The Great Emptiness

The other day I found myself engaged with a group of young men discussing the nature of love. Not romantic love, as such, but the concept in general - Platonic love specifically.

During the conversation I noted the saying from Pascal, "there is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God [...]". I then expanded, of all the desires that I have, even when they are satisfied, I still find myself unsatisfied. I abstract from normal human experience, there must be something that will satisfy this desire, and that it is immaterial, or supernatural.

To this one of the gentlemen responded, "I don't mean to be a buzz-kill, but I think that it is important to acknowledge where our desires come from - evolution. Biological needs have been "programmed" into us, since the individuals that continually sought to satisfy their desires prospered".

In the moment, I confess, I was quite speechless. Furthermore, when I asked for an example only more confusion was added. Upon reflection, I think we miss understood each other. At the time his explanation seemed empty to me. If there is any desire - evolution is it's cause. That is fallacious in the same way as the God-of-the-gaps theory; it explains everything and nothing all at once.

So, what did I mean? Certainly I would agree that I have physical desires (food, water, shelter, sex, etc.) and I acknowledge that those desires can be satisfied. Once satisfied, it is only a matter of time before the desire is found in me once again unsatisfied. I think this was the cycle my friend was referring to, however, my point was different. Even when all of these physical desires are satisfied, there is still a desire in me that is unsatisfied. This desire is therefore unique from the other physical desires.

Occasionally this supernatural desire can be mistaken for one of the physical desires, but it is easily found out which category it belongs to. The point that I wanted to make in the conversation was, sometime I mistake this supernatural desire for mere physical desires. I try to satisfy it with physical means, and though a physical desire may be satisfied in that instance, the supernatural desire goes unsatisfied, and leaves a sense of emptiness. However, I have found, when the supernatural desire is recognized as such, it can be satisfied in God.

A Deep Depression

If God does not exist and there is no after life, then there is at least one strong conclusion that can be drawn: this life is all you have to live. There will be no reconciliation of rights and wrongs. No eternal rewards or punishments. No healing of things long since broken. Death ends all. There is no ultimate purpose. There is no ultimate design. There is no ultimate meaning. Eat, drink, and make marry; for when it is over, it is all over - you cease to exist...... I hope you are happy with your life.

Learning for Learning's Sake

Who desires to learn for the sake of learning?
Such a person grasps after the wind.

There is an infinite of wisdom and facts, while only a finite time and mind. Those who seek an infinite as an end are blind and lost. Those who seek the Infinite as an end with learning, money, etc. as means see clearly.

Some Explication From Medieval Phil.

Chapters two and three of the Proslogium contain Anselm’s famous proof. In chapter two Anselm gives three premises and a conclusion. They are numbered in this paper as follows: 1) God “art a being than which nothing greater can be conceived,” 2) “it is one thing for an object to be in the understanding, and another to understand that the object exists,” 3) “that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone,” and therefore 4) “there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality” (Anselm 39).

God by definition is a being in which nothing greater can be conceived; thus premise 1) is true by definition. Premise 2) is more controversial, depending upon how it is interpreted. Existence can either be a property of an object or it can be defined as existing in W possible worlds; in either case it is making the claim that existence is different from and better than nonexistence. Premise 3) is making an inference from premise 1) and 2); if God is the greatest conceivable being and existence is better than nonexistence, then the greatest conceivable being has the property of existence or exists in all possible worlds W. Conclusion 4) follows directly from premise 3), viz. God exists.

In chapter three Anselm gives a slightly different formulation of the argument. In chapter three Anselm has two premises and one conclusion; they are numbered in this paper as follows: 5) God “cannot be conceived not to exist,” 6) “there is […] a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even be conceived not to exist,” and therefore 7) God necessarily exists (Anselm 39). The justification for premise 5) is, “it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceive not to exist; and this is greater than one which can be conceived not to exist” (Anselm 39). This is saying that a necessary being is greater than a contingent being. Since, God cannot be conceived not to exist, and there is not a being conceivable that is greater than God, God exists necessarily.

Both of these arguments work together to form Anselm’s proof. The argument in chapter two shows that the greatest possible being that can be conceived actually exists. The argument in chapter three shows that this being is a necessary being. The argument also claims that God is the only necessary being.

An objection to this argument that Gaunilon raises is, it is possible to think of an island that is the greatest possible island, but that does not mean the island actually exists. Anselm replies that Gaunilon is correct in thinking about the island because it is a contingent object: it is possible to conceive of the island not existing. God, however, is not a contingent being since it is not possible to conceive of God’s non-existence - this is demonstrated in chapter two.

Even if it is objected that existence is not a property that can be had by an object, Anselm could respond that the being than which nothing greater can be conceived that exists in all possible worlds is God (Look). This formulation is also helpful in understanding how this being is also necessary, viz. in every possible world it is not possible to conceive of the non-existence of God.

Anselm’s argument is valid and sound in proving that God exists. It should be noted that this proof does not say anything about the nature of God; if one wanted to know about God, they would have to look for empirical evidence or provide different proofs for God’s attributes. This proof, however, clearly demonstrates that God exists and could not be otherwise.

Quotations taken from:
St. Anselm. Proslogium. Readings in Medieval Philosophy. Ed. and introd. Andrew B. Schoedinger. New York: Oxford Press, 1996. 36-40.

Look, Brandon C. “Anselm, Aquinas, and Pascal.” U of Kentucky Philosophy Department. 5 March, 2009. http://www.uky.edu/~look/AnselmAquinasPascal.pdf

De Anima

A thought occurred to me today in my Greek philosophy class about the change in the meaning of the word animal. Anima is Greek [Latin, actually] for soul. Thus anything that has a soul is an animal; living, breathing. When the ancients called beasts animals, they were in a sense raising them up; making them just below man, superior over plants and the non-living. However, when the modern man calls humans animals he intends to lower man to the same level of beasts; usually one with no morality and only superior by sheer cunning and brute force.