief historical account of the ideas that brought on Kant’s desire to
reconcile the ideas of his day after which I will define, and elucidate, Kant’s
main terminology as found in the first part of his work. Lastly I will show how
Kant’s novel approach helped him, and others, to overcome the turmoil of his
day.”
Papers on Ethics:
Right, Virtue and Lying: Kant’s
Openness to the Lie—Kevin
Winters
“Though traditionally seen as a strict ethical code, denying inclinations and ends as valid means of making moral judgments, Kant’s system proves to be quite intricate… In the following, I will present an overview of the distinctions Kant makes between the doctrine of right and the doctrine of virtue, giving primary focus to the latter, following which I will examine the problem of the Jew in light of this reading.”
Reviews:
Review of Concepts from Beckwith and Parrish’s The Mormon Concept of God—Kevin Winters
These are my test answers for a BYU Philosophy of Religion class (taught by Prof. David Paulsen). Beckwith and Parrish’s book The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis was one of four books that were dealt with in the class. This particular test deals with two issues: actual infinites and finite theism. A fuller review of the entire work is in progress though it will be some time before it will be in a finished form.
The New Mormon Challenge Series:
Recently Evangelicals Carl Mosser, Paul Owen and Francis Beckwith have created a conglomeration of other Evangelical scholars critiquing the various views of the LDS faith. The fruit of this conglomeration is The New Mormon Challenge. This work is certainly a step up in tone, manner and information in LDS-critical literature. As such, I believe it should be addressed carefully and with a high tone of respect.
What follows are the critiques provided by Blake Ostler, LDS philosopher/lawyer, largely composed from the original manuscript that the editors had sent out to various LDS authors and thinkers. With his permission (which I believe will be had at least until they are published), I give you his reviews. In time, my own review of J.P. Moreland’s article (“The Absurdities of Mormon Materialism”) will be published here unless I am able to get it published elsewhere (I am currently consulting with FARMS Review of Books to see if they will be willing to publish it once I have completed it).
Necessarily God Is Not Analytically Necessary: A Response to
Stephen Parrish—Blake Ostler
“In
his contribution to The New Mormon Challenge (‘NMC’), entitled ‘A Tale
of Two Theisms: The Philosophical Usefulness of the Classical Christian &
Mormon Concepts of God,’ Stephen Parrish argues that God as conceived by
Mormons cannot explain the existence of and the order in the universe as well
as the classical view of God. Parrish’s
target is not Mormon beliefs in general, but what he terms ‘Monoarchotheism.’ I will deal with this strange notion that
Parrish attributes to some Mormons (primarily, I believe, Stephen Robinson)
later. Suffice it to say for now that I
don’t know any Mormons who affirm ‘Monoarchotheism.’”
Evil: A Real Problem for Evangelicals—Blake Ostler
“In
his contribution to The New Mormon Challenge, entitled ‘Can the Real
Problem of Evil be Solved?,’ Carl Mosser argues that
far from resolving the problem of evil, the Mormon view of God exacerbates the
problem. The reasons for this conclusion are twofold: (1) The Mormon view does
not resolve the problem of evil; and (2) the Mormon God cannot simply eliminate
evil at will and therefore evil remains a problem even for God. The “real” problem of evil, according to
Mosser is not the compatibility of God’s goodness, power and the existence of
evil, but the fact that there is evil at all.”
“In their contribution
to The New Mormon Challenge, entitled ‘Craftsman or Creator: An
Examination of the Mormon Doctrine of Creation & a Defense of Creatio Ex Nihilo,’
Paul Copan and William Lane Craig argue that the notion of creation ex nihilo is both biblical and required by modern
cosmology and logic…. I argue that each of their arguments is a seriously
flawed…. I then argue that the scientific evidence supports the chaotic
inflationary and quantum vacuum models of the big bang theory against the
Standard Big Bang theory…. Finally, I deal with the infinity arguments.”
The Doctrine Of Creatio
Ex Nihilo Is A Big Fuss Over Nothing: Part 2: The
Inductive Argument—Blake
Ostler
“In
their contribution to The New Mormon Challenge, entitled “Craftsman or
Creator: An Examination of the Mormon Doctrine of Creation & a Defense of Creatio Ex Nihilo,”
Paul Copan and William Lane Craig (hereinafter “C&C”) argue that the notion
of creation ex nihilo is required by modern
cosmology…. In response, I argue that C&C have failed to recognize
important distinctions necessary to make sense of the Mormon view of God.”
Do Kalam Infinity Arguments Apply
To The Infinite Past?—Blake
Ostler
“William
Lane Craig and Paul Copan (‘C&C’) have recently argued that: (1) an actual
infinite series is impossible; and (2) an infinite series cannot be formed by
successive addition. They conclude that
it follows that the universe was created ex nihilo
by a personal being. In response, I
argue that neither argument applies to the order of infinity involved in an
infinite past. In addition, neither
argument is sound with respect to an infinite past. I also argue that neither argument applies to
the quantum fluctuation and the chaotic inflationary theories of
cosmogony. I show why both theories
permit a mulitiverse with an infinite past and that
the infinity arguments presented by C&C do not apply to these theories
because they posit realities that are temporally discontinuous. I also argue that it can be demonstrated that
it is logically possible that a universe has always existed without a
beginning.”
Papers on Metaphysics:
A Primer to Whiteheadian
Process Thought—Kevin Winters
An introductory paper to the philosophy/metaphysic of American philosopher Alfred North Whitehead. Included are explications of ‘actual occasions,’ ‘prehension/ concrescence,’ ‘modes of perception,’ and ‘organizational duality.’ Suggestions for elucidation, clarification, and expansion are welcomed.
Last revised: Date 1/22/05
