Introduction      These summaries are designed to be a helpful introduction to select readings of certain philosophers from the past few hundred years. They represent my opinions and interpretations of their writings. They are not meant to be a substitute for a thorough reading of these works in their original form. 

Descartes
Meditations on the First Philosophy
“Meditation I: Of the things of which we may doubt”

Descartes is writing to establish what he considers to be the truth regarding the existence of God, and the distinction between the mind and the body. He is motivated by skepticism about reality. Therefore, he sets out to write this work to establish foundational truths.

There are certain things that can be established as probably true. The human senses confirm these truths, even though it is possible for them to deceive. Because of the possibility of being deceived about even seemingly obvious truths, it is better to speak in terms of probabilities. It seems that nothing can be known with absolute certainty. He suspects that there is a powerful malignant being set on deceiving him.

“Meditation II: Of the nature of the human mind; and that it is more easily known than the body”

He is hoping to be able to establish even one thing that is “certain and indubitable.”  He suspects that the only certainty is that there is nothing certain. He concludes that he exists since it is possible that he is either persuaded or deceived.  The reality that he has a thought life is proof that he exists. He cannot find a sufficient proof that his body exists, for the senses are subject to deception.

     He acknowledges the possibility of the existence of other things; but he cannot judge of those things. He does not admit that he is anything but mind. One’s perception of reality can only be rightly understood, not sensed or imagined.

“Meditation III: Of God: that He exists”

Moving from the certainty that he is a thinking being, Descartes begins to consider the possibility of God. We have many ideas in our minds. These ideas correspond to images we perceive beyond ourselves. Yet, it is not possible to conclude with absolute certainty that these things exist beyond the mind. The idea of God he has is a being that is “infinite (eternal, immutable), independent, all-knowing, all-powerful, and by which I myself, and every other thing that exists, if any such there be, were created.”

The more consideration that Descartes gives to these ideas, the more impossible it seems that they could have originated within himself. He gives the example of the fact that he is a finite being, yet he is capable of thinking about an infinite being. The possibility of an infinite being could not have originated in the mind of a finite being. The fact that he is aware of imperfections within himself is also evidence that he has a prior, innate knowledge of a perfect being.

He then moves from his ontological proof for God to a cosmological proof for God. He owes his existence to one of the following: Himself, his parents, a less than infinite being, a combination of beings each with a single attribute of deity, or from the infinite God before defined. He describes how each of these is impossible except that he is the effect of an infinite God containing all the perfections of deity. He summarizes his own argument with the following statement:

I perceive I cannot possibly be of such a nature as I am, and yet have in my mind the idea of a God, if God did not in reality exist,—this same God, I say, whose idea is in my mind—that is a being who possesses all those lofty perfections, of which the mind may have some slight conception, without, however, being able fully to comprehend them,—and who is wholly superior to all defect (and has nothing that marks imperfection): whence it is sufficiently manifest that he cannot be a deceiver, since it is a dictate of the natural light that all fraud and deception spring from some defect.

 “Meditation IV: Of truth and error”

God is without error and cannot deceive. Error is not something real, but is a defect. It is because God created humans as finite that they can fall into error. Error is not a pure negation, but a privation of some knowledge one should possess. However, it seems that a perfect being would impart to the creation complete perfection.

He acknowledges that we cannot understand God’s ways. For instance, what seems to be an imperfect part of the universe, may be part of a perfect whole universe. Even man’s free will is a perfect aspect of man. Yet, man errs or sins when he chooses not to restrain the will in areas beyond what he understands. It is not the faculty of will that is imperfect, but the act itself. He states that “the knowledge of the understanding ought always to precede the determination of the will.

He concludes that there is imperfection within him when he does not use his freedom aright, and gives judgment on matters of which he is not certain. He affirms that his imperfection is somehow part of a greater perfection in the whole universe.

“Meditation V: Of the essence of material things; and, again, of God: that He exists”In this meditation, Descartes wrestles with the idea of whether anything about the material world can be known with certainty. He considers the triangle. Though he cannot prove that a real triangle exists anywhere in the universe, he can with certainty conceive of its possibility in his mind. He concludes that the certainty of any science depends on the knowledge of God. Since God is no deceiver, all that one clearly and distinctly perceives is true. Even if he is dreaming when he perceives that he is awake, this logic holds true—that “all which is clearly presented to my intellect is indisputably true.”
“Meditation VI: Of the existence of material things, and of the real distinction between the mind and body of man”

Do material things really exist, apart from the mind? Pure mathematics can lead us to conclude that they do exist. Pure mathematics results in clear and distinct ideas. Colors, tastes, sounds, and pain would fall under a different category. These are perceived by the senses. These can also be known with certainty. There is a body which extends from the mind, even though the mind could exist independent of the body.

God could not be vindicated from the charge of deceit if material objects, even those not known mathematically, did not exist in the corporeal world. Humans have such a strong inclination to believe that these things exist independent of the mind. God is no deceiver. This is not to say that one can understand everything about what one perceives. One may not understand all the properties of a star, but one can know that there is something in the universe that shines in the night sky that the eyes behold.

In the end, one is still liable to error. However, this does not mean that one cannot know things with certainty and clarity about the external world.

 Benedict de SpinozaThe Ethics

Part I: Concerning God

Spinoza sets out to define God with a series of propositions for which he gives a proof for each one. His first ten propositions relate to being. For example, he points out that two identical substances with the exact same nature cannot exist. Things with nothing in common cannot be one the cause of the other. An infinite being must possess infinite attributes.

He then proposes that God necessarily exists based on an ontological argument. He states that if no reason can be given to prove that God does not exist, then he must necessarily exist. Yet it would not be possible for anything external to his nature to disprove his existence. It would require something from within his nature to prove he does not exist, yet this is a contradiction. He concludes that God must necessarily exist.

Finite beings either exist within themselves, or within an infinite necessary being. Since it is impossible that finite beings can be self-sustaining, then an infinite being must exist. An infinite being possesses an infinite power of existence and must necessarily exist.

He proposes that there can only be one substance in the universe. Everything is either an attribute of God or an accident of the attributes of God.  Everything exists within God. He attempts a geometrical illustration of this proposition. He states that every line contains within it an infinite number of points. Every solid is made of surfaces consisting of lines consisting of points. In this sense, every object in the universe is infinite.

He also proposes that God is the cause of all things, that he is the indwelling, not transient cause of all things, that he is eternal, immutable. He is the efficient cause of the existence and essence of all things. He states that “Nothing in the universe is contingent, but all things are conditioned to exist and operate in a particular manner by the necessity of the divine nature.” Since everything is in God, and God is not contingent, nothing is contingent.

Free will does not appertain to God. Things could not have been brought into being by God. All things necessarily follow from the nature of God. God’s decrees are not the same as free will for they have always been a part of God. God did not exist before his decrees, not could he exist without them. Spinoza appeals to all the philosophers he has read that they would all agree that God’s intellect is entirely actual, and not at all potential. God’s intellect is equal to his will and essence; hence there can be no change within his will since there is no change within his essence. The appendix further develops and illustrates this idea.

Benedict de SpinozaOf Miracles

Spinoza asserts that the masses are apt to confirm or reject God’s existence solely on the grounds of whether miracles have or have not occurred. He sets out to prove that God can be better known by the fixed order of the universe than by the miraculous. Everything happens by the decrees of God.

He defines a miracles as “an event of which the causes cannot be explained by the natural reason through a reference to ascertained workings of nature.” Since a miracle is something that is not presently understood, it does not contribute to the knowledge of God’s essence or existence. Only things clearly and distinctly understood heightens human knowledge of God. There are no events that can occur against or beyond the laws of nature, for everything happens consistently within the will of God (His unchanging decrees).

Moving to the Scriptures, he points out that the Jews were apt to believe that miracles would solidify their convictions. Yet even in the Bible, “miracles” could be produced by the false prophets. He goes on to give examples of natural explanations of various miracles found in Scripture. Those which we do not understand, he asserts, we must assume that whatever happened, did so naturally. He states that the Bible is written to move men’s imagination, not their reason. Therefore, it does not always speak accurately of God and events.

He makes a comment on prophecy—that it is something that does go beyond human understanding. He chooses not to make any assertions regarding this phenomenon.

LeibnizThe Monadology

To Leibniz, the monad is a simple substance. The universe is made up of an innumerable quantity of monads. Composite substances are a collection of monads. Composites can begin or end gradually, but monads cannot. They are either created or annihilated. Monads must have certain qualities for their existence, yet these qualities cannot be known entirely. What is known is that each monad is different from every other.

The monad has perception (not apperception of consciousness) in that there is change within the simplicity. There is multiplicity in the unity. The term “Entelechies” is used of monads since they have in themselves a certain perfection. They are self-sufficient. A soul can be distinguished form a monad in that both have perception, but the perception of the soul is more distinct and in possession of memory.

Animals have heightened perceptions related to the senses and memory. What distinguishes humans from animals is the knowledge of eternal and necessary truths. This knowledge results in the use of reason and the sciences. Humans have a “Rational Soul or Mind.”

Using reason, Leibniz deduces that there must be one God who is sufficient. He is the fountain-head of substance which is a sufficient reason for all things. God alone necessarily exists. From the simplicity of His being flows all of reality. Monads are the products of the “continual out-flashings of the divinity from moment to moment.” 

There are an infinite number of possible universes, yet God has determined the one which does exist. There must be a sufficient reason for this choice. Every simple substance is like a “perpetual living mirror of the universe.” Yet every nomad differs from every other. Therefore, there is the greatest possible diversity in the universe. There is also the greatest possible unity for every monad is alike in its simplicity. Each monad is like the entire universe, yet not without limitation. It is a confused representation of the universe (they are not self-aware). They are “limited and differentiated in the degree of their distinct perceptions.”  

Every organic body is like a divine machine. Human made machines are not so. The machines of man are not reducible to small identical machines. The divine art is. The smallest parts of organic matter are identical to the whole. There is a unity in the body and soul of man. The soul cannot exist without the body. Only God is a bodiless spirit. The soul changes its body gradually. There is no transmigration of the soul.

Spirits make up a moral world within the natural world. It is the noblest work of God. In this system is the glory of God revealed. While souls in a sense mirror the universe, spirits mirror the nature of God. 

Sins will bring their “own penalty with them through the order of nature. Likewise, “good actions will attain their rewards in a mechanical way through their relation to bodies.” After Leibniz has stated his case, he closes with a statement that is too full of depth and beauty to be summarized. Though lengthy, it must be stated in its entirety:

Finally, under this perfect government there will be no good action unrewarded and no evil action unpunished: everything must turn out for the well-being of the good; that is to say, of those who are not disaffected in this great state, who, after having done their duty, trust in Providence and who love and imitate, as is meet, the Author of all Good, delighting in the contemplation of his perfections according to the nature of that genuine, pure love which finds pleasure in the happiness of those who are loved. It is for this reason that wise and virtuous persons work in behalf of everything which seems conformable to presumptive or antecedent will of God, and are, nevertheless, content with what God actually brings to pass through his secret, consequent and determining will, recognizing that if we were able to understand sufficiently well the order of the universe, we should find that it surpasses all the desires of the wisest of us, and that it is impossible to render it better than it is, not only for all in general, but also for each one of us in particular, provided that we have the proper attachment for the author of all, not only as the Architect and the efficient cause of our being, but also as our Lord and the Final Cause, who ought to be the whole goal of our will, and who alone can make us happy.

 John LockeOf Knowledge in General

John Locke defines knowledge as “the perception of the connection of and agreement, or disagreement and repugnancy of any of our ideas.” He believes that there are four types of knowledge. These are summarized as follows: 1) Identity or diversity—this is the most basic form of knowledge. It distinguishes one thing from another. 2) Relation—the perception of the abstract relation between two ideas. 3) Co-existence or necessary connection—This relates to knowledge concerning a substance, of its fixed attributes. 4) Real existence—This is that which actually exists regardless of perception.

(There was not a complete photocopied version in the syllabus of this article).

George BerkeleyA Treatise Concerning the Principles of Humans Knowledge

Berkeley’s points out in the preface that this is a useful paper for those who have been “tainted with skepticism.”  His purpose in this treatise is stated as such, “discover what those principles are which have introduced all that doubtfulness and uncertainty, those absurdities and contradictions, into the several sects of philosophy.” This inquiry into the first principles of knowledge is prefaced with a description of the nature and abuse of language.

The process of forming language involves observing particulars in the universe and forming general ideas, such as the terms “motion” or “line.” One cannot entertain the concept of motion without picturing an object by which it corresponds. When one uses the word “line” to denote a one inch line, the word “line” is in common with every other line in the universe.

Every name stands for an idea. This is the primary way one can communicate knowledge. There are no real abstract ideas, for every “abstract” idea is a generalization of concrete particulars or a relation between particulars.

There are some truths that are “so near and obvious to the mind that a man need only open his eyes to see them.”

The material world can only be perceived by the senses or by reason. From this point, Berkeley proposes that matter does not exist. He states that there is no way to know if there are any real objects beyond ideas. Material things cannot exist apart from ideas. No one can prove otherwise, for in thinking of an object, one has an idea. In trying to think that an object does not exist, one is still forming the idea in his mind. If one tries to think of an object that exists without the mind, there is a direct contradiction.

According to Berkeley, there must be a cause of these ideas, since “extension, figure, and motion cannot be the cause of our sensations.” Since this cause cannot be self-sustained or a result of a material substance, it must be from a Spirit. Berkeley calls those ideas imprinted in our minds by the Spirit as real things. Those we imagine are ideas or images of things.

Berkeley takes the time to answer several objections to his argument. Here he states that those things that are perceived by sense or reflection really do exist, but not in the corporeal or material sense. One objection relates to how a person perceives objects at great distance. If a distant sign or cosmic body is really just an idea in the mind of a person, why can one not perceive that object with greater clarity and in more detail? He answers with the example of a dream in which one sees objects far off without great detail. Yet dreams are clearly only ideas in the mind.

Another objection is that if extension and figure only exist in the mind, then the mind must be extended and figured (since these are attributes predicated by the subject). He answers by rejecting this notion of what philosophers say of subject and mode or attribute. He states that a substance can only exist by the ideas which are attributed to it. A subject is not something distinct from and supportive of attributes. Contrary, these attributes are general ideas attached to a particular word.

 David HumeDialogues Concerning Natural Religion

Of Miracles

            David Hume sets out to prove a point—that the truth of Christianity is less than the truth of our senses. He states that “a weaker evidence can never destroy a stronger.” Though it is possible that reasoning can lead one into errors of judgment, they usually will not. There can be degrees of certainty and a wise man will proportion his belief to the evidence. The more consistently one can observe an event to occur, the more certain one can be about a similar act in the future. Human testimony can be confirmed or refuted by observing the regularity of an event over a period of time.

Hume points out that a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. He states that the proof against a miracle is as strong as “any argument from experience can be possibly imagined.” If an event happens commonly in nature, it cannot be esteemed a miracle. He states that a dead man has never been observed to come to life in any age or country. Since there is a uniform experience against such a miraculous event, there is a direct and full proof from nature that it has not occurred. Only if the falsehood of a person’s testimony would be a greater miracle than the event itself, will Hume acknowledge the possibility of the alleged miraculous event. That, asserts Hume, has never happened.

            Hume’s other arguments against miracles are as follows: No miracle has happened in history that has been attested by a sufficient number of trustworthy, educated men. Men tend to at times believe in the supernatural for emotional reasons. Many have been proven to be frauds. Most miracles are said to have occurred in the presence of unlearned or barbarous people. Historically, fewer numbers of people claim to witness supernatural events in proportion to the degree in which they become more civilized. Since opposing religions claim miraculous events, they must cancel each other out.

He states that “no testimony for any kind of miracle has ever amounted to a probability, much less to a proof. . . . It is experience only which gives authority to human testimony.” This experience confirms the laws of nature and denies the miraculous.
            Of the Christian religion he writes that it is founded on faith, not reason, and that “it is a sure method of exposing it to put it to such a trial as it is by no means fitted to endure.”

 Immanuel Kant

“Of the Impossibility of a Cosmological Proof for the Existence of God”

            Kant begins by defining the cosmological argument as such:

1. If something exists, an absolutely necessary being must likewise exist.
2. I, at least, exist.
3. Consequently, there exists an absolutely necessary being.

           Kant attacks the Cosmological argument by asserting that its foundation is really ontological in the sense that it is based on a conception of a necessary being. He states that experience alone is not a sufficient basis for this proof. He states the following points as fallacies: 1) That every contingent being must have a cause, 2) The impossibility of an infinite regress, 3) Everything is reasoned from the world of experience. Kant does not give a detailed explanation of why these statements are false. He uses unsupported general statements. The force of his argument is based on the idea that one cannot know for certain that God is a necessary being.

            He is not opposed to the possibility of an all-sufficient being, but the idea of a necessary being. Objects in the phenomenal world can tell us that there is a cause. The transcendental objects which form the basis of phenomena “must ever remain hidden from our mental vision.”

 William Paley

Natural Theology

“State of the Argument”

            Paley offers a Teleological argument using an illustration of a watch. He begins by contrasting a rock to the watch. One is clearly the result of design. Even if the watch did not work properly, it would still be clear to any intelligent observer that it did not put itself together, not is it the result of random natural causes. Even if a person did not understand how the watch worked, it would not invalidate the argument that it had been designed.

He continues the argument with a hypothetical idea that the watch could somehow produce another watch like itself. It would be clear that the offspring watch was in some way the product of another watch. It is also true that the product is in no way the cause of the first watch. This would only strengthen the original idea that the watch was designed with a purpose.

            Paley points out the absurdity in assuming that the production of these watches could somehow continue back indefinitely. There had to have been at some point an intelligent input to begin the process. Paley believes these examples to be invincible proof for intelligent design. Those who would attempt to say that these watches could have been producing themselves for infinity have fallen into absurdity. Yet, says Paley, “this is atheism.”

 Immanuel Kant

“Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone”

            Kant states that in life “it is impossible for us to count on miracles or to take them into consideration at all in our use of reason.” Miracles either happen daily “under the guise of natural events” or they do not happen at all. The latter is much more likely and it is by this idea that we must live by reason.

Religion is something that encounters a mystery, is known by an individual (as opposed to publicly), and has moral, practical implications. It can be divinely prompted or as a pure rational faith. One must adhere to the second idea if one is to be reasonable.

Kant points out certain universal beliefs in God—that He is the omnipotent creator (holy legislator), preserver of the human race (benevolent ruler and moral guardian), and administrator of His own moral laws (righteous judge). These three aspects of the divine nature are reflected in the Christian idea of the Trinity. This idea is also found in other religions. The divine nature is indeed a mystery transcending all human concepts. Only what can be understood is of any practical use to humanity. Kant then writes of three practical ideas that stem from this mystery revealed to humanity through reason.

            The first is the mystery of the divine call. This is a call to “citizenship in a divine state.” Humans are God’s creatures. He is the Legislator of the universe and humans are subject to His holy laws. The second is the mystery of atonement. Man is not capable of keeping God’s holy law. Yet, God has called humans to live a certain way, therefore out of God’s goodness, he must have a means to in some way supplement man’s lack of holiness. The third is the mystery of election. This is related to the idea that man is wholly corrupt. Even belief in an atonement would be impossible without a work of heavenly grace. Therefore, God must destine part of the race to salvation and the rest to reprobation.

 Immanuel KantProlegomena to any Future Metaphysics

            Kant lists four theses of philosophy related to the cosmological idea that he believes can be proven using reason. Beside each he lists an antithesis that he also believes can be proven by reason. This, he says, gives reason for the skeptic to rejoice and the critical philosopher to despair. Kant writes that these reveal a “dialectical illusion of pure reason.”

He attempts to prove his point by giving a series of illustrations and arguments. For instance, he discusses time and space and how that human experience can neither confirm nor deny whether space and time are infinite or finite. It is beyond the grasp of human experience. One can only hope to know what can be experienced. One can know phenomena, but not the thing in itself (noumena).

            Kant writes that a deistic conception of God is “quite a pure concept of reason.” One can attribute to a Supreme Being the attribute of understanding, but one cannot have any concept of understanding other than one’s own. In this way, one can know that there is a Supreme Being, but one cannot truly understand its nature. Kant then answers Hume’s objections to deism. Kant supports Hume’s position against theism and anthropomorphism. However, his arguments do nothing to disprove deism. Kant moves the reader from dogmatism to skepticism.

            Going back to Kant’s original proposition—that one can only know things as they relate to experience, Kant points out that this does not mean that one cannot know things about the objective boundary of experience. It is possible to know “the relation to something which is not itself an object of experience but is the ground of all experience. Reason does not, however, teach us anything concerning the thing in itself; it only instructs us as regards its own complete and highest use in the field of possible experience.”

            Kant closes with summarizing the answer to his question “How is metaphysics in general possible?” with the answer, “by ascending from the data of its actual use, as shown in its consequences, to the grounds of its possibility.”

 John Stuart MillTheism

            Mill begins by stating that the belief in polytheism is much more natural to human thought than the monotheism. He states that the belief in one Supreme Being over the universe requires more education and understanding than the belief in many gods. Mill states that it is inconsistent to say that God governs the world by acts of a variable will. He then states that it is very consistent to say that God governs the world by variable laws.

            Mill analyzes the argument for a First Cause. He believes that experience can only lead one to conclude that causation relates to a change or event. It cannot be extended to the material universe, because that is beyond the realm of human experience and knowledge. This leads to the idea that there is a God who began all of the change that is now occurring in the universe.

            He also looks at mind and states that “it is self-evident that nothing can have produced mind but mind.” He believes that the First Cause argument fall short as a means to establish theism because as far as human experience is concerned, matter cannot be established as having a beginning. This cannot be said of mind.  The mere existence of the universe is not a good argument for theism, but both mind and change are.

            Other arguments Mill writes about include the argument from the general consent of mankind, the argument from consciousness, and the argument from marks of design in nature. Of these three, Mill believes that the design argument is by far the strongest. It is a scientific, inductive argument. He uses the methods of agreement to illustrate how the eye bears scientific evidence of design.

            In part two of this work, Mill writes about the attributes of deity. If one can establish the existence of a deity, what can one know about this deity? There is nothing to contradict the idea of perfect knowledge from natural theology, though Mill refutes the idea of an omnipotent Creator citing moral imperfections in the universe. God is likely limited in power, highly intelligent, and benevolent. Mill concludes by stating that it is impossible to understand God as a moral being, or at least to fully understand in what way God is moral.

 Charles DarwinThe Autobiography of Charles Darwin

Edited by Nora Barlow in 1958

            Darwin begins by reflecting on his disbelief in Christianity stemming from the historical inaccuracies of the Old Testament and the alleged inconsistencies of the New Testament. He mentions that no one should want to believe in Christianity because of the doctrine of everlasting punishment of all who disbelieve.

            At one time Darwin believed that Paley’s design argument was conclusive. He writes that the law of natural selection disproves the design theory and supports the view that everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.

            He writes about how happiness seems to prevail over misery in this world; otherwise, a species would not be motivated to propagate. The suffering in the world that does exist argues against the existence of a benevolent God. He argues that since there is not a universal monotheistic belief innate within all peoples that any argument for God based on an inward conviction is invalid.

            Darwin reflects on a time in his life when he had a strong sense of God’s existence. This belief was related to the seeming connection between the ability of man to consider past history as well as the future and the idea of cause and effect. It seemed that a First Cause with an intelligent mind was analogous to the mind of man. Yet, after he wrote Origin of the Species his convictions became much weaker. He concludes that this idea of God must be inherited or learned, but not necessarily related to truth.

He is content to remain agnostic. One who is agnostic can have for his rule of life to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or those which seem best. The highest pleasure on this earth can be attained by doing good for others and then receiving their love and admiration. Even when others do not approve, one can be satisfied in knowing that he has followed his innermost guide or conscience.

Darwin points out that such a belief can cause problem with married person since the spouse will fear for the husband’s salvation (He points out that in all his life he knew of very few women who were skeptics). He quotes an unanswerable argument by an old lady whom his father had encountered, a lady who tried to convert him—“Doctor, I know that sugar is sweet in my mouth, and I know that my Redeemer liveth.”

 Ludwig FeuerbachThe Essence of Christianity

            Feuerbach begins by comparing the difference between man and the brute. The difference, he writes, is consciousness in the strictest sense. The brute is conscious, even aware of his own existence, but not aware of his species. This is a type of higher consciousness that is akin to science. With the brute there is only an inner life. With man there is the inner and the outer life. Man’s essential nature is an object of thought.

            Religion is identical with self-consciousness. A really finite being cannot have even a faint idea of the infinite. Yet man does have; therefore, he must have an infinite nature. Consciousness is in the strict sense identical with consciousness of the infinite. “A limited consciousness is no consciousness; consciousness is essentially infinite in its nature. . . . The conscious subject has for his object the infinity of his own nature.”

            The highest natures of a man are to will, to love (affections, feelings), and to think (reason). The end (purpose) of love is love. The end of reason is reason. The end of will is freedom of the will. The unity of these three is a divine trinity in man. These three are greater than man—love possesses man rather than man possesses love. It is when the will has victory over a man’s impulse to do wrong that this point is apparent. The absolute to man is his own nature.

            He writes, “Every being is in and by itself infinite—has its God, its highest conceivable being, in itself.” One can perceive the divine being by feeling, but only because feeling is infinite. “Consciousness of God is self-consciousness. Knowledge of God is self-knowledge. 

 Friedrich Nietzsche

Selections from The Gay Science

            These selections, translated by Walter Kaufmann, are brief paragraphs of Nietzsche’s own proverbial thoughts. The common theme of these selected passages is related to the advancement of science and the victory of truth over religious prejudices that often inhibit the advancement of knowledge.

            Nietzsche begins this work with the idea that what preserves the species, is not as those in England at his time believed to be the good, but that evil does much more to preserve the species. It arouses the passions of men to respond.

            He later writes about the idea that God is dead and that we have killed him. He writes as if from the perspective from a madman, “How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, comfort ourselves?” and then states, “Must not we ourselves become gods simply to seem worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever will be born after us—for the sake of this deed he will be part of a higher history than all history hitherto.” He ends this thought with the statement that the churches are now the tombs and sepulchers of God.

            In another paragraph Nietzsche welcomes an age in which heroes are those men of valor who pursue knowledge and “wage wars for the sake of thoughts and their consequences.” These will be men who will live dangerously and in doing so find the greatest enjoyment in their existence. 

            In another selection he writes of the need for man to be satisfied with himself and see himself as good. When he is dissatisfied with himself he will attempt to take revenge on himself. Those who behold this ugly man will suffer.

            In a brief paragraph he mentions that Socrates was the “wisest talker who ever lived: he was just as great in his silence.”

            The last selection is a challenge to consider the possibility of living this same existence over and over again. It would be like a horrible curse from a demon. Some have had a moment when it would have seemed a blessing from a god. The thought of this kind of existence should lie upon you as the greatest stress of all. Nietzsche closes with the question, “Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?”

 Friedrich NietzscheThe Antichrist

“Attempt at a Critique of Christianity”

            Nietzsche makes his point clear that the greatest evil is Christianity and that the Christian is a sick human animal. Power is good. Weakness is bad.         “Christianity has sided with all that is weak and base, with all failures.”  He cites Pascal who “believed in the corruption of his reason through original sin when it had in fact been corrupted only his Christianity.”

            He views the idea of pity as nihilistic—an evil that some have somehow labeled as a virtue. Pity attempts to preserve the weak and sick. This is in direct contradiction to the law of natural selection. He even cites Aristotle as one who considered pity a “pathological and dangerous condition.” He believes that there is nothing more unhealthy in this modern world than the Christian idea of pity.     

            Nietzsche believes that all of philosophy has been tainted by theology. It is a poison much more extensive than people suppose. He writes that as long as the priest is revered as an authority that there will be no answer to the question “What is truth?” He goes so far as to say that “whatever the theologian feels to be true must be false.”

            He writes against Kant as one who was “one more clog for German honesty.” Kant promoted an abstract idea of virtues. On the other hand, man must invent his own virtues. An action motivated by instinct is proved to be right by the pleasure accompanied with it. Nietzsche critiques the idea that a philosopher or a priest is above science, yet he is the one who has determined the concepts “true” and “untrue.”

            He states that there is not a “single point of contact with reality” in Christianity that relates to morality or religion. It is all imaginary. He writes that the Christian concept of God “is one of the most corrupt conceptions of the divine ever attained on earth.” He compares Christianity to Buddhism. He writes that though Buddhism is also nihilistic, it is more realistic than Christianity. It, alone as a religion, is genuinely positivistic.

 Sigmund FreudThe Future of an Illusion

            Freud sets out to answer the question, “What is the psychological significance of religious ideas?” He raises the possibility that the teachings of religion are in the same class as those things which have been taught for centuries until science disproves them. Freud states that things in this life that are most important are the least authenticated. This is a psychological problem.

            When religious leaders say that religious doctrines are above reason, it is troubling when one is pressured to accept these as true when one has not had an inner experience that bears witness to them.

            Freud gives psychological reasons that people believe in God. One is a carryover from childhood—the need for a loving and protecting father. Another influence is the desire for a prolongation of life. These beliefs are illusions, not in the sense that they are errors, but that they are derived from human wishes. These are similar to psychiatric delusions, but differ in that they do not have to be false. Delusions always contradict reality. Some illusions will later prove to be true.

Religious doctrines are illusions. Most of them are improbable and incompatible with reality. These doctrines can neither be proved nor refuted. Scientific work is the only way that humans will come to a knowledge of reality outside themselves. He closes by accusing philosophers of being dishonest in their theological conclusions. These beliefs are just hopeful illusions.

 Soren KierkkegaardFrom Fear and Trembling

            Kierkkegaard is bothered that modern man is revolted by faith and always wants to go further. He writes that “in the infinite resignation there is peace and rest.” One should strive to grasp existence by virtue of faith. Even if one sees something as humanly impossible, it is always possible in the world of the infinite. Faith “has resignation as its presupposition.” One must make these infinite movements of resignation oneself. No other person can do them for you. They require “strength and energy and freedom of spirit.” One can train oneself to make these movements which will result in an eternal consciousness. For Kierkkegaard this meant to love God.

            The courage of faith allows one to let go of temporal finiteness and lay hold of the absurd. Kierkkegaard acknowledges this difficulty with these words. “I can swim in existence, but for this mystical soaring I am too heavy.”

            He then writes that the particular is higher than the universal. For example, a moral action is a particular action that takes place within the universal. If the moral thing is the highest thing, then the particular is higher than the universal. He writes that “the individual as the particular is higher than the universal.” Abraham was willing to transgress a universal moral law, yet he was in submission to the will of God.  In this sense, Abraham became higher as an individual than the universal. This, according to Kierkkegaard, is an experience of a great man worth following.

 “Transcendentalism: Hegel”

By Winfried Corduan

            This article is a summary by William Corduan, of Hegel’s philosophical system of transcendentalism. At the core of his system is his philosophy of religion. Corduan begins with Hegel’s overall system, then his philosophy of religion, then his view of the Scriptures, and finally, the interpretations given to him by his followers.  Hegel held that all knowledge is transcendental in both structure and content. In critiquing Kant, Hegel held that only certain knowledge is absolute. There is no such thing as partial certainty. 

            Knowledge is acquired by humans by perception through the senses. It is grounded in understanding. Corduan writes, “Understanding is seen as in need of self-consciousness.” A transcendental regress continues until a state of absolute knowledge is reached. Here is found pure self-consciousness.

            Hegel believed that Christianity must remain biblical since the Bible contained all the necessary doctrines of Christianity. However, the Bible is not sufficient for a complete Christian theology in the sense that it is impossible to be a theologian and be devoid of the Spirit.[1] Humans that are discussing theology must be thinking; humans that are thinking are doing so in conjunction with Spirit. Theology is not considered to be subordinate to philosophy, but it is seen as “one expression on the way toward realization of Absolute Spirit.

            Hegel’s followers divided into three basic groups. One group saw Hegel’s system as destroying the need for religion altogether. This group included men like Bruno Bauer and Ludwig Feuerbach. These men both believed that you can either “philosophize with Hegel or theologize with the Bible” but one cannot do both.  In the middle was a group who saw philosophy as the core of Absolute Spirit, with room for theology within the system. D. F. Straus believed that the Bible could be used to teach spiritual and philosophical truths. However, philosophy must be the starting point. He taught that the Bible was of no use for historical data. One the other extreme were followers who thought that Hegel’s system could not be understood apart from religion. This group is represented by F. C. Baur. He taught that the Bible is best understood when it is placed upon the background of the disclosure of Spirit.

            Finally, Corduan offers a critique of Hegelian philosophy that examines his view of God and the world, his treatment of Scriptures, and his view of truth. He labels Hegel as a panentheist in the sense that God and the world are contained within each other. Hegel’s view does acknowledge the transcendent nature of God (in contrast to some panentheists and all pantheists). The Absolute Spirit is a transcendental reality beyond the conceptions of God and man that we often have. The God of the Old Testament as understood by the Jews died at the crucifixion and was superceded by the Absolute Spirit. A problem here arises when Hegel states that this Absolute Spirit needs the world. This differs with the God of the Bible in the sense that God needs nothing or no one for His existence, but the world is utterly dependent upon Him for its existence.

            In the case of the interpretation of Scripture, Hegel confuses man’s fallible spirit with the Divine Spirit and the distinction between revelation and theology.

            Finally, Corduan acknowledges the absolute nature of truth only in a philosophical sense. His system of thought as it relates to particulars in history leads to a division between the absolute world of the Spirit and the uncertainty of historical events.