1.) It seems as if there is a large parallels present with the free will arguments in the medieval and renaissance time periods. This being said the Renaissance writers have significantly better writing standards that their medieval counter parts. The free will position is much more concise and to the point and does an excellent job of articulating how the theory works to answer the problem of evil. 2.) I Like how bold the determinism position ends up sounding here. It comes right and and lets the reader know clearly that Gods will leaves no room for human free will. Furthermore, they even attack the orthodox position for being too proud which I find very interesting. Personally I think its healthy to cycle in and out of beliefs about freedom of the will depending on the context one finds themselves in, and admit that at the end of the day no intelligent life will ever have a final satisfying answer for the question.
I am in agreement, that the Renaissance philosophers are more sophisticated in their writing styles as opposed to the medieval philosophers. This distinction I find clear, insofar as the Renaissance thinkers tend to articulate their arguments in a more philosophical undertone as opposed to the rigorous deductive nature of the Medieval thinkers. I find it interesting that instead of trying to prove God's existence whilst trying to prove all of His attributes and keep them consistent with reality, without room for counterargument, the Renaissance thinkers detail a plausible folklore to the origin of things such as creation and will, and give arguments that are found to be more coherent and concise than the thinkers of the Medieval, who only really focused on the nature of reality that is and proposing mostly-unsupported claims.
The first thing I noticed in the readings for today is the massive step in the direction of literature and poetry. The authors of today’s readings appear less to be arguing with highly technical logic, and instead appeal to the authority of scripture, and a sort of self-identification with the reader and the subject of the works. Out of the readings this semester, I think these might contain the first uses of metaphor that aren’t a hypothetical thought experiment, but are reminiscent of the way religion is interpreted today, rich with symbolism and imagery used to assert a point instead of literal and logical descriptions of metaphysics.
In reading Luther and Calvin, I get a very familiar interpretation of religion. While they both argue thoughtfully and reasonably, I get the feeling that they, like some of the opposition to early medieval philosophers, think so highly of scripture that they feel an attempt to justify it on some grounds beyond faith is questionable, and maybe inadvisable, perhaps because it is not helpful to living (their interpretations on) the “good life.”
1. The determinist perspective seems like it is much more easily able to describe the relation between God's fixed will, His foreknowledge, and human's free will. It does so by denying that human's have such a thing as free will. The argument sees on the face of it to be a much more concise and honest position given God's immutability and foreknowledge. As Luther stated "God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will" (5). To accept this point Luther points out means that one must deny that humans have such a thing as free will.
2. The problem that this determinist view brings forth is that if human will is determined, then what role do human's have to play in their salvation? Calvin does a good job of answering this question stating very boldly, "All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he ha been predestinated to life or to death" (10).
The views of these philosophers compared to the medieval philosophers is more concise and direct in a way. The first few pages mentioned how the supreme maker brought forth the human and told them of their ability to choose what they will do which was far more clear than the previous medieval perspectives. 2. The second reading was a bit more confusing but still easier to comprehend than previous readings. the part that was most interesting to me was the argument style proving Gods immutability because it seemed more plausible and seamless than before.
There seems to be a common theme – submission. God’s will is the apex of direction. We cannot too much to affect the outcome of such a powerful thing. Erasmus specifically writes on the futility of man’s desire to create change. Submission it seems grants us a higher power, rather than actively working to change. Luther’s title The Bondage of Will implies that we are bound to God’s plan, and not by our choice. Furthermore, these readings seem to elevate God more so than others. In comparison to our pervious readings which make God sound rather pedestrian, these read more like the bible itself. Luther in particular seems not to question the nature of God; he accepts God as an omnipotent being.
Will seems to be self-explanatory among most readings thus far.
1.) Reading the renaissance philosophers arguments, I thought that they were very interesting. I liked how they were very precise in their arguments and their position on free will. The one thing I found interesting was how they explained the humans and their free will that they have the option to choose their way of living. Even though some are born with certain attributes, there are humans that can work their way up to the top. 2.) I found it very intriguing how there wasn't any space to oppose the arguments. But it was eye opening to see that they talk very strongly of Gods attributes, but the will is something he gives us isn't forced. Our will is certainly free, but he doesn't force anything upon us. The irritation analogy that was given was great because the will still isn't changed.
1. In reference to Mirandola's Oration, I wonder why if humans can choose between baseness and divinity, why wouldn't everyone choose divinity since this is obviously the better option?
2. Erasmus points out that ascribing cruelty and injustice to God is an abhorrent idea to religion. I'd like to point out that this is not a valid philosophical argument. He says this would disqualify him from being God, but it seems like this may be an arbitrary definition of God.
These couple reading were the first that for the most part didn't really provoke me that much. It sort of seems we went backwards when it comes to intellectual integrity. Much of what was written here weren’t so much arguments as they were just literary hand waving. They weave stories and images of God as just and humans as free, but don't take the time to say why that is the case in great detail. These Renaissance’s writer were definitely better writers, but I feel like the medieval writers before them at least took a little more inspiration some Aristotle and Plato when it came to drafting arguments that adheres to logic. That being said, this may have been for the better. I got a strong feeling that many of these writer, Luther especially, were more willing to just have faith then to justify themself at every step. I believe this to be the ideal way to practice any highly specific and dogmatic religion, like christianity. Many of the past Philosopher we read would really stumble not when if came to justifying a God, but justifying the belief in the Christian God.
1) On Page 7, I couldn't help but to be helplessly confused on the difference between a 'compulsive action' and an action that happens "spontaneously". He discusses how God can enter the human body via the Holy Spirit, which makes us not act evil, but rather than us being worked like puppets, God is simply convincing us to act God, and we 'willingly' agree. If God was whispering sweet goodness into my ear and I willingly choose to follow it, that would suggest I didn't choose an evil option. Is the evil option how we would act without the Holy Spirit?
2) I wish I could read the 'proof' that Calvin is referring to in the first sentence of his work. Is he directly referencing the end of the Luther piece? It is not at all clear to me that man sins necessarily but also sins voluntarily. If man sins necessarily and voluntarily at the same time, I concede that may offer proof that human nature is naturally sinful. However, it's still not clear to me that man can actually be willing an action that he was going to do indeterminately.
The reading I feel revealed that Medieval and Renaissance concept of free will has many similarities. I believe that the Renaissance writers did a slightly better job when it comes to explaining how free will and the problem of evil correlate with one another. I find it positive how Renaissance writers decided that they could not just go along and accept the concept of free will given to them by Medieval thinkers.
A part of the reading I found interesting was the discussion of the submission to God. Because God know everything that is going to happen it is very important that man always submits to his will. The will of man is pointless because at the end of the day God makes the final and most crucial decision. This reading is a return to elevating God’s omnipotence instead of degrading it like some Medieval writer seemed to do.
1.) It seems as if there is a large parallels present with the free will arguments in the medieval and renaissance time periods. This being said the Renaissance writers have significantly better writing standards that their medieval counter parts. The free will position is much more concise and to the point and does an excellent job of articulating how the theory works to answer the problem of evil.
ReplyDelete2.) I Like how bold the determinism position ends up sounding here. It comes right and and lets the reader know clearly that Gods will leaves no room for human free will. Furthermore, they even attack the orthodox position for being too proud which I find very interesting. Personally I think its healthy to cycle in and out of beliefs about freedom of the will depending on the context one finds themselves in, and admit that at the end of the day no intelligent life will ever have a final satisfying answer for the question.
I am in agreement, that the Renaissance philosophers are more sophisticated in their writing styles as opposed to the medieval philosophers. This distinction I find clear, insofar as the Renaissance thinkers tend to articulate their arguments in a more philosophical undertone as opposed to the rigorous deductive nature of the Medieval thinkers.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that instead of trying to prove God's existence whilst trying to prove all of His attributes and keep them consistent with reality, without room for counterargument, the Renaissance thinkers detail a plausible folklore to the origin of things such as creation and will, and give arguments that are found to be more coherent and concise than the thinkers of the Medieval, who only really focused on the nature of reality that is and proposing mostly-unsupported claims.
The first thing I noticed in the readings for today is the massive step in the direction of literature and poetry. The authors of today’s readings appear less to be arguing with highly technical logic, and instead appeal to the authority of scripture, and a sort of self-identification with the reader and the subject of the works. Out of the readings this semester, I think these might contain the first uses of metaphor that aren’t a hypothetical thought experiment, but are reminiscent of the way religion is interpreted today, rich with symbolism and imagery used to assert a point instead of literal and logical descriptions of metaphysics.
ReplyDeleteIn reading Luther and Calvin, I get a very familiar interpretation of religion. While they both argue thoughtfully and reasonably, I get the feeling that they, like some of the opposition to early medieval philosophers, think so highly of scripture that they feel an attempt to justify it on some grounds beyond faith is questionable, and maybe inadvisable, perhaps because it is not helpful to living (their interpretations on) the “good life.”
1. The determinist perspective seems like it is much more easily able to describe the relation between God's fixed will, His foreknowledge, and human's free will. It does so by denying that human's have such a thing as free will. The argument sees on the face of it to be a much more concise and honest position given God's immutability and foreknowledge. As Luther stated "God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will" (5). To accept this point Luther points out means that one must deny that humans have such a thing as free will.
ReplyDelete2. The problem that this determinist view brings forth is that if human will is determined, then what role do human's have to play in their salvation? Calvin does a good job of answering this question stating very boldly, "All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he ha been predestinated to life or to death" (10).
The views of these philosophers compared to the medieval philosophers is more concise and direct in a way. The first few pages mentioned how the supreme maker brought forth the human and told them of their ability to choose what they will do which was far more clear than the previous medieval perspectives.
ReplyDelete2. The second reading was a bit more confusing but still easier to comprehend than previous readings. the part that was most interesting to me was the argument style proving Gods immutability because it seemed more plausible and seamless than before.
There seems to be a common theme – submission. God’s will is the apex of direction. We cannot too much to affect the outcome of such a powerful thing. Erasmus specifically writes on the futility of man’s desire to create change. Submission it seems grants us a higher power, rather than actively working to change. Luther’s title The Bondage of Will implies that we are bound to God’s plan, and not by our choice.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, these readings seem to elevate God more so than others. In comparison to our pervious readings which make God sound rather pedestrian, these read more like the bible itself. Luther in particular seems not to question the nature of God; he accepts God as an omnipotent being.
Will seems to be self-explanatory among most readings thus far.
1.) Reading the renaissance philosophers arguments, I thought that they were very interesting. I liked how they were very precise in their arguments and their position on free will. The one thing I found interesting was how they explained the humans and their free will that they have the option to choose their way of living. Even though some are born with certain attributes, there are humans that can work their way up to the top.
ReplyDelete2.) I found it very intriguing how there wasn't any space to oppose the arguments. But it was eye opening to see that they talk very strongly of Gods attributes, but the will is something he gives us isn't forced. Our will is certainly free, but he doesn't force anything upon us. The irritation analogy that was given was great because the will still isn't changed.
1. In reference to Mirandola's Oration, I wonder why if humans can choose between baseness and divinity, why wouldn't everyone choose divinity since this is obviously the better option?
ReplyDelete2. Erasmus points out that ascribing cruelty and injustice to God is an abhorrent idea to religion. I'd like to point out that this is not a valid philosophical argument. He says this would disqualify him from being God, but it seems like this may be an arbitrary definition of God.
ReplyDeleteThese couple reading were the first that for the most part didn't really provoke me that much. It sort of seems we went backwards when it comes to intellectual integrity. Much of what was written here weren’t so much arguments as they were just literary hand waving. They weave stories and images of God as just and humans as free, but don't take the time to say why that is the case in great detail. These Renaissance’s writer were definitely better writers, but I feel like the medieval writers before them at least took a little more inspiration some Aristotle and Plato when it came to drafting arguments that adheres to logic.
That being said, this may have been for the better. I got a strong feeling that many of these writer, Luther especially, were more willing to just have faith then to justify themself at every step. I believe this to be the ideal way to practice any highly specific and dogmatic religion, like christianity. Many of the past Philosopher we read would really stumble not when if came to justifying a God, but justifying the belief in the Christian God.
1) On Page 7, I couldn't help but to be helplessly confused on the difference between a 'compulsive action' and an action that happens "spontaneously". He discusses how God can enter the human body via the Holy Spirit, which makes us not act evil, but rather than us being worked like puppets, God is simply convincing us to act God, and we 'willingly' agree. If God was whispering sweet goodness into my ear and I willingly choose to follow it, that would suggest I didn't choose an evil option. Is the evil option how we would act without the Holy Spirit?
ReplyDelete2) I wish I could read the 'proof' that Calvin is referring to in the first sentence of his work. Is he directly referencing the end of the Luther piece? It is not at all clear to me that man sins necessarily but also sins voluntarily. If man sins necessarily and voluntarily at the same time, I concede that may offer proof that human nature is naturally sinful. However, it's still not clear to me that man can actually be willing an action that he was going to do indeterminately.
The reading I feel revealed that Medieval and Renaissance concept of free will has many similarities. I believe that the Renaissance writers did a slightly better job when it comes to explaining how free will and the problem of evil correlate with one another. I find it positive how Renaissance writers decided that they could not just go along and accept the concept of free will given to them by Medieval thinkers.
ReplyDeleteA part of the reading I found interesting was the discussion of the submission to God. Because God know everything that is going to happen it is very important that man always submits to his will. The will of man is pointless because at the end of the day God makes the final and most crucial decision. This reading is a return to elevating God’s omnipotence instead of degrading it like some Medieval writer seemed to do.