eBook - ePub
We Are All Philosophers
A Christian Introduction to Seven Fundamental Questions
John M. Frame
This is a test
Share book
- 224 pages
- English
- ePUB (mobile friendly)
- Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub
We Are All Philosophers
A Christian Introduction to Seven Fundamental Questions
John M. Frame
Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations
About This Book
Everyone is a philosopher, and how we live reveals what we most deeply believe. If you and God were asked the same question, would you both respond in the same way?
Are Christians right to believe what we do? In We Are All Philosophers, John M. Frame takes seven major questions of philosophy and compares the Bible's answers with common philosophical ones:
- What is everything made of?
- Do I have free will?
- Can I know the world?
- Does God exist?
- How shall I live?
- What are my rights?
- How can I be saved?
We Are All Philosophers carries all the marks of John Frame's books: he appeals to Scripture frequently and carefully. He writes elegantly and simply, a byproduct of having mastered the complicated philosophical topics he surveys.
Frequently asked questions
How do I cancel my subscription?
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlegoâs features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan youâll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, weâve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is We Are All Philosophers an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access We Are All Philosophers by John M. Frame in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Teologia e religione & Teologia cristiana. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.
Information
Topic
Teologia e religioneSubtopic
Teologia cristiana1
WHAT IS EVERYTHING MADE OF?
One of the first things we want to know about our world is its ingredients. We are curious about what goes into a chocolate cake, what materials are used to build our houses, what chips animate our smartphones. At one level, we answer these questions by personal experience, and we expand that experience by asking questions of other people and consulting other sources. When we ask the question more technicallyâHow many milligrams of sodium are in this cookie?âwe turn to scientists for more expertise. Their perspective takes us to further dimensions of reality: everything is made of the elements of the periodic table, and those in turn are collections of subatomic particles of various kinds. A recent theory says that everything is ultimately made of vibrating strings. But in my unscientific way, I ask what the strings are made of, a question that Iâve never seen an answer to.
As we ask the question more and more abstractly, at some point it becomes philosophical. Many of the questions we today consider scientific, such as those about astronomy and biology, were once considered philosophical: the philosopher Aristotle did not consider it beyond his proper arena to write books about the heavenly bodies and the parts of animals. But today, the term philosophy is reserved for the most abstract questions there are. Although the range of the term philosophy today is different from its use in the ancient world, questions of a highly abstract level have been with us since the beginning of the discipline.
THALESâ METAPHYSICAL WATER
The first Greek philosopher, Thales, is famous for saying âall is water.â The Greeks, who did not have our modern periodic table, acknowledged four elements out of which they thought everything was made: earth, air, fire, and water. That simplified somewhat the question of what the world is made of: there were only four possibilities. We donât know the reasons for Thalesâ choice, but we can imagine him arguing with his colleagues and students that there is a huge amount of water in the oceans, lakes, and rivers, and that it even comes down from the sky. Thales probably didnât know how large was the percentage of water in the human body, but he may have made an observation about that, and about how difficult it is for us to survive without water.
But another philosopher, Anaximenes, thought that all was made of air; and he may well have replied to Thales that we can survive without water longer than we can survive without air. And look at the huge amount of air in the expanse around us.
But someone might have asked each of these men, How do you know that everything conforms to your thesis? Thales didnât have any way of judging how much water there was on the moon, planets, or stars. (We still debate that question.) And even if we could show that the earth and the heavenly bodies are all made of water, how can we be sure that that is the end of our quest? How can we be sure that water is truly an âelement,â that it is not in turn made up of other ingredients?
Anaximander, another Greek philosopher of roughly the same generation, was more modest than Thales (itâs all water) and Anaximenes (itâs all air). He argued that we really donât know what the whole universe is made of. He thought it best to say that the basic ingredient was apeironâthe indefinite. We donât know what it is, but everything else somehow comes out of it.
These philosophers asked the question of ingredients, what Aristotle called âmaterial cause,â at the most abstract level. They wanted to find a substance that made up everything, but was not itself made up of anything else. They were seeking, in other words, to define âbeing.â Being, whatever it is, is the most fundamental reality there is. Everything is being. So if we are to gain a truly complete knowledge of the universe, it seems that we must be able to describe, even define, being itself. The earliest Greek thinkers believed that they could approach this issue materialistically, by considering the physical ingredients that pervade the universe. If everything is truly water, as Thales believed, then being itself is water and water is being.
But another problem arises: Thalesâ being-water is not real water. It is what we might call âmetaphysical water.â2 Normally, when I wash my hands, I put water on them (with soap, as Mom always insisted) and then dry them off. My hands become wet with water, and then become dry, as I remove the water. But with Thalesâ water I am never dry. The soap is water too, and the towel, and the sunshine that warms my hands and evaporates the remaining moisture. Thalesâ metaphysical water is not distinct from anything else in the world. It doesnât have the familiar properties we associate with water; it doesnât have waterâs distinctions from other realities.
What is it, then? Thalesâ metaphysical water is simply being, nothing more or less. It is not really distinct from any other kind of being, because there is no other. The most that can be said for his thesis is that on Thalesâ view water is the best description of beingâthat being is more like water than it is like anything else, even granting the differences between metaphysical water and literal water. But as we have seen, that assertion is debatable.
This means that (at the abstract, philosophical level) the question of ingredients boils down to the question of being: What is this world, really? Here the philosopher seeks a Godâs eye view of the world, an ultimate answer to the question âWhat is being?â But clearly Thales didnât answer that question. His answer is that being is something like waterâbut also not literal water. As it turns out, for him water is a metaphor for the ultimate character of the world. But Thales was looking for an answer, not a metaphor.
ARISTOTLEâS BEING AND NOTHINGNESS
The great philosopher Aristotle is famous for distinguishing four âcauses.â When he talked about âmaterial cause,â he usually did it in his usual common-sense way. Statues are made of stone, tables out of wood, and cakes out of flour and other ingredients. But even he could not avoid raising this question to an abstract, philosophical level: What is everything made of?
Like Plato, he distinguished between form and matter. At the common-sense level, the stone in the statue is its matter, its material cause. But then the sculptor shapes this stone into a new form, perhaps the form of Socrates. So the object is no longer just stone; it is a statue of Socrates. It is the form that makes the object what it is and dictates its purpose (its âformalâ and âfinalâ causes).3 But the matter is what the statue is made of.
Now the stone also has ingredients: chemicals of various kinds. At each level, matter is made of other matter. But at some point the analysis reaches bottom. Aristotle believed that underneath everything there was a âmatterâ common to everything in the universe. He called it âprime matter,â the matter standing underneath all other matter and underneath all form. Prime matter is the ultimate bearer of form. But to be prime matter, that matter could not itself have any form.
A problem occurs here: for Aristotle, we have seen, the form is what makes the object what it is. Without any form, then, the object isnât anything. It is nothing. It doesnât exist. But what about prime matter?
We are tempted to say that because prime matter is the ingredient of everything in the universe, it is the most pervasive sort of being. It is like Thalesâ metaphysical water, the essence of everything else. But we should resist that temptation. Aristotleâs prime matter cannot be being at all, because it has no form. For Aristotle, only form confers being on something. Prime matter has no form, for it is what bears form; it is what lies beneath all form. Since it has no form, it is not being at all. It is nonbeing, nothingness.
The Greek philosophers had a passion to understand being in general. But to understand anything, you have to understand what it is contrasted with. You donât understand blue if you have no idea of how blue is different from red. So you donât understand being unless you understand how it is different from nonbeing. But Thales, Aristotle, and other Greek philosophers failed to describe any intelligible difference between being and nonbeing. Thalesâ metaphysical water characterizes everything, so one cannot make a distinction between water and nonwater. The same is true of Aristotleâs prime matter. It characterizes everything equally, so that we cannot describe it as being or as nonbeing. On the one hand, prime matter is what everything is made of, the most pervasive kind of being. On the other hand, it is not being at all, but nonbeing. But if you canât distinguish being from nonbeing, you have made no philosophical progress. Indeed, we are up against a brick wall: it seems that being is made of nonbeing, and vice versa, so that âbeingâ and ânonbeingâ are both meaningless expressions.
Parmenides bit the bullet. He promoted the idea of a universe that consisted entirely of being, with no nonbeing at all. He eliminated from his system anything that he thought involved nonbeing: change, generation, destruction, plurality. It seemed obvious: being is, and nonbeing is not. But what is being, in a universe where it cannot be contrasted with nonbeing? And if there is no nonbeing, what is meant by saying that there is ânoâ change, ânoâ generation, ânoâ destruction, and ânoâ plurality?
So though the Greeks sought mightily to understand and distinguish being and nonbeing, they ended up making them virtually equivalent, and therefore mutually destructive. That is, of course, philosophical suicide.
ATOMISMS
Another method among the Greek philosophers to find the ultimate ingredients of the world was to chop the world down into its smallest pieces. The atomists thought that when they discovered the tiniest constituents of the world, then they would know the ultimate nature of the world and of being. So Democritus, Epicurus, and others postulated that the world consisted of tiny, material entities. These were called âatoms,â which means âunchoppables.â Since they cannot be further chopped, they must be the ultimate constituents of the world. Everything else in the world can be traced to the material properties and the motions of these entities.
On Democritusâ view, these atoms move through space in a single direction. But Epicurus pointed out that if they are all moving in parallel lines they will never meet. But they must meet, if they are to bump into one another and thus create larger objects. So Epicurus speculated that atoms occasionally âswervedâ from their usual parallel path. The swerve is entirely unpredictable,4 irrational in effect; but it accounts for the world we live in. This amounts to concluding oneâs philosophical quest by saying the world âjust is.â
Nobody has ever actually seen an atom. Atoms are just our imagined image of what the world would look like all chopped up. Nobody has ever seen an atom swerve, either. That event is just a metaphor for what we imagine all events to consist of. So as Thalesâ water was a metaphor for being, so Epicurusâ atoms (plus their swerve) are a metaphor for describing what happens.5
MINDLIKE ENTITIES
But atomism is not dead. G. W. Leibniz was part of the rationalist philosophical movement of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and he confronted a problem similar to that of Thales and Aristotle.6 Leibniz, like the Greeks, tried to find the ultimate constituents of reality, but the material causes were elusive, as they were for the Greeks. Philosopher John Locke had said that material substances were impossibl...