Maverick Philosopher

Footnotes to Plato from the foothills of the Superstition Mountains

  • Am I a Religious Pluralist?

    This from Tom O:

    I would very much appreciate it if you could clarify your views on religious pluralism. Are you a pluralist of some kind? That is, do you believe no single religion or religious tradition can lay exclusive claim to the truth regarding the Divine, salvation, the soul, etc.? If so, could you please elaborate?

    I'll make a start. It's a long story.

    My belief, tentatively but not dogmatically held, is that no single institutionalized religion or church, such as the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), can justifiably claim to be the only way to salvation such that baptism into this church, and continuing good-faith membership in it, are necessary conditions of attaining salvation.  Holding this, I hold that Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox are not barred from salvation.  So in this weak sense I am a religious pluralist.* The Roman Catholics cannot justifiably claim that extra ecclesiam salus non est ("There is no salvation outside the church") applies only to their church, even if it is the case that good-faith membership in some Christian church or other is necessary for salvation.  And the same goes for Protestants of any denomination and the Eastern Orthodox of any stripe.

    A more interesting question arises when we consider John 14, and in particular, John 14:6:

    6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (KJV)

    This implies, first, that to be saved is to "come unto [God] the Father," to be received by him, accepted by him, and in some sense or other come to share in his life for all eternity, and second, that there is only one way to come unto the Father, and share in his life (vita), and that is via Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who is both a particular man, and God the Son, and as such the truth (veritas) or Word or revelation of God.  Via, veritas, vita. A bit later in John 14 the Holy Ghost, the third Person of the Trinity, makes his appearance as the "Comforter." 

    John 14 gives us normative Christianity in a nutshell, including Trinity and Incarnation, and provides partial answers to the questions, What is salvation? and How do we attain it?  

    I expect to be asked:  "Assuming that this is what salvation is, do you hold that there is only one way to it, the way of accepting Jesus as God and by keeping his commandments? Or are there other ways?"

    My tentative answer is that, yes, there is only one way, but this is so only on the normative Christian conception of salvation. For on this conception, to be saved is to participate in the life of the triune God, the Second Person of which lived on Earth as a particular man, in a particular place, and shared fully in the miseries of our earthly sojourn. So if you accept normative Christianity, there is only one way to salvation.

    My point is that whether there is only one way to the ultimate religious goal, salvation, depends on what salvation is, and there are different conceptions thereof.  These will have to be examined.

    I'll leave it here for now, and if Tom or anyone wants to pursue this topic and its many ramifications, I'm game.

    _____________________________________

    *Two questions that naturally arise, and that cannot be engaged in any detail at the moment are: What is religion? and What is salvation?  For present purposes we may assume that Christianity is a clear example of a religion, and that, within Christianity, salvation is participation in the divine life.

    Bill Vallicella

    17 responses to “Am I a Religious Pluralist?”

  • Hillary Fuming

    The sad cow is one poor loser. Interviewed by Maddow in under four minutes.  The political equivalent of a stool sample. Sad, as the Orange Man would say.

    Bill Vallicella

    6 responses to “Hillary Fuming”

  • Why Would Cheney Endorse Harris?

    A plausible explanation.

    Here is their plan. Under two minutes. Endorsed by Elon Musk.  Not their plan, mind you, but the video exposé thereof. Watch it!

    Bill Vallicella

  • Gold Will Surge Should Kamala Win

    So buy more now to cushion the shock later, should disaster strike.

    Gold to $10K/oz under Harris admin.

    Update (9/22). Spot is now $2621/oz as of 12:10 NY time. Kamala or no Kamala it will most likely trend upwards.

    "When we have gold we are in fear; when we have none we are in danger." An English proverb the pertinence of which is proven by recent developments.

    Bill Vallicella

    4 responses to “Gold Will Surge Should Kamala Win”

  • There’s a Moon Out Tonight

    I caught a preview this morning at 5:15 from the mountain bike.  A great caffeine-fueled ride from 5:15-6:43.  It's cooling down in the Zone. Wore a shirt for a change. The strenuous life is best by test. It doesn't matter how old you are. Get out there and bust your hump for an hour or two every day. Brother Jackass will be glad you did. He'll be exploding with energy afterwards. 

    Supermoon tonight. 

    Theme music. 

    I first heard this when I was ten. This morning's moonset set it off one more once in the old man's head. "Without music, life would be a mistake." (Nietzsche). And it doesn't matter whether it's an old doo-wop number or The Ride of the Valkyries.

    You may remember it from Apocalypse Now.

    It might even be Mary Had a Little Lamb.

    Bill Vallicella

  • The Road to One-Party Rule

    Here is the Democrat plan clearly explained in a few words.

    Bill Vallicella

  • The Man in the Mirror and Belief De Se

    The following can happen.  You see yourself but without self-recognition.  You see yourself, but not as yourself.  Suppose you walk into a room which, unbeknownst to you, has a mirror covering the far wall.  You are slightly alarmed to see a wild-haired man with his fly open approaching you.  You are looking at yourself but you don't know it.  (The lighting is bad, you've had a few drinks . . . .) You think to yourself

    1) That man's fly is open!

    but not

    2)  My fly is open!

    Now these thoughts or propositions are different.  For one thing, they have different behavioral consequences.  I can believe the first without taking action with respect to my fly, or any fly.  But if I believe the second I will most assuredly button my fly.  A second point is that one cannot validly infer (2) from (1). That is because (2) says more than (1). For (2) says that BV's fly is open AND that I am BV.  When I refer to myself using 'BV' I refer to myself in the third person using an abbreviation (or a name) that both I and others can use. When I refer to myself using 'I,' I refer to myself in the first person using a word that only I can use to refer to myself.

    So  (1) and (2) are different propositions.  I can believe the first without believing the second.  But how can this be given the plain fact that 'that man' and 'BV' refer to the same man?  The demonstrative phrase and the proper name have the same referent. Both propositions predicate the same property of the same subject.  So what makes them different propositions?

    If propositions are Russellian, then BV, all 170 lbs of him, is a constituent of both propositions, which implies that these propositions are one and the same. But the propositions are distinct as has already be shown. So they must be Fregean.  BV himself cannot be a constituent of such a proposition: he needs a surrogate entity, a Fregean sense, to stand in for him in the proposition and to represent him.  (Note that this sense is both a representative of BV and a representation of BV.)  

    As noted, (2) analyzes into a conjunction of 

    3) BV's fly is open

    and

    4) I am BV.

    Here is the point at which I am flummoxed and reach an impasse.  (4) says more than

    5) BV is BV.

    (5) is a miserable tautology. It is a logical truth, true in virtue of its logical form. Its negation is a contradiction. (4) is in some sense 'informative,' 'synthetic.' It smacks of a certain 'contingency': might I not have inhabited a numerically different body? Might not my epistemic access to the world have been mediated by a different body and brain?  

    (5) differs in cognitive value (Erkenntniswert) from (4). But I am at a loss to say what this I-sense is. It has to be a sense, an abstract item of sorts, but what is it? What is the sense of this sense?  It appears utterly ineffable. The sense of 'I' when deployed by BV is unique to him: it somehow captures his ipseity and haecceity which are of course 'incommunicable,' as a scholastic might say, to anyone else.  

    How eff the ineffable?  Hegel: there is no ineffable to eff. Tractarian Wittgenstein: Es gibt allerdings das Unaussprechliche. 'There is, however, the inexpressible."

    Bill Vallicella

  • Are the Souls of Brutes Subsistent?

    Aquinas says No but his argument is inconclusive.

    Substack latest.

    Reader Zacary writes,

    I am just a layman who likes studying Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy, and recently I haven’t been studying the issue of animals in the afterlife. I stumbled across your post from many, many years ago (all the way back in 2009!) that was about the unity of consciousness argument and the subsistence of animal souls. 
    Thank you for writing, Zacary.  That post from 2009 left a lot to be desired, so I rewrote it almost completely and published the result over at Substack. I have no time now to respond  to the rest of what you wrote, but if you read the Substack entry and have questions or objections I will try to answer them here.
    Bill Vallicella

    4 responses to “Are the Souls of Brutes Subsistent?”

  • Friday the 13th Cat Blogging!

    In the foothills of the Superstition Mountains! Friday cat blogging is an ancient and  venerable tradition in the blogosphere. We pioneers of the 'sphere aim to keep it going. To hell with all you change-for-the-sake-of change 'progressives.'

    I Ain't Superstitious, leastways no more than Howlin' Wolf, but two twin black tuxedo cats just crossed my path.  All dressed up with nowhere to go.  Nine lives and dressed to the nines. 

    Stevie Ray Vaughan, Superstition.  Guitar solo starts at 3:03. 

    And of course you've heard the story about Niels Bohr and the horseshoe over the door:

    A friend was visiting in the home of Nobel Prize winner Niels Bohr, the famous atomic scientist.

    As they were talking, the friend kept glancing at a horseshoe hanging over the door. Finally, unable to contain his curiosity any longer, he demanded:

    “Niels, it can’t possibly be that you, a brilliant scientist, believe that foolish horseshoe superstition! ? !”

    “Of course not,” replied the scientist. “But I understand it’s lucky whether you believe in it or not.”

    Cat in tie

    Bill Vallicella

    2 responses to “Friday the 13th Cat Blogging!”

  • Haitians, Cats, and Red Herrings

    Do Haitians eat cats?

    I don't know and I don't care. I do care that the Biden-Harris administration is violating the Constitution, undermining the rule of law, and destroying the country by importing illegal aliens. That's the issue. Whether Haitians chow down on what we consider pets is not the issue, but a distraction from it. It is an example of what is called a red herring.

    Paradoxically, however, the current explosion of cat-memes,  far from distracting us from the relevant issue, is drawing attention to it, namely the invasion of illegals, which is not only permitted, but promoted by Biden-Harris.  This invasion will of course continue under a Harris-Walz administration, despite Kamala's brazen lies to the contrary. 

    Here is Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump, Jr. on the issue.

    My tone above is polite, but for some time now I've been wondering whether we really should be polite to our political enemies.  Do any of you have an opinion on the question you would be willing to share? 

    Finally, I don't really want to believe that Haitians eat cats, but then again, where are all the cats in Port-au-Prince?

    Bill Vallicella

    16 responses to “Haitians, Cats, and Red Herrings”

  • 9/11: 23 Years Later

    Substack latest

    Bill Vallicella

  • 22 Claims in Trump-Harris Debate Fact-Checked

    Here

    ………………………..

    So are the Haitians who are enriching the culture of Springfield, Ohio, chowing down on cats and dogs and ducks? The deplorables of Springfield need to understand that diversity is our strength and that people have a right to live anywhere the global elites send them and the right to do whatever they want when they get there.  Ohio is fly-over country. People who live there are rubes and know-nothings.  The people who live there are poor white trash who need all the cultural enrichment they can get.  They need to understand that automotive diversity is as important as every other kind. Running red lights and stop signs is an alternative automotive lifestyle. It is racist and xenophobic to be judgmental. Anyone who makes moral judgments is judgmental, by definition!

    More cat-memes, all in good Alinskyite fun. Think of it this way. Truth is not a leftist value.  So in our war against them we ought to honor their value system by using it against them.

    Bill Vallicella

  • Diversity = Cultural Enrichment

    California, Colorado, and now Ohio. As a former resident of Ohio, this got my attention:

    Welcome to Springfield, Ohio. It’s a nice town of about 60,000 that the administration decided needed about 20,000 Haitians – flown in directly from Haiti, mind you. Injecting this wonderful diversity from arguably the worst place on the planet into a nice little Midwestern town has had the predictable effect. Remember all those swans and ducks that used to swim in the park? They’re gone. The Haitians ate them. They’ve also eaten pet cats and dogs. Yeah, they’re eating peoples’ pets, slaughtering and butchering them, and turning them into lunch. I guess the cash they’re getting from all of us for the privilege of being here illegally isn’t enough – they have to chow down on Fido. Naturally, the American citizens of Springfield are disgusted by this, as well as the other crime and pathological behavior they’re seeing. What does the government say? “Shut up, racists. Also, you’re probably transphobes.”

    Cats safe

    Arendt on lies

    Bill Vallicella

    8 responses to “Diversity = Cultural Enrichment”

  • The Geezer’s Paradox

    Geezer's Paradox

    Bill Vallicella

    One response to “The Geezer’s Paradox”

  • Étienne Gilson on the Jewish Philosophers He Knew

    Étienne Gilson (1884-1978) writing in 1962 about his experiences as a student at the Sorbonne circa 1900:

    . . . instead of resorting to philosophy for a better understanding of their religious faith, as Christian philosophers do, the Jews I have known have used philosophy to liberate themselves from their religion. Christians philosophize to  identify themselves more intimately with their Christianity; our masters philosophized in order to run away from the synagogue. The illustrious example of Spinoza is a typical instance of what I mean. After the Theologico-Political Treatise, written as a farewell to the Law, its commands and it rites, came the Ethica, whose purpose was to create a mental universe in which reason was liberated from all contact with any religious revelation, Jewish or Christian. It would seem that the philosophical conversion of such children of Israel consists in turning their backs on their religion. (The Philosopher and Theology, Cluny Media, 2020, p. 6)

    Gilson is of course speaking of his experiences with his teachers at the Sorbonne circa 1900. What he says, however, suggests a follow-up question I am not competent to answer.

    Consider Jews of all times and places who (i) became professional philosophers and who (ii) were brought up in Judaism and who (iii) have used philosophy to liberate themselves from their religion.  Is their number greater than the number of cradle Christians who became professional philosophers and then used philosophy to liberate themselves from their religion?  My guess is the answer is in the affirmative.  If so, why?

    We can ask a parallel question about Muslims. 

    Bill Vallicella

    10 responses to “Étienne Gilson on the Jewish Philosophers He Knew”

Philosophy Weblogs

Other Websites