Please be advised that our second long test (LT2) will take place on
Wednesday
3 April 2019
SOM 111 (Ching Tan Room)
08h00-10h20 first batch
10h30-12h50 second batch
The same instructions, rules and regulations apply as the first long test
Please be guided accordingly.
Friday, March 29, 2019
Introduction to Anselm's Proslogion Part 1 of 3
Let us look at the Preface of the Proslogion to create an outline of the text and to set its expected outcomes.
For one thing, Anselm is a very clear writer in that he tells us what he plans to do and then he goes on to do it.
He begins by telling us about a previous work. This is his Monologion, i.e. a soliloquy. It is composed of a series of arguments to prove God's existence. In the present text (Proslogion) he proffers an attempt to use a single consideration (Latin: unum argumentum) to prove God's existence.
He confidently asserts he could hit not only two, but three birds with one stone. His unum argumentum stands by itself. It needs no preliminary support for it to stand. and this unum argumentum will be enough to prove three things:
1. God truly (i.e. really) exists (Latin: Deus est). This is his concern for chapters 1-4. Much like St. Thomas Aquinas 200 years later, he begins with the most fundamental question: the question of God's existence.
2. God is the Supreme Good (Latin: Summum Bonum), needing no one else, yet needed by all else in order to fare well. This is his concern for chapters 5-14. Here he talks about how God is the source of all other things, reflecting on the relationship between God as Summum Bonum and creatures as participants in God's goodness and existence.
3. God is whatever else we believe about the Divina Substantia. This is his concern for chapters 15 to 26. Another way of stating this objective is, he wants to make sure that we are not deceived by what we think we know about God. In other words, what we know about God points to what God really is.
These three expected outcomes express a progression. First we will tackle whether God exists, then we investigate God's relationship to creatures and finally to what God really is qua God.
For one thing, Anselm is a very clear writer in that he tells us what he plans to do and then he goes on to do it.
He begins by telling us about a previous work. This is his Monologion, i.e. a soliloquy. It is composed of a series of arguments to prove God's existence. In the present text (Proslogion) he proffers an attempt to use a single consideration (Latin: unum argumentum) to prove God's existence.
He confidently asserts he could hit not only two, but three birds with one stone. His unum argumentum stands by itself. It needs no preliminary support for it to stand. and this unum argumentum will be enough to prove three things:
1. God truly (i.e. really) exists (Latin: Deus est). This is his concern for chapters 1-4. Much like St. Thomas Aquinas 200 years later, he begins with the most fundamental question: the question of God's existence.
2. God is the Supreme Good (Latin: Summum Bonum), needing no one else, yet needed by all else in order to fare well. This is his concern for chapters 5-14. Here he talks about how God is the source of all other things, reflecting on the relationship between God as Summum Bonum and creatures as participants in God's goodness and existence.
3. God is whatever else we believe about the Divina Substantia. This is his concern for chapters 15 to 26. Another way of stating this objective is, he wants to make sure that we are not deceived by what we think we know about God. In other words, what we know about God points to what God really is.
These three expected outcomes express a progression. First we will tackle whether God exists, then we investigate God's relationship to creatures and finally to what God really is qua God.
Thursday, March 28, 2019
Introduction to Anselm's Proslogion Part 2 of 3
Regarding Chapter 1
In the first chapter, Anselm paints a very bleak and wretched human condition. Humanity exists in darkness and sin. This state of great supplication leads humanity to seek for God. But God seems nowhere to be found especially since God seems to exist in glory and inaccessible light. This search for God seems futile.
Anselm uses images familiar to medieval western Christendom, like the idea of exile from God's presence expressed in Genesis as the fall of humanity through the sin of Adam and Eve. And it seems that the human condition is also worsened by this knowledge of exile and fall from grace.
Be that as it may, chapter 1 is still relevant to a secular 21st century global society. We still live in a bleak and wretched condition tainted by war, violence, division, forced migration, economic instability, broken relationships, broken societies, and so on. Where lies the hope of the human race? We may have emerged out of the middle ages but things have not changed much.
Within the darkness and the seeming silence, Anselm still utters his prayer: "Speak now, my whole heart; speak now to God: I seek your countenance; your countenance, O lord, do I seek." Where does his confidence come from?
Implicit in the text is an intuition. Let us try to bring that intuition out by reflecting on the act of searching.
When I am on a quest, at the very least, I have an idea about what I am looking for and where I may perchance find it. Negatively stated, I would never look for something I am totally ignorant of (thus the saying: "we never know what we miss"). Neither would I look for it in random places nor in the least likely places where it could be.
The same could be said about questions (Ever wonder why "quest" and "question" have the same Latin root word?): we never ask from total ignorance. Fr. Ferriols wrote somewhere: If you ask a question, you have a known and an unknown and you know that you do not know. For example, when I ask someone what time a bus will leave, I know that there is such a thing as time, there is a bus that has a schedule, the bus leaves the terminal at a particular time, the person I ask may know the answer to my question, I trust that that person will not deceive me, and so on and so forth. I will be totally bewildered if i get responses like: "There is no such thing as time," or "What bus?", or "Who said anything about leaving? That bus is permanently parked there!"
Now let us express Anselm's intuition. He intuits that if I am searching for God, then I must have a hidden knowledge of God. Where is that hidden knowledge from? Most probably from the fact that God has revealed or is revealing God to me but I don't see it completely or I don't see it at all. But it must be there. This insight somehow completes the circle. If I am questing for God, then maybe it is because God is revealing God to me. This intuition gives Anselm the confidence to utter his prayer of supplication.
Now someone might ask: If he already has an intuition of God's existence, why must he still set out to prove God's existence? Doesn't that make all this at least redundant and at most superfluous?
My answer: intuition is different from reason. Thus Anselm sees the necessity of the task. He seems to ask himself whether or not he could rationally prove what he mysteriously intuits.
This then brings us to chapter two of the Proslogion.
Wednesday, March 27, 2019
Introduction to Anselm's Proslogion Part 3 of 3
On the names of God
Anselm employs many different names for God in the text. It is important to be conscious of the distinctions among them. First let us group them according to type.
I. Common names
e.g. Deus (God) and Dominus (Lord)
II. Philosophical names.
There are three. Each shall be revealed as we read along the text.
III. Theological names.
e.g. Father, Son, Holy Spirit (Christian), YHWH (Jewish), Allah (Muslim).
The common name comes from the language of everyday expressions, sacred scripture, liturgy etc. It does not refer to any religious tradition. Regardless of religion, this is the name a believer uses to refer to the object of belief. Even non-believers use this name to refer to that, which as far as they are concerned, does not exist. To use pharmaceutical language, it is a generic name.
The theological name comes from how God is revealed to humanity. In a way, it is a name with a face. It already expresses a particular relationship with God and refers back to a particular religious tradition.
The philosophical name comes from how human rationality contemplates God. It is not found in any religious text and believers do not utter it in prayer. The three names we shall hear are all original to Anselm. Take note that the basis of the name is human reason because that is the playing field of philosophy.
In his proof, Anselm cannot use the common names because we may not have the same thing in mind when we say "Lord" or " God." Neither can he use theological names in the proof because philosophy cannot and must not base its assertions on divine revelation.
A final note on names: obviously, and everybody knows that names refer to the named. But what we often take for granted is the fact that the names also refer back to the dubber of the name. The name expresses a particular relationship between the dubber and the named. Different names may refer to the same object of naming but each name demonstrates a particular relationship or context. Take Pope Francis for example. Francis is his official name as bishop of Rome and pontifex maximus of the catholic Church. This is the name history will remember him by. The title "His holiness" is used in deference to his holy office. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is his name as an original citizen of Argentina. This name refers to him in official records of the government, the school he went to, and so on. Wouldn't it be funny if his Argentine passport names him as Pope Francis? The registrars of the schools he went to need not go into the trouble of changing his name in the records. And finally, to his close friends and family he could be Jorge, Mario, or some nickname we may never know.
In Anselm's Proslogion, it is important to be conscious of the name he uses for God in particular sections of the text as a key to understanding what he is trying to do in these particular sections.
And so thanks for taking the time to read these notes. Have fun reading chapter two and three of the Proslogion. I assure you, it will be challenging.
Anselm employs many different names for God in the text. It is important to be conscious of the distinctions among them. First let us group them according to type.
I. Common names
e.g. Deus (God) and Dominus (Lord)
II. Philosophical names.
There are three. Each shall be revealed as we read along the text.
III. Theological names.
e.g. Father, Son, Holy Spirit (Christian), YHWH (Jewish), Allah (Muslim).
The common name comes from the language of everyday expressions, sacred scripture, liturgy etc. It does not refer to any religious tradition. Regardless of religion, this is the name a believer uses to refer to the object of belief. Even non-believers use this name to refer to that, which as far as they are concerned, does not exist. To use pharmaceutical language, it is a generic name.
The theological name comes from how God is revealed to humanity. In a way, it is a name with a face. It already expresses a particular relationship with God and refers back to a particular religious tradition.
The philosophical name comes from how human rationality contemplates God. It is not found in any religious text and believers do not utter it in prayer. The three names we shall hear are all original to Anselm. Take note that the basis of the name is human reason because that is the playing field of philosophy.
In his proof, Anselm cannot use the common names because we may not have the same thing in mind when we say "Lord" or " God." Neither can he use theological names in the proof because philosophy cannot and must not base its assertions on divine revelation.
A final note on names: obviously, and everybody knows that names refer to the named. But what we often take for granted is the fact that the names also refer back to the dubber of the name. The name expresses a particular relationship between the dubber and the named. Different names may refer to the same object of naming but each name demonstrates a particular relationship or context. Take Pope Francis for example. Francis is his official name as bishop of Rome and pontifex maximus of the catholic Church. This is the name history will remember him by. The title "His holiness" is used in deference to his holy office. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is his name as an original citizen of Argentina. This name refers to him in official records of the government, the school he went to, and so on. Wouldn't it be funny if his Argentine passport names him as Pope Francis? The registrars of the schools he went to need not go into the trouble of changing his name in the records. And finally, to his close friends and family he could be Jorge, Mario, or some nickname we may never know.
In Anselm's Proslogion, it is important to be conscious of the name he uses for God in particular sections of the text as a key to understanding what he is trying to do in these particular sections.
And so thanks for taking the time to read these notes. Have fun reading chapter two and three of the Proslogion. I assure you, it will be challenging.
Monday, March 11, 2019
Class on Wednesday at FAVR
Please note that our class session on Wednesday, 13 March will take place at FAVR.
Reading Assignments for the Second Long Test
As part of our preparation for the Second Long Test on 3 April, I would like to announce the reading assignments for each section. The texts are identified in the syllabus as related material for the second long test. Each student is required to read the assigned text to her section. The beadles have drawn lots to arrive at the following assignments:
Ph 103 T (8-9am) McCloskey: God And Evil
Ph 103 R (9-10am) Dawkins: Why There Almost Certainly Is No God
Ph 103 S (11am-12pm) Manoussakis: God in the Mind?
The question that will be asked for each class during the exam will assume knowledge of the text assigned to the class. This is our way of practicing student centered learning. Thus we shall not discuss any of these materials in class or during consultations. However, you may discuss the text as a group if you study together.
Copies of the texts are available at ISO Blessings.
Please be guided accordingly.
Ph 103 T (8-9am) McCloskey: God And Evil
Ph 103 R (9-10am) Dawkins: Why There Almost Certainly Is No God
Ph 103 S (11am-12pm) Manoussakis: God in the Mind?
Ph 103 EE (12-1pm) Ferriols: Isip, Malay, at Kaloobang Tao
The question that will be asked for each class during the exam will assume knowledge of the text assigned to the class. This is our way of practicing student centered learning. Thus we shall not discuss any of these materials in class or during consultations. However, you may discuss the text as a group if you study together.
Copies of the texts are available at ISO Blessings.
Please be guided accordingly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)