On Tuesday at the beginning of Philosophy class,
Professor Black handed the topics for our final essay and mentioned that our
exam would be on December 14th. I was suddenly worried on hearing
that because I was scheduled to work on that Thursday night. I needed to find
out that the test was earlier in the day so I could stop worrying.
Deborah
Black continued to talk about the ideas of the Islamic philosopher, Avicenna.
Emanation
means creation and cause of existence. This is also a Neo-platonic metaphor. But
Avicenna is distinct from the Greek approach because he gives an account of
creation. Aristotle does not. God and the movers are responsible for the
existence of universe. The movers each preside over one sphere (I wonder if
they wear sailor suits). He links this up with the best astronomical knowledge
of the time. God is the being that Exists necessarily in itself and everyone
else only exists possibly. There cannot be two Necessary Existents because that
would make them both merely possible. The Necessary Existent per se is one and
the cause of all.
The
First Principle is the principle of unity. From the one, in so far as it is
one, only one can come. God can only produce one thing like itself and so it
did not directly create everything. God just purely thinks of and contemplates
itself but produced other being by thinking.
The
Platonists said that the first being was one as well.
Aristotle
said the One is also intellect and being but Platonists thought the One was
above the intellect. The first intellect
thinks god as being necessary in itself, thinks of self as necessary through
god and thinks of self as being possible in itself.
Avicenna
focuses on human beings individuated by matter. Each of the other intellects
preside over one sphere. They are universal and particular. The Earth is the
sub-lunar sphere. The agent intellect causes the physical world.
Aristotle
talks of an active or producing intellect that is responsible for humans
acquiring knowledge. Avicenna incorporates this. It’s the medieval version of a
theory of everything.
What
kind of causality of god bringing causation into existence. Individual things
are multiplied by matter. Individuals in the material world differ by virtue of
their matter.
Should
Avicenna have an account of god’s knowledge? God only knows what it caused
directly.
Al
Ghazali thinks Avicenna is a heretic.
Matter
for an Aristotelian is unintelligible. They think that explains why physical
things change. The professor admits to decaying. No one knows individual
material things, but we are acquainted with them. We have direct sensory
contact with individuals and this is true for the entire physical world.
Knowing them does not increase knowledge.
Avicenna
does think god is aware that the different kinds of things exist but how is
this possible for a self contemplating being? It doesn’t see particulars,
except in a universal way in so far as they are insubtantiations. If you look
at the supralunar spheres and could find individuals fully individuated by their
essences then god could know them. It can know Saturn and the other entities as
individuals in a universal way.
Eclipses
are relations between two of these entities. God knows eclipses and their
particulars through all time by universal astronomy but that does not extend to
us. God knows every mote but is not watching the details of our lives. Humans
are weird. Why doesn’t everything immaterial fall under god’s providence?
After
class I rode across one of the paths that connect St George to Kink’s College
Circle. A very tall and slim young woman wearing green makeup, I think to
represent Elphaba, the wicked witch of the west, was walking in the opposite
direction that I was riding. I was staring at her and smiling. She noticed my
gaze and stumbled slightly at the same time, I assume because I’d made her feel
self-conscious.
As I
continued on I approached from the back someone dressed in a bear suit but it
turned out that she was just wearing a jacket that had a hood with bear ears.
When
I got to University College I had more than half an hour to kill before
tutorial so I went up to the East Hall, sat at a desk near a plug and went
online.
In
tutorial Cicilia talked about the Necessary Existent.
In
order to learn the Necessary Existent would have to change, which according to
Avicenna would be impossible.
The
Possible Existent is like a teeter-totter balanced between non-existence and
existence. It would need a toddler to sit at one end or the other to exist or
not. The Necessary Existent immediately exists, uncaused, unique and wholly
one.
Avicenna
got into trouble because he said that god can’t know that individual people
exist.
Start with
something that exists. N or P. If N → NE.
If P it needs a cause to exist. What is the cause?
Either NE or infinite cosmic theories of all PEs.
NE or … (to infinity) ← P → P → P → P (but even this
needs NE).
Series as a whole:
P or
N (No whole composed of parts can be NE)
If P is the cause it
must be:
Internal or External
P or N
P or N
To be the internal
cause of this series P would have to cause itself and several others.
N could not be the
internal cause because because one can’t have NE in a group of all or only PEs.
P could not be the
external cause because one can’t have anything outside totality.
NE has to be the
external cause QED.
Captain Cook brought a
dead Platypus back to England but even people that saw it up close believed it
was a hoax. They thought that someone had sewn parts of several animals
together. The Necessary Existent has to be real. One can’t say, “This is god,
but god is not real.”
The PE cannot explain
itself. Existence in the world or in the mind. Why is something real and not an
idea.
If the possible
existents go on forever then nothing is caused.
You can be a parent
because you are human. It doesn’t matter if you had a parent.
PE needs to borrow
causal power and the ability to cause. It has to be necessitated.
At the end of the
tutorial we got our essays back. I was very disappointed to get a C-plus. I
felt an ache in my chest on the way home and wondered if it was anxiety about
the next essay and the exam in light of my low essay mark.
No comments:
Post a Comment