Moral and philosophical problems: any answers?

[fakename]

As usual I’m trying to see what is the right thing to do in every situation.

Thinking about this has lead me into many confusions and here they are:

(1) if for instance, one were fighting and wanted to launch a surprise attack, would it be permissible to either (a) injure yourself so as to appear dead or (b) to use the blood of some enemy so as to appear dead? It seems perverse to use human body parts in such a utilitarian way (humans are more important than to be used as tools) however, the above actions are not by definition wrong. So I’m a little confused.

(2) Why is cannibalism bad? Is it because humans have unique food and other humans are not naturally that food? Is it because the species would not survive if everyone ate each other? Is it bad to like the flavor of human flesh? For instance, what makes a flavor bad? In itself a flavor is just a flavor and perhaps it is bad to want to taste human flesh but again, why would you want it except for the flavor and since the flavor is morally neutral so then is the desire. And if the desire for the flavor is bad, why should not the desire for a chicken’s flavor be bad since I’ve heard that all animals share a generic flavor (your and my organs probably taste like a chicken’s organs). But perhaps it is bad because it implies some bodily deformity which can be bad since it inhibits eudaimonia?

(3) To what extent are Catholics even Catholics? For instance, we believe in the Dogmas but how is belief knowledge? Perhaps it is because it is a belief based on God who is by definition Truth and truth-telling. But to what degree is this a sophistical argument from authority and to what degree is it not? That’s a harder question. If it is too sophistical then it follows that Catholics don’t really “know” their dogmas which would be bad. Also, to what extent do we know things about the Bible, etc. For we either know the bible by faith or by evidence. However faith is not knowledge and the evidence I’ve encountered is always open to the problem of induction in that it does not grant certitude of the conclusion. Therefore in our own lives and in our arguments with non-believers we’d end up saying “I know that Jesus was probably born from Mary in Bethlehem” even though we should be certain. And even in morals, people IMO are generally more opinionated than knowledgeable and so there is another lack of certainty introduced into these arguments. For instance, I don’t even “know” (properly speaking) that cannibalism is bad,so I’d have to say I have a strong opinion that it is.

(4) Final problem: if one can always choose the least likely option as long as that option seems reasonable, and one can always choose the most likely option, then what third thing makes us choose either one?

 

[littlechicken]

1. Soylent green is people
   Cannibalism is not respecting a body.
2. I can’t believe I am answering this.
   There is an illness associated with cannibalism that I believe is the dance of saint Vitas? Something like that. I don’t think the name refers to a real saint?

I became Catholic through a perfect storm of reason, and faith, and … Grace.

I am mostly bookmarking this, and don’t know much at all, but am interested in others responses.

 

[littlechicken]

1. Soylent green is people
   Cannibalism is not respecting a body.
2. I can’t believe I am answering this.
   There is an illness associated with cannibalism that I believe is the dance of saint Vitas? Something like that. I don’t think the name refers to a real saint?

I became Catholic through a perfect storm of reason, and faith, and … Grace.

I am mostly bookmarking this, and don’t know much at all, but am interested in others responses.

Ugh, the site I got the St. Vitas info from was full of fallacies, I will be more careful in future when responding. Am sorry for the misleading info…VERY SORRY.

here is what I found though, while still in shock and disbelief that I even answered this;

Prion diseases, a group of uncommon and deadly brain diseases, can be spread by eating the contaminated flesh of humans or other animals. The human brain is more contaminated with prions than other body parts, though bone marrow, the spinal cord and the small intestine also contain these fatal brain-eating malformations. Prion diseases occur when the prion protein misfolds, causing a cascade of misfolding prion proteins that clump in the brain and damage or destroy nerve cells, creating sponge-like holes. Current examples include kuru and Creutzfeld-Jacob disease in humans, and mad cow disease in animals, both of which cause brain deterioration, loss of motor control and ultimately death.

I think I will be sick now,
have a good day.

 

[fakename]

Ugh, the site I got the St. Vitas info from was full of fallacies, I will be more careful in future when responding. Am sorry for the misleading info…VERY SORRY.

here is what I found though, while still in shock and disbelief that I even answered this;

Prion diseases, a group of uncommon and deadly brain diseases, can be spread by eating the contaminated flesh of humans or other animals. The human brain is more contaminated with prions than other body parts, though bone marrow, the spinal cord and the small intestine also contain these fatal brain-eating malformations. Prion diseases occur when the prion protein misfolds, causing a cascade of misfolding prion proteins that clump in the brain and damage or destroy nerve cells, creating sponge-like holes. Current examples include kuru and Creutzfeld-Jacob disease in humans, and mad cow disease in animals, both of which cause brain deterioration, loss of motor control and ultimately death.

I think I will be sick now,
have a good day.

That answers why it is sometimes bad but not always bad.

Perhaps cannibalism isn’t really bad because we do eat Jesus but supposedly that isn’t considered cannibalism for reasons which I think are more or less arbitrary.

Is cannibalism as such bad? And of course my other questions remain.

 

[Poseidon]

In response to the cannibalism question, it’s wrong because it involves killing people for their meat. If there was lab grown human meat that didn’t involve chopping anyone up then there would be no moral problem, except for the ick factor of eating what is essentially a tumor.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

In virtue ethics, in order to deliberate moral action we have to ask what the telos, or the goal-end of man, is. In Aristotelian/Thomistic ethics it is not what you do per se that makes you good, but it is your chracter. You actions are not ends in themselves, but are a means to shape your character. Of course, a good character will produce good actions. This is the reason for spiritual disciplines. An analogy would be the a skill set, like playing the violin.

The violinist is born without any skill in playing the violin. Regardless, he/she picks up the violin and begins playing. It sounds awful, but over time they develop their talent and they become more skilled. As their skill increases, they are better at playing the violin. This process continues. Playing the violin produces skill and better skill produces better violin playing. The same is true for ethics. moral actions are like playing the violin and character is the skill set you are trying to develop. Of course this requires habituation and is not based on a sole decision.

How does this apply to to your questions? Well what are you trying to obtain? Ultimately you are trying to obtain virtue, so how will these actions bring development or detriment to your character? Honoring the dead may develop virtue or perhaps it does not matter overall and there may be certain circumstances where eating a body could be ok. If you use Kantian ethics you may try to fit these sort of these into universal maxims, but that leads to legalism and is ultimately groundless.

In short, I suppose I’'m not so much trying to answer your question as I am trying to make you think about the moral dilemmas in a different way.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

(3) To what extent are Catholics even Catholics? For instance, we believe in the Dogmas but how is belief knowledge? Perhaps it is because it is a belief based on God who is by definition Truth and truth-telling. But to what degree is this a sophistical argument from authority and to what degree is it not? That’s a harder question. If it is too sophistical then it follows that Catholics don’t really “know” their dogmas which would be bad. Also, to what extent do we know things about the Bible, etc. For we either know the bible by faith or by evidence. However faith is not knowledge and the evidence I’ve encountered is always open to the problem of induction in that it does not grant certitude of the conclusion. Therefore in our own lives and in our arguments with non-believers we’d end up saying “I know that Jesus was probably born from Mary in Bethlehem” even though we should be certain. And even in morals, people IMO are generally more opinionated than knowledgeable and so there is another lack of certainty introduced into these arguments. For instance, I don’t even “know” (properly speaking) that cannibalism is bad,so I’d have to say I have a strong opinion that it is.

(4) Final problem: if one can always choose the least likely option as long as that option seems reasonable, and one can always choose the most likely option, then what third thing makes us choose either one?

I am not RC, but I think I may have some kind of response to 3, as well as 4.

1. Faith is a sort of knowledge. Paul says faith is “the assurance of things hoped for.” Now one reason for this is the blessed assurance we have through the power and witness of the Holy Spirit which draws us to the Father and leads us in Truth. To give you another, less mystical answer, here is how faith can be knowledge. Prove you aren’t dream, that the external world is real and that all of your sense are self-delusions. Prove that other minds exist, that your experience is reliable, that your memory was not implanted in your head five minutes ago, or that you are not hooked into the matrix right now and that this is all a virtual world. In this extreme scenario you have no way of proving this. All you have is faith. Does that mean it is not reasonable to believe the external world is real? Does that mean we have no knowledge of the external world? Sure we do. Probabilities, likelihoods, mysteries, faith, all of these sort of things are a type or level of knowledge in their own right.

Besides that, one could say that the existence of God, virtue and ethics, etc. are self-evident or can be shown a priori etc.

1. Because some choices are not just about probabilities and likelihoods but desires, hopes, and preferences, and this is where risk comes in. You will the least likely option not because it is the least likely option, but because there are other factors that make it desirable enough for one to endure the risk.

Sorry, that’s the best I’ve got for now.

 

[fakename]

In virtue ethics, in order to deliberate moral action we have to ask what the telos, or the goal-end of man, is. In Aristotelian/Thomistic ethics it is not what you do per se that makes you good, but it is your chracter. You actions are not ends in themselves, but are a means to shape your character. Of course, a good character will produce good actions. This is the reason for spiritual disciplines. An analogy would be the a skill set, like playing the violin.

The violinist is born without any skill in playing the violin. Regardless, he/she picks up the violin and begins playing. It sounds awful, but over time they develop their talent and they become more skilled. As their skill increases, they are better at playing the violin. This process continues. Playing the violin produces skill and better skill produces better violin playing. The same is true for ethics. moral actions are like playing the violin and character is the skill set you are trying to develop. Of course this requires habituation and is not based on a sole decision.

How does this apply to to your questions? Well what are you trying to obtain? Ultimately you are trying to obtain virtue, so how will these actions bring development or detriment to your character? Honoring the dead may develop virtue or perhaps it does not matter overall and there may be certain circumstances where eating a body could be ok. If you use Kantian ethics you may try to fit these sort of these into universal maxims, but that leads to legalism and is ultimately groundless.

In short, I suppose I’'m not so much trying to answer your question as I am trying to make you think about the moral dilemmas in a different way.

You have a good point, but let me show you how my questions are practical.

(1) in life one should be ready for life’s exigencies so I just want to ask “if I should find myself in a situation where I could do x, then is x good?”.

(2) we unfortunately IMO, live in a democracy and as a citizen I am forced to constantly evaluate the policies of the state regarding war, economics, and especially as all these relate to morality. So I must imagine myself in the place of a soldier, a politician, etc. and must ask questions about what tactics are proper to defeating an enemy or not.

So these question are making me a better person and are not irrelevant.

 

[fakename]

I am not RC, but I think I may have some kind of response to 3, as well as 4.

1. Faith is a sort of knowledge. Paul says faith is “the assurance of things hoped for.” Now one reason for this is the blessed assurance we have through the power and witness of the Holy Spirit which draws us to the Father and leads us in Truth. To give you another, less mystical answer, here is how faith can be knowledge. Prove you aren’t dream, that the external world is real and that all of your sense are self-delusions. Prove that other minds exist, that your experience is reliable, that your memory was not implanted in your head five minutes ago, or that you are not hooked into the matrix right now and that this is all a virtual world. In this extreme scenario you have no way of proving this. All you have is faith. Does that mean it is not reasonable to believe the external world is real? Does that mean we have no knowledge of the external world? Sure we do. Probabilities, likelihoods, mysteries, faith, all of these sort of things are a type or level of knowledge in their own right.

Besides that, one could say that the existence of God, virtue and ethics, etc. are self-evident or can be shown a priori etc.

1. Because some choices are not just about probabilities and likelihoods but desires, hopes, and preferences, and this is where risk comes in. You will the least likely option not because it is the least likely option, but because there are other factors that make it desirable enough for one to endure the risk.

Sorry, that’s the best I’ve got for now.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

You have a good point, but let me show you how my questions are practical.

(1) in life one should be ready for life’s exigencies so I just want to ask “if I should find myself in a situation where I could do x, then is x good?”.

(2) we unfortunately IMO, live in a democracy and as a citizen I am forced to constantly evaluate the policies of the state regarding war, economics, and especially as all these relate to morality. So I must imagine myself in the place of a soldier, a politician, etc. and must ask questions about what tactics are proper to defeating an enemy or not.

So these question are making me a better person and are not irrelevant.

No, I’m totally fine with radical hypothetical. They may be wildly abstract, but they are used for very practical purposes. I do the same thing (though yours are a little more radical than mine i think, lol).

My purpose is this. If you look at the action itself and ask is this ACTION good or evil, you are going to end up with a looong list of do’s and don’t’s. It might be better, and I would argue that it is better, to understand what is virtuous. In this way you can come to any action of any kind and, assuming you have adequate knowledge of what the action entails, you should be able to evaluate it at any given time.

Is this action just or unjust? Is this truthful or deceitful? Is the brave or cowardly? Is this kind or rude? Is this temperate or irresponsible? Is the charitable or greedy? Is this prideful or humble? Is this honorable or shameful? Is this loving or spiteful/hateful? etc, etc. When we have a good grasp on what is virtuous, and we have been disciplined through virtuous habits, we are better prepared to come to any decision at any time and make an on the spot decision of what would be the moral or immoral choice. For there are a countless amount of actions with a countless amount of contexts and variables, we cannot account for each and every one. It would be better to have principles to live by then codes or laws to legislate every aspect of our lives. This is why in the N.T. we have the beatitudes and the fruits of the Holy Spirit.

 

[fakename]

No, I’m totally fine with radical hypothetical. They may be wildly abstract, but they are used for very practical purposes. I do the same thing (though yours are a little more radical than mine i think, lol).

My purpose is this. If you look at the action itself and ask is this ACTION good or evil, you are going to end up with a looong list of do’s and don’t’s. It might be better, and I would argue that it is better, to understand what is virtuous. In this way you can come to any action of any kind and, assuming you have adequate knowledge of what the action entails, you should be able to evaluate it at any given time.

Is this action just or unjust? Is this truthful or deceitful? Is the brave or cowardly? Is this kind or rude? Is this temperate or irresponsible? Is the charitable or greedy? Is this prideful or humble? Is this honorable or shameful? Is this loving or spiteful/hateful? etc, etc. When we have a good grasp on what is virtuous, and we have been disciplined through virtuous habits, we are better prepared to come to any decision at any time and make an on the spot decision of what would be the moral or immoral choice. For there are a countless amount of actions with a countless amount of contexts and variables, we cannot account for each and every one. It would be better to have principles to live by then codes or laws to legislate every aspect of our lives. This is why in the N.T. we have the beatitudes and the fruits of the Holy Spirit.

That’s the problem though: I’m not sure if the thing is brave, cowardly, etc. after all it seems brave to use your enemies as shields camouflage, etc. but it also seems a lot like what Hannibal Lecter did. So is it good or is it Hannibal? I don’t know.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

That’s the problem though: I’m not sure if the thing is brave, cowardly, etc. after all it seems brave to use your enemies as shields camouflage, etc. but it also seems a lot like what Hannibal Lecter did. So is it good or is it Hannibal? I don’t know.

Well, I suppose I can see you dilemma. Let me see if I can give it a more practical response then.
I think it would be honorable to injure yourself to save a friend, so why would it be bad to injure yourself to save yourself? As far as the blood, if the person is dead the blood is already spilled. So in the context I see nothing wrong with it.

Cannibalism is wrong if it includes murder. It is also wrong because it is a type of perversion of God’s creation. You are not intended to eat that of your own kind. However, I will save a scenario where it might be permissible. You are isolated on an island with one other person. There is no food around. They die first. I think it would be gross, and taboo, but given the circumstances I’m not sure if that could be considered immoral. If there was other food around, then yes, it would be immoral, but if the other person was all you had… what would be immoral about it? Unless you had some sort of personal convictions about veganism. :-/ As for your 3) I think I’ll won’t touch that one anymore than I have. What do you think?

 

[JDaniel]

As usual I’m trying to see what is the right thing to do in every situation.

Thinking about this has lead me into many confusions and here they are:

(1) if for instance, one were fighting and wanted to launch a surprise attack, would it be permissible to either (a) injure yourself so as to appear dead or (b) to use the blood of some enemy so as to appear dead? It seems perverse to use human body parts in such a utilitarian way (humans are more important than to be used as tools) however, the above actions are not by definition wrong. So I’m a little confused.

(2) Why is cannibalism bad? Is it because humans have unique food and other humans are not naturally that food? Is it because the species would not survive if everyone ate each other? Is it bad to like the flavor of human flesh? For instance, what makes a flavor bad? In itself a flavor is just a flavor and perhaps it is bad to want to taste human flesh but again, why would you want it except for the flavor and since the flavor is morally neutral so then is the desire. And if the desire for the flavor is bad, why should not the desire for a chicken’s flavor be bad since I’ve heard that all animals share a generic flavor (your and my organs probably taste like a chicken’s organs). But perhaps it is bad because it implies some bodily deformity which can be bad since it inhibits eudaimonia?

(3) To what extent are Catholics even Catholics? For instance, we believe in the Dogmas but how is belief knowledge? Perhaps it is because it is a belief based on God who is by definition Truth and truth-telling. But to what degree is this a sophistical argument from authority and to what degree is it not? That’s a harder question. If it is too sophistical then it follows that Catholics don’t really “know” their dogmas which would be bad. Also, to what extent do we know things about the Bible, etc. For we either know the bible by faith or by evidence. However faith is not knowledge and the evidence I’ve encountered is always open to the problem of induction in that it does not grant certitude of the conclusion. Therefore in our own lives and in our arguments with non-believers we’d end up saying “I know that Jesus was probably born from Mary in Bethlehem” even though we should be certain. And even in morals, people IMO are generally more opinionated than knowledgeable and so there is another lack of certainty introduced into these arguments. For instance, I don’t even “know” (properly speaking) that cannibalism is bad,so I’d have to say I have a strong opinion that it is.

(4) Final problem: if one can always choose the least likely option as long as that option seems reasonable, and one can always choose the most likely option, then what third thing makes us choose either one?

Fakename:

Why does a properly carried out dialectical induction not grant certitude to a conclusion? What’s the inductive certitude of that statement?

God bless,
jd

 

[edwest2]

You have a good point, but let me show you how my questions are practical.

(1) in life one should be ready for life’s exigencies so I just want to ask “if I should find myself in a situation where I could do x, then is x good?”.

(2) we unfortunately IMO, live in a democracy and as a citizen I am forced to constantly evaluate the policies of the state regarding war, economics, and especially as all these relate to morality. So I must imagine myself in the place of a soldier, a politician, etc. and must ask questions about what tactics are proper to defeating an enemy or not.

So these question are making me a better person and are not irrelevant.

1. Most people, unless they are soldiers, for example, are not put in extraordinary situations. If you feel you need to take self-defense classes, you could look into that. If you live in a high crime area, or just feel vulnerable, you may even consider carrying a legal self-defense item, lethal or non-lethal, that would be appropriate. Guns may be illegal where you live. Contact your local police department for guidance, including what proper force can be used in the case of a break-in or mugging.
2. I admire your desire to be informed. I know too many people who are not informed. They are usually intelligent but think that actively evaluating what our government is doing is not their job. They vote, but researching the issues is sometimes regarded as too complicated. With all due respect to everyone here, I see too many (more than a few) cases where people want quick, short answers to complicated questions.

It’s one thing to know that something is wrong because the Church or some news source you trust says it’s wrong, but if you don’t fully understand the reasoning then you won’t be fully informed. Being fully informed is a requirement for being a good citizen and voter.

War. The government relies on secret intelligence sources and military advisors to determine if soldiers should be sent into battle. Since we cannot reveal our methods or plans in advance to a potential enemy, we are given general information from our government about threats. Iran is a good example. For all I know, we could wake up tomorrow and hear: “At 8:15 AM Eastern Time, I have ordered our Armed Forces to attack targets in the country of Iran to eliminate their ability to create Weapons of Mass Destruction. For security reasons, I cannot provide additional details since the operation is still underway. But let me assure all of you that this action was not taken lightly and is based on careful analysis which identified a threat that has been escalating for a long time. My action was taken today with the full knowledge of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and members of our Defense Department, and with information supplied by our advisors in the Intelligence Community. At the proper time, you will be given additional details regarding this operation and its progress.”

Economics is, by and large, outside of our ability to control. If you have some specifics concerns, I’d be glad to help.

Peace,
Ed

 

[fakename]

Well, I suppose I can see you dilemma. Let me see if I can give it a more practical response then.
I think it would be honorable to injure yourself to save a friend, so why would it be bad to injure yourself to save yourself? As far as the blood, if the person is dead the blood is already spilled. So in the context I see nothing wrong with it.

Cannibalism is wrong if it includes murder. It is also wrong because it is a type of perversion of God’s creation. You are not intended to eat that of your own kind. However, I will save a scenario where it might be permissible. You are isolated on an island with one other person. There is no food around. They die first. I think it would be gross, and taboo, but given the circumstances I’m not sure if that could be considered immoral. If there was other food around, then yes, it would be immoral, but if the other person was all you had… what would be immoral about it? Unless you had some sort of personal convictions about veganism. :-/ As for your 3) I think I’ll won’t touch that one anymore than I have. What do you think?

On number 3: my problems are numerous (1) the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowing something is that you have unequivocal, true, and metaphysically prior premises that lead to a true conclusion. We often don’t have all of the three and so we are forced to make probable arguments. That’s why I feel uncomfortable in debates about morality -for on both sides it is practically a matter of more or less strong opinion. (2) on the Trinity, the Church says that we don’t have proof of the Trinity, so much less can we know that the Trinity is (for justification is necessary for knowledge).

 

[fakename]

Fakename:

Why does a properly carried out dialectical induction not grant certitude to a conclusion? What’s the inductive certitude of that statement?

God bless,
jd

Induction as an argument is mostly of the form: by experience, we know that at least some things are x, so it is very likely that this thing is going to be x. And so by definition it is absolutely true that induction of this sort will never be able to produce certitude.

Of course there are other uses of the word induction that do imply certitude however, I don’t think that the numerous archaeological, historical, and philological arguments about the bible fit with this latter definition. For me they all seem like saying all the swans I’ve seen are white so the next swan is likely to be white. However there are black swans.

My statement is also not an inductive one but rather deductive, for I used the definition of induction to prove it and I did not rely on mere instances for such a proof.

 

[JDaniel]

On number 3: my problems are numerous (1) the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowing something is that you have unequivocal, true, and metaphysically prior premises that lead to a true conclusion. We often don’t have all of the three and so we are forced to make probable arguments. That’s why I feel uncomfortable in debates about morality -for on both sides it is practically a matter of more or less strong opinion. (2) on the Trinity, the Church says that we don’t have proof of the Trinity, so much less can we know that the Trinity is (for justification is necessary for knowledge).

Fakename:

We have lived the Trinity, as a life form, for 5,000 years. There’s no evidence against it. But, there’s lots of revelatory evidence for it. A denier is left only with besmirching the ancient writers of Revelation. So, the denial becomes a children’s game.

But, there are many things that just are. Why is any other kind of proof necessary?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Induction as an argument is mostly of the form: by experience, we know that at least some things are x, so it is very likely that this thing is going to be x. And so by definition it is absolutely true that induction of this sort will never be able to produce certitude.

Fakename:

Around the turn of the 20th century, a doctor by the name of Walter Reed, made a very important induction, after a serious dialectic, and was able to prevent many more people from contracting yellow fever. He started out by asking questions, a pre-inductive dialectic, if you will. For example, is yellow fever transmitted by sea water? Is it transmitted by palm trees? Is it transmitted by sea shells? Or, is it transmitted by eating fish? He may have reasoned that if any of those were true, yellow fever would show up in many places in the world, not just the few where it does show up. He didn’t have to perform any experiments with any of these conjectures. By asking himself questions and arriving at answers from experiential knowledge, he was very sure that the disease was transmitted either by contact with an infected person, or by mosquito.

At this point, he performed a couple of experiements and determined the disease wasn’t transmitted by contact with an infected person’s body fluids, instead, when an uninfected person was bitten by a mosquito that had bitten an infected person, that person got the disease. Now, here’s where induction occurs: he postulated that universally all yellow fever infections were the result of being bitten by a mosquito that had previously bitten an infected person.

What’s the problem with this sort of “induction?” Are we going to say that, in order to be absolutely perfect, Reed should have tested everything on Earth?

My statement is also not an inductive one but rather deductive, for I used the definition of induction to prove it and I did not rely on mere instances for such a proof.

Not so. Your statement was inductive. It followed the path of a pre-inductive dialectic. The problem with it was, it wasn’t a good dialectic. You see, it’s not the induction that’s problematic, it’s always the dialectic. A dialectic inquiry, poorly carried out, will result in, as they say, caca in-caca out.

And, getting back to deduction, they can be wrong, and often are.

God bless,
jd

 

[ApologiaSophia]

On number 3: my problems are numerous (1) the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowing something is that you have unequivocal, true, and metaphysically prior premises that lead to a true conclusion. We often don’t have all of the three and so we are forced to make probable arguments. That’s why I feel uncomfortable in debates about morality -for on both sides it is practically a matter of more or less strong opinion. (2) on the Trinity, the Church says that we don’t have proof of the Trinity, so much less can we know that the Trinity is (for justification is necessary for knowledge).

Evolution, gravity, and relativity are all theories. However, we have good reasons for believing all of these theories. If you question the very foundations of your epistemology the only thing you can be certain of is your existence, the existence of numbers, the existence of logic, and arguably the existence of God in some form or conception. Descartes made this very clear. A lot of Catholics are critical of Descartes, but that is usually due to a misunderstanding of his philosophical arguments. He was right. Knowledge is can only be defined according to the burden of proof. If I set the burden of proof high enough, you could not prove that the external world ever existed.

Proof in philosophy does not mean certitude. We have a good historical argument for Jesus’ existence and resurrection. We have good reasons to believe the Gospel’s are reliable accounts. If they are reliable accounts and Jesus did rise from the dead, we have good reason to believe in the Trinity. Can I prove this with certitude?No, but I can make a good case for it.

I know you exist, but I couldn’t prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is a properly basic presupposition. These presuppositions are no different than faith. The question is, is your faith reasonable?

 

[fakename]

Evolution, gravity, and relativity are all theories. However, we have good reasons for believing all of these theories. If you question the very foundations of your epistemology the only thing you can be certain of is your existence, the existence of numbers, the existence of logic, and arguably the existence of God in some form or conception. Descartes made this very clear. A lot of Catholics are critical of Descartes, but that is usually due to a misunderstanding of his philosophical arguments. He was right. Knowledge is can only be defined according to the burden of proof. If I set the burden of proof high enough, you could not prove that the external world ever existed.

Proof in philosophy does not mean certitude. We have a good historical argument for Jesus’ existence and resurrection. We have good reasons to believe the Gospel’s are reliable accounts. If they are reliable accounts and Jesus did rise from the dead, we have good reason to believe in the Trinity. Can I prove this with certitude?No, but I can make a good case for it.

I know you exist, but I couldn’t prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is a properly basic presupposition. These presuppositions are no different than faith. The question is, is your faith reasonable?

I would say that the knowledge of anything must be certain simply by definition. I mean the other alternatives imply that there is a super-knowledge or that knowledge and opinion are not essentially different. All of these are wrong. So then knowledge must be certain to be knowledge. Therefore, let us ask what character the Trinity has in our cognition. Apparently,since we lack proof (in the sense of a proper syllogism), there cannot be a true knowledge of the Trinity and only opinion.

Of course faith is something that we start with in our philosophies but it is no substitute for knowledge and for all premises based on faith, we must endeavor to show that they are either provable or self-evident. Our quest for proving the existence of an external world is basically the quest to show that there are things separate from us. Now if there were not anything so separate then everything would be a modification of us and this would be absurd, for then it opens the possibility that contraries modify each other, that humans never change substantially, and that ultimately God is just a mode of us. The last two are especially bad and especially the former option since then men do not die or get born.

Finally either an external or intersubjective or subjective or internal world exists (the subjective is a mental world, the inter a world governed by mental operations, and the internal a Cartesian world). The internal, subjective world doesn’t exist since then we could not objectify or behold our thoughts or be mistaken about our psychological states. Then either the intersubjective or external worlds exist. The intersubjective world doesn’t exist for the reason that it amounts to a perfectly functioning subjective world. We already disproved that one exists. Therefore the external world exists.