The combination of philosophy and religion is sometimes viewed in a negative light by theists who think of philosophy as destructive to, or even in opposition with, their religion. But there seem to be many cases throughout history where philosophy has refined and confirmed theological and religious truth claims. We see here, through example and argument, that there is certainly evidence showing the potential for mutual benefit between philosophy and theology.
Straw Dogies (4/4)
Posted onThe Myth of Progress and Knowledge Cont.
Progress
The more prevalent of the aforementioned attacks presented in Straw Dogs is the one on progress. Gray repeatedly states that progress does not exist outside of science. This attack is a little trickier to refute, so we will take it step by step touching several of the different renditions of the argument present in Straw Dogs.
Straw Dogies (3/4)
Posted onThe Myth of Progress and Knowledge
Knowledge
In the forward of the paperback edition of Straw Dogs, before we even reach page one of the actual text, Gray states that “outside of science, progress is simply a myth.” He goes on to say that religious believers today have been “driven to the margins of a culture in which science claims authority over all of human knowledge”[1] John Gray. Straw Dogs. 1st ed. N.p.: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007. Print. (xi).. This is just the beginning of a book-long attack against the existence of progress and knowledge anywhere outside of science itself.
References
| ↑1 | John Gray. Straw Dogs. 1st ed. N.p.: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007. Print. (xi). |
|---|
Straw Dogies (2/4)
Posted onHumans as Animals Lacking Free-will
One of the most frequently discussed hypotheses in Straw Dogs is the idea that humans are lacking a radical separation from the animals. Gray’s main purpose behind reminding us of this seems to be rooted in one of the conclusions that allegedly follows from it: Namely, that free-will cannot exist if we believe the former to be true. Gray postulates that, in the world of Darwin, humans and animals alike are “products of chance and necessity,” and goes on to maintain that “we cannot choose to be what we are born. In that case, we cannot be responsible for what we do”[1] John Gray. Straw Dogs. 1st ed. N.p.: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007. Print. (65).. Therefore, one is not the author of his own actions; he has no free-will and thus can only react to external stimuli[2] Ibid.. This observation changes the entire outlook on life for Gray. Purpose becomes an invalid premise replaced by a single aim–to simply see [3] Ibid. (199)..
Straw Dogies (1/4)
Posted on“In the world shown us by Darwin, there is nothing that can be called progress. To anyone reared on humanist hopes this is intolerable. As a result, Darwin’s teaching has been stood on its head, and Christianity’s Cardinal error – that humans are different from all other animals – has been given a new lease on life[1] John Gray. Straw Dogs. 1st ed. N.p.: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007. Print..”
John Gray
In this series of posts, I will attempt a critique of John Gray’s Straw Dogs. Specifically, I will be postulating that two of his arguments against humanism, though intriguing, are unfounded; and that this in turn renders his assessment of Christianity as a “failure” equally unfounded. The reasons for this connection will become clearer as one reads the text and begins to see that Gray’s arguments against humanism are one and the same with his supposedly solid arguments against Christianity. Ergo, as we dismantle the former, we likewise dismantle the latter.
References
| ↑1 | John Gray. Straw Dogs. 1st ed. N.p.: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007. Print. |
|---|
Galt Meet Zosima, Zosima Meet Galt Conclusion (4/4)
Posted onI have to make a confession here, at the beginning of this post I fully intended to pull Zosima out of the extremes of ethical altruism and place him firmly in the midst of something with less reckless disregard for the self. I say “intended” because as I began reading and probing more deeply, I realized that Dostoevsky had already done it! Zosima wasn’t the monk I thought him to be. There are many facets to this revelation, but we can clearly see the most relevant one above. We don’t end with losing the self, we end with fulfilling it!
Galt Meet Zosima (3/4)
Posted onAs we will see, Fyodor Dostoevsky starts off very strong in The Brothers Karamazov. Almost as soon as the book begins, he has us contemplating God, faith, and the afterlife. This is an odd topic indeed for a whodunit centered around what bears a striking resemblance to a discombobulated family reunion. There are all sorts in the Karamazov family, and Dostoevsky leverages their variety well. It seems that for every vice, there is a man with it, and one for every virtue as well, though these can be more subtle in their nature. There is, however, one man of virtue who stands out from the rest. He mentors the eventual hero of the novel and is even a bit of a celebrity himself–Father Zosima. It is he that we find discussing God, faith, and the afterlife with Madame Hohlakov in the opening chapters of part 1 of the book, and it is his ethic which we will be looking at next.
ZOSIMA MEET GALT (2/4)
Posted on“Who is John Galt?”–this is the opening line and indeed the most prevalent question in the entirety of Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged (11). It is repeated from one side of the country to the other and by many different people. It is an expression of hopelessness in a world filled with despair. The dystopian world of Atlas Shrugged is the creation of altruists, looters, and moochers. Galt might believe “created” to be a strong word, since, in his view, it is actually their lack of creating that brought about this dystopian state. He particularly blames those in politics, who make deals to take assets from the producers by force; and distribute them to their friends and those who don’t produce.
Galt Meet Zosima, Zosima Meet Galt Intro (1/4)
Posted onIn this series of posts, I will attempt a sympathetic critique of two extreme and conflicting philosophies– Objectivism, specifically the Objectivist ethic as embodied by John Galt from Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, and the ethic of Father Zosima from Fyodor Dostoevsky’s novel The Brothers Karamazov. As a result of my critique, I will attempt to combine their remainders into a single philosophical position more sound than its component parts.