Looking back at Neoplatonism and its definition of evil (pg 109 of our text), I noticed the statement that "..evil [is] not... a real feature of reality, but... as lack, an incompleteness" to be interesting (and odd). Why wouldn't evil be real? The definition of evil as a lack of goodness makes sense, of course, but how does that negate the reality of evil? How does a thing being a lack of another make the thing not real?
For that matter, what does "more real than..." mean? Seriously.
Another thought, this time pertaining to free will.
Does perfect knowledge of the future necessitate a complete lack of freedom? Why/why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I find this odd as well, however, because of historical context and the interpretation of this philosophy the idol of the marketplace may be in use. To describe this concept is to limit the concept to the english language and the term reality is a word that is derived from a law term regarding property.
ReplyDeleteThis would be a justification of the confusion and limits to our understanding as Bacon had described in his description of the idols. This would also bias any other philosophy that we are trying to understand as well. Hmmmm. Would a different language express the idea more clearly? Are we biased and trust that the language we speak is truly comprehensible?
Hat - have you been channeling Vonnegut from "Slaughterhouse 5"?
ReplyDeletePerfect knowledge of the future / free will / freedom. If one has perfect knowledge of the future--knows absolutely how the future will play out--then there is no freedom or free will. I can see this being used by people to explain away crimes: "Well, you see members of the jury, since Johnny was pre-destined to rape Janey, you should find him not guilty. After all, it wasn't his fault--it was pre-ordained and therefore he can not be held accountable for his actions."
I'm reminded of Dr. Manhattan in the Watchmen (graphic novel or movie, the character remains the same throughout)--he can see the future up to a point (an event that is critical to the plot, so I won't go beyond this). Therefore, he knows what is going to happen yet he still goes through all the motions; he can't change the outcome, so why bother?
I think that freedom and free will are dependent upon the idea that the future is malleable and that by our actions--or lack thereof--we can shape it to our desire.
Of course, if you subscribe to the Many Worlds theory of infinite parallel universes (universi?), every potential outcome is equally possible and in fact happens. Perhaps in this way every possible future has happened and our actions--or lack thereof again--makes one more "real" than any other.
Tony- I suppose maybe I am? I've started reading it, and am only four pages in...
ReplyDeleteByron- I agree. I think a lot of the issues in philosophy (and many other things) stem from language problem- the language isn't clear, etc. I think English is particularly bad about this; I think English tends to simply classify a thing instead of naming an object based off of the nature of that particular thing (if that made any sense...).