How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ? 


Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

spiltteeth
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:18 pm

How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ? 


Post by spiltteeth »

Classical theists make the argument for God from the contingent to the absolute, or from the conditioned to the unconditioned, like Aquinas’s 3rd way.



A devotee of Schopenhauer, I imagine, would make 3 points.


1) You cannot apply our notions of causality beyond physical reality.

2) We only know our experience inside time and space, so how could we know this “God” beyond everything we know ?


3) We cannot know the noumena behind phenomena.



How might one respond ? As a platonist, or theist ?




Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ?

Post by Gary Childress »

spiltteeth wrote: Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:19 pm Classical theists make the argument for God from the contingent to the absolute, or from the conditioned to the unconditioned, like Aquinas’s 3rd way.



A devotee of Schopenhauer, I imagine, would make 3 points.


1) You cannot apply our notions of causality beyond physical reality.

2) We only know our experience inside time and space, so how could we know this “God” beyond everything we know ?


3) We cannot know the noumena behind phenomena.



How might one respond ? As a platonist, or theist ?
I think we can add further to these (ad infinitum):

1 & 2) If we "only know our experience inside time and space," then how can we know that we "cannot apply our notions of causality beyond physical reality?" Do we even know that there is a "beyond" physical reality or that it is somehow different from whatever expectations we may have?

3) Can we possibly even know there are noumena?

Although, I think these points largely reinforce agnosticism more so than either theism or atheism.
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ? 


Post by Dubious »

spiltteeth wrote: Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:19 pm Classical theists make the argument for God from the contingent to the absolute, or from the conditioned to the unconditioned, like Aquinas’s 3rd way.



A devotee of Schopenhauer, I imagine, would make 3 points.


1) You cannot apply our notions of causality beyond physical reality.
20th century science has already been forced to accomplish that at least to some degree though speculation still abounds.

2) We only know our experience inside time and space, so how could we know this “God” beyond everything we know ?
God is not a factor in anything we know or can know and therefore of no consequence. It's an insertion which no-longer has any reason to be there. Schopenhauer I believe would have agreed.


3) We cannot know the noumena behind phenomena.


That depends on how one understands or describes noumena. There may be levels to it that can be understood. Noumena does not default to just one type of impenetrable or cabalistic definition.

How might one respond ? As a platonist, or theist ?
Neither! As Gary pointed out it would be better understood as agnostic
Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ?

Post by Univalence »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:38 am 3) Can we possibly even know there are noumena?
A photon is a noumenon.
Light is a phenomenon.

Photons cause light.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ?

Post by Gary Childress »

Univalence wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:48 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:38 am 3) Can we possibly even know there are noumena?
A photon is a noumenon.
Light is a phenomenon.

Photons cause light.
But a noumenon is supposed to be an unknowable "thing in itself" (as it is independent of our senses), if we know of photons and most of their properties, then is it unknowable anymore?
Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ?

Post by Univalence »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:18 pm But a noumenon is supposed to be an unknowable "thing in itself" (as it is independent of our senses), if we know of photons and most of their properties, then is it unknowable anymore?
You don't know what a photon is "in and of itself". All you know is how photons behave.
You can tell me that photons cause light. What you can't tell me is what's "inside" a photon.

This is the distinction between a white box and a black box.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ?

Post by Gary Childress »

Univalence wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:19 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:18 pm But a noumenon is supposed to be an unknowable "thing in itself" (as it is independent of our senses), if we know of photons and most of their properties, then is it unknowable anymore?
You don't know what a photon is "in and of itself". All you know is how photons behave.
You can tell me that photons cause light. What you can't tell me is what's "inside" a photon.

This is the distinction between a white box and a black box.
Does it matter what is "inside" a photon? For all intents and purposes, there could be nothing inside a photon. A noumenon is something completely removed from the senses and therefore beyond our comprehension. I don't think Kant would say that a photon is a noumenon. I think he would say a photon would be a phenomenon of light.
Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ?

Post by Univalence »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:39 pm Does it matter what is "inside" a photon?
If you want to know "the thing in itself" - it matters.
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:39 pm For all intents and purposes, there could be nothing inside a photon.
Sure. But then you have to explain how nothing causes something. Photon causes light.
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:39 pm A noumenon is something completely removed from the senses and therefore beyond our comprehension.
Exactly. Photons are removed from your senses. That which you sense is called light.

It's just a variation of the metaphysician's favourite question: Does darkness exist, or is it just the absence of light?

Dualism everywhere.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ?

Post by Gary Childress »

Univalence wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:00 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:39 pm Does it matter what is "inside" a photon?
If you want to know "the thing in itself" - it matters.
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:39 pm For all intents and purposes, there could be nothing inside a photon.
Sure. But then you have to explain how nothing causes something. Photon causes light.
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:39 pm A noumenon is something completely removed from the senses and therefore beyond our comprehension.
Exactly. Photons are removed from your senses. That which you sense is called light.

It's just a variation of the metaphysician's favourite question: Does darkness exist, or is it just the absence of light?

Dualism everywhere.
But I "sense" photons too. Machines that detect photons are an extension of the senses. For noumenon, I think Kant has the notion of something that is completely outside of the senses. Therefore I don't think he would count photons as part of noumena.
Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ?

Post by Univalence »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:17 pm But I "sense" photons too. Machines that detect photons are an extension of the senses.
No machine senses photons. All machines sense the consequences of photons interacting with the machine.
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:17 pm For noumenon, I think Kant has the notion of something that is completely outside of the senses
I think you misunderstand Kant. How would you ever come to know of something which is outside of your senses so that you could talk about it?

How did the knowledge of something extra-sensory appear in your mind?
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ?

Post by Gary Childress »

Univalence wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:21 pm
How did the knowledge of something extra-sensory appear in your mind?
I think Kant would say they were from the "categories of the understanding" by which we organize experience. Kant believed there were things which our minds brought to experience (which may or may not correlate with the things-in-themselves) which were not in the experiences themselves. A "photon" may simply be part of our mental construct (based on our innate framework--the categories) of what it is that lies behind light. The "noumenon", the thing in itself, or light as it is in itself, is unknowable except through the categories which we use to organize our perception of it.

I mean, sure, I could be wrong. It's been a long time since I studied Kant. But I wouldn't think he'd say a photon is a noumenon of light or else he'd be contradicting his own belief that a noumenon is unknowable. I would think he'd say a photon is a mental construct based on what our senses perceive when we look into a machine which detects "photons".
Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ?

Post by Univalence »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:51 pm I think Kant would say they were from the "categories of the understanding" by which we organize experience.
Then perhaps we should avoid categorizing our "undedrstanding" least we fall for category errors?

It could just be me. I don't see any categories out in the world, so they seem like mental constructs.
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:51 pm I mean, sure, I could be wrong. It's been a long time since I studied Kant. But I wouldn't think he'd say a photon is a noumenon of light or else he'd be contradicting his own belief that there was such a thing as a noumenon and that it is unknowable.
All philosophers contradict themselves. So what?
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:51 pm I would think he'd say a photon is a mental construct based on what our senses perceive when we look into a machine which detects "photons".
And what do you call that which the machine detects? Phenomenon or noumenon?
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ?

Post by Gary Childress »

Univalence wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:57 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:51 pm I think Kant would say they were from the "categories of the understanding" by which we organize experience.
Then perhaps we should avoid categorizing our "undedrstanding" least we fall for category errors?

It could just be me. I don't see any categories out in the world, so they seem like mental constructs.
That's exaclty what Kant would say. The cattegories aren't "out there in the world". They are what our minds use to organize experience but are not found in our experience.

And what do you call that which the machine detects? Phenomenon or noumenon?
Phenomenon.
Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ?

Post by Univalence »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:59 pm Phenomenon.
Then your conception of "noumenon" is the same as saying "empirically inconsequential". Inert. Undetectable.

And so it begs the question again: How would you detect any such thing, and if you can't how would you ever come to identify it, or talk about it?
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: How does one answer Schopenhauer’s critique of the cosmological argument ?

Post by Gary Childress »

Univalence wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 3:03 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:59 pm Phenomenon.
Then your conception of "noumenon" is the same as saying "empirically inconsequential".
That is a criticism which has been leveled against Kant. So you may be right.
Post Reply