Thursday, May 8, 2008
Augstine and Nietzche on Reason
This is in response to Paul's post my view on reason as seen through Augustine and Nietzche:
In Saint Augustine and Friedrich Nietzsche, one finds two well respected philosophers whom have oppositional ethics. Nietzsche after all, famously declared God dead and Saint Augustine based his entire ethic on the supremacy of God. With that in my mind I recall the words of a one of my undergraduate professors who stated opposite well articulated theories when compared and contrasted yield some of the best fruit.
With Descartes Cogito ergo sum the he western world dived into reason as supreme way to sort out one’s ethic. Augustine and Nietzsche respected reason but saw it as limited. Nietzsche states in his book Genealogy of Morals: “let us beware of the tentacles of such contradictory notions as "pure reason”," absolute knowledge," "absolute intelligence” (Nietzsche, 1956, P. 255). He argued that reason was limited because a person perspective influenced their reason. Nietzsche even challenged the logic of cause and effect in his book The Gay Science:
Cause and effect: such a duality probably never exists; in truth we are confronted by a continuum out of which we isolate a couple of pieces, just as we perceive motion only as isolated points and then infer it without ever actually seeing it. The suddenness with which many effects stand out misleads us; actually, it is sudden only for us. In this moment of suddenness there are an infinite number of processes which elude us. An intellect that could see cause and effect as a continuum and a flux and not, as we do, in terms of an arbitrary division and dismemberment, would repudiate the concept of cause and effect and deny all conditionality. (Nietzsche, 1974 P.173)
Yet Nietzsche despite questioning the supremacy of reason thinks it a necessary tool. For example when questioning religion he asserts, “One is supposed to be cast into belief without reason, by a miracle, and from then on to swim in it as in the brightest and least ambiguous of elements” (Nietzsche's Daybreak, P.89). This tension between reason and the limits of reason is something that continues to rise up in Nietzsche’s work. Nietzsche will state in one paragraph that the, “The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it” and in another “(we have) with blind desire, passion or fear, and abandoned ourselves to the bad habits of illogical thinking” (Nietzsche, 2002, P.16)
Nietzsche’s resistance to reason is that reason might lead to truth or an absolute, something Nietzsche was absolutely opposed to. As Nietzsche states”
What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.
We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors - in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all... (Nietzsche, The Viking Portable Nietzsche 1954, p. 46-47)
Reason must be limited and in Nietzsche’s paradigm one would know reason has gone astray if it thought it ascertained truth. Truth for Nietzsche holds danger because it can lead to conviction- “Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies” (Nietzsche, P. 483). Conviction in turn leads ultimately to feelings of guilt. For Nietzsche a guilty conscious is a sign of sickness because a guilty conscious will so weaken a healthy man that he will become unhealthy. In fact, Nietzsche goes so far as to saying his bock On the Genealogy of Morals that a guilty conscious is “man’s greatest danger” (p. 122). Therefore the greatest truth for Nietzsche is that there are no absolutes. All absolutes are merely constructs originated because in order for man to turn civil, he had to contain his instincts, something Nietzsche terms “the internalization of man” (p. 84). This internalization creates a “serious illness” because it turns man against his natural instincts.
Augustine would find agreement with Nietzsche that reason has its limits. In fact, Augustine is famous for making the statement “Crede, ut intelligas, Believe in order that you may understand". Reason for Augustine is contained in time and therefore it is material. Material is mutable and changeable and thus not eternal or error free. For example in the City of God Augustine states:
For it is one thing, by the aid of things temporal and changeable, to conjecture the changes that may occur in time, and to modify such things by one's own will and faculty -- and this is to a certain extent permitted to the demons -- it is another thing to foresee the changes of times in the eternal and immutable laws of God, which live in His wisdom, and to know the will of God, the most infallible and powerful of all causes, by participating in His spirit; and this is granted to the holy angels by a just discretion. (Augustine, 1993, P. 299)
God’s law’s are however, eternal and immutable and thus from a foundation deeper then
what humans can reason. This does not mean that Augustine does not value reason; he in fact makes the statement, “[Even] If I am mistaken, I am.” In making such a statement he predates Descartes and becomes the first Western philosopher to utilize what it termed an argument by analogy: “there are bodies external to mine that behave as I behave and that appear to be nourished as mine is nourished; so, by analogy, I am justified in believing that these bodies have a similar mental life to mine” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2006). However, unlike Kant and Descartes he believes in the supremacy of revelation even to arguments by analogy seeing that our understanding is quite limited. In Confessions, he states that to assume that a human can understands the mind of God and all it complexities is like thinking one can contain all the oceans in a teacup. Therefore humans as limited and finite, can only reason from a finite perspective and therefore have a flawed logic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
On that last sentence, perhaps one of the gravest dangers is belief without humility.
Well said jon. Tis true.
You just had to bring in the big dogs didn't you Robb. Okay. It is going to take me a few days to put together something intelligible. . Those quotes alone are dense enough for a page (that is what I have written this far)worth of responses. You are killing me here. Before I write can you validate what I believe are the points you are trying to make.
Robb’s Points via Nietzsche and Augustine
1. Reason is great but it has its limits; not only are there limits to logic/reason but it is flawed
2. One limiting aspect of reason is imbedded within our finite nature
3. Perspective influences how we reason; in fact our culture plays a large role in the truths to which our reason leads us.
4. There are people who explicitly oppose absolute truth for fear of what it might reveal
5. Revelation from God allows us to see much more than our finite minds would ever allow us the privilege.
Just to start, these quotes have way too much juice in them for simple comments, so I am posting in multiple parts. I may have to turn this into my own blog for next week.
Point 1: I agree that reason has limits that would prohibit absolute truths on issues of morality and God. This is similar to Stephen J. Gould’s non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) which hold that science/reason speak strictly to the physical world whereas religion (or what ever permutation of this word one desires to attribute to their belief) speaks to another world having nothing to do with the prior. To some degree this is the very point I have been trying to make. Although I do not fully agree with Gould, this non-overlap between ideologies makes it hard to have conversations about anything. The limits of reason as they speak to God or religion may potentially be, in part, due--as Nietzsche points out—to a nonexistent God. One must admit that reason would come up short on something that does not exist. The only way to circumvent this is to claim God is simply unknowable as does Gould or at best that our limited way of knowing prohibits any absolute certainty about something that is outside the context of our reason. The problem here is that Christianity and other religions claim that God has made himself knowable. In those instances where God has supposedly made himself known he/she/it should stand up to reason. Herein lies the problem. If God had not revealed himself, then maybe we could argue that reason falls short on helping us to understand God or to elucidate the truth of his existence. But alas, religions do claim that God has revealed himself in this world and here is the sticking point for me. Not only does God reveal his existence, but he reveals it in such a detailed way that we know much about his character, that he has interacted and does interact with humanity, and that he has a plan for the future. Of course different religions proclaim variations of this but that is not the point here (but is elsewhere). Here is the door which frees the hammer of reason to expose not the truth of the existence of a God (or some supernatural permutation thereof) but the truth of the religions which proclaim they know the truth of the nature of that God.
I think that last sentence should maybe have read like the following:
Here is the door which frees the hammer of reason to expose not the truth of the existence of a God (or some supernatural permutation thereof) but the truth or falsehood of the religions which proclaim they know the truth of the nature of that God.
Paul- Thanks for taking the time to read my entry and the kindness to really think about it. I think you did a great job summarizing the points
Response to Point 1:
Point 1: Paul puts forth an excellent argument that: The limits of reason as they speak to God or religion may potentially be, in part, due--as Nietzsche points out—to a nonexistent God.
Yes reason is flawed and here I believe is the reason. Reason was never meant to reign as supreme. (Although Descartes believed in God he may have caused more damage with his proof of God through reason alone then Nietzsche did through all of his writings.) Reason puts the reasoner as the final authority. If reason determines my morality then if I can reason why I should do something I can do it- even from my own finite limited and biased perspective. Reason was only meant to be a tool in the tool belt of mankind . When reason is allowed to reign, it once again allows the individual to be God justifying what they justify through the use of Reason. This is why I think God has made reason so flawed and so finite that two Brilliant minds may come to radically different conclusions with reason. For those of faith Revelation always reigns supreme. Revelations puts God at the center not man. People come to faith not through reason but because God reveals itself to them. Otherwise there faith is of an intellectual point only. God is meant to be known and thus he is a revealing God- how risqué. I do think faith holds up to intellectual integrity (reason) but was never meant to usurp what God alone can provide.
I echo Paul that - Not only does God reveal his existence, but he reveals it in such a detailed way that we know much about his character, that he has interacted and does interact with humanity, and that he has a plan for the future.
God does this detailed revelation precisely through revelation and not through reason. That is why I believe scripture is so foundational. It was revealed not just through one person or prophet but through many, many people- I do not know the precise number but I believe that there are 80 or so authors of the Bible- and written over thousands of years and in many different nations and cultural settings- all claim to have it by revelation. The Koran on the other hand was a revelation by one man over his lifetime.
Point 2:The problem with addressing quotes made by people such as Nietzsche or Augustine is that so much time and thinking goes behind what appears to be a simple statement. So you have to address so much more than the statement being made. This makes for me a scattered reply. Sorry for this in advance.
"I think, therefore I am." Could it be that these words suggest reason should rise to the surface as the paragon of knowing? Possibly, maybe not intentionally. Could it be that these words were a slow—very slow by our own standards of experience and human history, very quick by the reference to the history of the universe—catalyst to the enlightenment which lit the fire for science and the development of so many of the tools /mechanisms/strategies used to lift people out of suffering, out of oppression. We often look at the impetus for carrying out acts of good deeds in today’s modern world as the source of hope as opposed to the impetus for the tools that so ably assist in that effort. Alone, neither of these offers much hope. It is only together they are most effect. I think reason clearly suggests that the source of science is human curiosity, endeavor and a proper--although still highly argued--environment. The source of the former, acts of good deeds, however, is not so clear as iterated in the frustrations of Nietzsche.
Point 3:
Nietzsche as I gather from other sources, faulted many atheists for giving any positive validity for religion, especially as a source of morals. This was his esoteric “you can’t have your cake and eat it too”. In fact, he apparently felt a deep desire for absolute truth even though simply unattainable as evidenced by his blasphemous statements towards absolute truth. I am not sure Nietzsche demonstrates a resistance to reason here but rather a frustration with its limits; nor would I suggest that Nietzsche is opposed to absolute truths. I believe that this respecter of reason acknowledgements the limits of reason for proponing absolute truths. This is not an opposition to something but the realization/recognition of something. These are two very different places to be. One [opposition] implies an intentional avoidance while the other [realization/recognition] realizes the truth of what appears at least in the present as inevitable.
Although reason may have its limits based on the limits of our physical senses and brain capacity, this is no excuse or just cause for irrational thinking, blind faith, or ignoring reason that is within the "limits". There is a big difference between saying reason has it limits, meaning some things are not knowable—at least yet—and using that to justify belief in something that is not explainable by reason. As a result, I think absolute truth gets molested in this whole affair. A tool of manipulation, a strategic maneuver, if you will, to throw a person’s footing off who struggles with the existence of God or specific moral standards. The danger for religious believers in bringing to the forefront limits in reason and advocating for revelation as a suitable source of knowledge and using this as a platform for defense is the ease with which this line of reasoning erodes over time. What happens in this case and what has happened in the past is that every time the limits of reason are expanded a little bit of God is consumed. This is what leads to visceral responses by religious demagogues to people like Darwin or Galileo or Science Teachers. This is what leads people even in the midst of tremendous evidence (most having nothing to do with evolution) to blindly claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old. So in short, it is one thing to say reason has limits; it is an entirely different thing then to say I am therefore unaccountable to the reason that is within limits.
I think context is always important in considering what a person says as does Nietzsche in his acknowledgment of perspective's influence on reason. Nietzsche is no stranger to Christianity. He is not like many of today's atheists/agnositcs brought up in traditions that much more easily disregard religion. One has to wonder why it is that Nietzsche struggles with topics of religion and morals. Could it be due to the culture of the church at the time? Could church culture and doctrine also shed light on his aversion to guilt? I think this is a deep deep topic worth exploring, especially as it relates to how Christianity has manifested itself in America (although not easily characterized, I admit). My guess is that this is where his reason showed him that humanity's God did not match up with his experience of humanity.
Robb,
When you talk about the Bible as revelation what exactly do you mean. This means different things for different people.
Paul- Let me say that I completely agree with you about the benefits of reason. I agree that is has rendered incredible gifts. God gave reason in order that their might be science and technology that we could use it to cure diseases, and feed hungry people etc. They are incredible gift wrought through reason. Thus I believe an incredible temptation that we might turn to worship it.
Reason always begins with revelation. We can reason about the stars because we see them- this may seem like the obvious. But what if we did not have eyes to see or what if the clouds on earth were to thick fo us to make them out. First stars were revealed and then came the reason. Revelation must occur before reason. We know gravity exist because we experience it. Revelation precedes reason. In all fields not just faith. The historian knows about ancient Egyptians by the pyrmaids and writing left behind. We know the people by their creations. In the same way we know God by his creation
Again Paul I completely agree with your first point : "The problem with addressing quotes made by people such as Nietzsche or Augustine is that so much time and thinking goes behind what appears to be a simple statement. So you have to address so much more than the statement being made."
I think the same is true of the Bible and many have pulled a quote of the Old Testament as a way to label the whole thing bogus without looking at the whole context of that passage much less the whole of the Bible.
Paul you stated that "nor would I suggest that Nietzsche is opposed to absolute truths. this is not an opposition to something but the realization/recognition of something. It is only realization if you agree with his reason. I do not so I see it as opposition. Again the problem with reason in that two reasonable people- namely you and I can see something at such different perspectives when using reason. I do not think this shows flawed reasoning just the utter dependence of reason on its starting point. Which is why revelation is critical.
This is an excellent discussion. Maybe the question isn't so much the relationship between revelation and reason. Maybe the issue is revelation itself. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc. all have different starting points. They evoke "faith" in their revelation as basis for all they say and do, for good or for ill.
My understanding is that in part, reason (descart) delivered us from the violent irrationality of the crusades. The hope was that reason would establish some productive ground rules by which people of faith could dialogue.
So what does rational dialgoue look like among people of "faith?" What is the basis for dialogue? My holy book says... oh yea, well my holy book says... oh yea, well I believe this...
It is not enough to state propositional beliefs. What is the basis for knowing? If a person says "revelation" -- "just believe because I believe" it isn't enough to satisfy the true seeker of truth.
jon- I think you are right that many people after witnessing countless wars, inqustions supposedly based upon faith they were ready to throw faith out and put their trust in reason instead. ( I would argue most of those were not wars of faith but more wars about power that used religion to justify action- the height of blasphemy in my book. Whatever happened to the first shall be last and the last first, turn the other cheek etc.)
Reason- although again a wonderful gift of God, led to the possibility that we do not need God to explain the world and thus Freud and Neitzche, Sarte and Camus were all born. However, they gave rise to Hitler (Hilter relied on Nietzche for his justification for slaughtering the jews, Stalin, Mao and Pol Plot who quite possibly set the record for most geneocidal men in history granted they had the gifts of technology to aid them in the bloody rampage.
Reason I think can serve as a wonderful aid us on the quest for truth - in fact I do not think we can understand revelation fully without it, but ultimately I think we will not find it until it is revealed. Ask and you shall recieve, seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened unto you. That is my hope is that we are all seeking the truth and if so I think we shall find it. Robb
I'm guessing that you must leave a comment on a post before you are allowed to post? I have to say that I have delved into this discussion today and gotten a ridiculously small amount of work done. But, such is a luxury of running your own business.
The point I'd like to bring up (I'd really like to post it at some point rather than have it on a comment page) is about Richard Dawkins' series called "The Root of All Evil?". I've compiled a good handful of responses to this presentation, but I'll bring up just one here, and that has to do with the very title of the videos (you can see them if you Google "the God Delusion"). By invoking the word "evil" Dawkins opens up an interesting can, in my opinion. I looked up the word in the American Heritage Dictionary and it does not have an exclusive spiritual bent to it. It does describe it as meaning, generally, bad. However, I feel, though I cannot prove this, that in our modern context, even globally, most people would either overtly claim some spiritual aspect of "badness" in their personal definition of evil, and if not overtly than they would not deny it if you gave a definition that included the spiritual aspect. Now, as the atheistic gospel authors, Dennet, Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris, might claim, there may be genes present in unintelligent humans that predispose them to a belief in the supernatural/spiritual realm. So, potentially, I'm talking out of my own genetic inadequacies. But, for what it's worth, spiritual activity has not been discussed here. Invoking the name of Jesus Christ for healing or exorcism or comfort works (I can give you personal accounts if you would like, though I am hesitant because I believe revelation is sometimes a private thing). The problem here is that this is only defensible scientifically in a marginal sense. For example, people who attend religious congregations on a regular basis tend to live longer (and happier, I believe?) than those who do not. There is research to show also that prayer in general (meaning not necessarily to one specific God, but for other people) by people who don't even know one who is sick has been demonstrated to increase the likelihood that the sick will get well, or better.
While it is clear we are inseparable from the animal kingdom in nearly every way, can't we say conclusively that the capacity of the human mind, and the capability of its individuals and communities to affect change in the world far (I can't think of a better word!) exceeds that of any other species on the planet? I think, then, the argument by the so-called four horsemen, or maybe just a few of them, would be that all of the denigration we humans have managed to carry out on the natural world is a direct result of the lessers-of-us' predisposition to believe in a God whose existence we cannot prove, or at least as a result of being angry with other people who do not believe the same.
I think the notion that there is no spiritual realm is the most dangerous of them all. To me, it's a bit silly, as has already been concluded on this blog from time to time, to try and prove something which cannot be proven or try to convince someone with reason that does not translate well to the other's perspective.
Paul, I believe the one thing that still remains in your framework as a possible reason to believe the Gospel (the good news of Christ and his promises kept) is fundamentally the only thing that really matters: the upside-down nature of the Kingdom which, as Robb has conveyed, puts the worthless shoulder to shoulder with the "worthy", as every knee bows and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord. The thing about this is that it is extremely exclusive of any other conceivable pathway to God (whether your God is God or Reason). It says that Jesus is the only way to the Truth, the point that we will know everything we long to know, as God does. But what is truly remarkable about this is that no one, actually, is excluded who will claim Jesus' promise for themselves. That's right where humility is foundational.
Back to the spiritual. I believe that battle is waging. And I believe that reason (or some version of it) is fighting to disconnect us with the spiritual realm and, therefore, a deeper and stronger connection with each other and (I believe) our Creator. And I have evidence, if you'll believe it, that that is the case. And Jesus' name and the mention of his blood are the only things that protect us from the temptation to believe in a reasonable world.
I question the thesis that atheism led to Hitler, etc. any more than soccer leads to suicide bombing. I think this is an empty argument used by atheists and Christians alike that waste a lot of time.
Robb, this is the problem I have. Only people who think they know it all or have a hand on the pulse of truth could claim heresy. This is a problem, a big one. I feel the same way about atheists, like Dawkins, Harris,etc. What gives you or anyone else the authority to claim heresy in the context of science or religion? I know, your revelation, right? You see this is the root of divisiveness; this is how hatred starts. Add in a period of economic despair, sickness, and hunger, you have war or decimation, most likely on the hands of young impressionable people.
What is power anyways? Is it not a power grab to say the revelation you hold true is the true one? Does that not offer some angle of power for you, manipulation?.
These environmental exasperations starts with simple statements of disagreement which blossom into charred flowers.
Post a Comment