Bertrand Russell – Correspondence Theory of Truth (09-2005)

Sarah Diebel
PHL 205 – Ethics
09-2005

Bertrand Russell – Correspondence Theory

What is truth? In Bertrand Russell’s article on the correspondence theory of truth he states three requisites for truth: a) Truth must admit of its opposite, falsehood. b) Truth and falsehood are properties of belief statements, and c) Truth depends upon independent fact. Bertrand Russell believes that the difference between our knowledge of things and truth is as follows: In regards to truth our beliefs may be mistaken, where as there is no erroneous knowledge of things. Thus in order to establish truth, our belief and or judgment must create a complex whole with factual objects it is examining. If this is true, then it will correspond to this whole.

Topic 1:

Bertrand Russell believes truth is based on reality that our knowledge of truth is based on things, objects, and facts. But truth is in the eye of the beholder; belief can be a relation between that mind and a single object. Truth has to correspond with facts in order to verify belief. Individuals can make statements regarding individual thoughts and beliefs. But a statement remains true, if it corresponds and agrees with factual objectivity. Our decisions of thought and beliefs are based on taught moral values and cultural values.

Topic 2:

Bertrand Russell finds two major flaws in the coherence theory of truth. The first is that it leaves room for more than one coherent body of beliefs to be true. The second is that the laws of logic by which the test of coherence is applied are they themselves not able to be established by this test. Russell is looking for a more solidly grounded definition of truth. He admits the difficulty involved in establishing correspondence between belief and truth that cannot be disproved. However, he believes it can be done and thus continues to illustrate how.

Topic 3:

Our knowledge of truth differs from that of things. Things can be defined with facts and truths seem to be more individual, or dependent on the person. Russell explains that it is not the answer we look for in a question, but the question itself. Something you also look for is what is meant by that question, what is truth and what is falsehood.

What do you think?

http://wis.dm/questions/122393-does-truth-correspond-between-truth-and-reality-see-details

Friedrich Nietzsche – Nihilism (11-2005)

Sarah Diebel
PHL 205-Ethics
11-2005

Friedrich Nietzsche – Nihilism

(All topics are taken from "Basic Writings of Nietzsche" Translated by Walter Kaufmann)

Topic 1: (section 171)

In the past, people used their divine origin to prove the greatness of man. This way of thinking is no longer possible, because evolution proves we have no divine origin. Instead, people have started to look to the progress of mankind to prove its greatness, its potential. This way of thinking is also folly, because, one day, humankind will die. Mankind cannot pass into a higher order of existence.

Topic 2: (174)

All humanity commits four errors: First, they cannot see themselves as they actually are. Second, they imagine that they are more than they actually are. Third, they cannot see where they actually fit in with nature. Fourth, they continually create new values for themselves and consider these values to be unconditional and eternal. Without committing these errors, we would lose all humanity, humanness, and human dignity.

Topic 3: (176)

In response to his pleading search for God, the non-believers taunt him with language paralleling the Jewish prophet Elijah taunting worshippers of ‘false gods’ in the Old Testament. Through the madman Nietzsche claims we are responsible for murdering God. He then implies we have killed him with every ‘truth’ discovered, every question answered, every blank filled. As we continue to build our reality and define our existence we have nearly erased the need for a god.

In this context it almost seems that ‘God’ could also be a metaphor for youth, naivety, and innocence. Which, like God, are all things that disappear or are destroyed along the way. One day you wake up and realize you are with out all – youth, naivety, innocence, and God. Also, don’t skim over the madman’s incredulity at how we can live with ourselves after knowing what terrible act we have committed.

He then declares his time has not yet come. The impact and intensity of our communal act of the manslaughter of God has not hit us, and won’t for awhile to come. The madman then leaves the scene, on the way exemplifying a metaphor of Nietzsche’s view of religion. The madman went from church to church singing a dirge lamenting the death of God; requiem aeternam deo.

Topic 4: (170)

Both pleasure and displeasure are based on two illusions of man: Either, he believes in the similarity between certain facts and sensations therefore having to weigh past and present states before deciding whether something is or is not pleasurable. Or, he could believe that man is truly free and that since he is free he decides whether to experience pleasure or displeasure as a direct result of his actions. Without these illusions, we would not be what we are. Humanity thrives on illusion, on the idea that we are ‘free’, and that as a result we are greater than all. We create just to destroy, we call our short history ‘world history’, we are the vainest of all creatures. God is dead, and now we are him. Vanitas vanitatum homo.

Buddhism: Religion or Philosophy? 10-2004

Sarah Diebel
HUM 145
10-2004

Buddhism: Religion or Philosophy?

Before I explain my reason for believing Buddhism is rightly acknowledged as a religion I should define my belief on what a religion is. Among the many ‘religions’ of the world are Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. But at first glance Buddhism seems to be the black sheep of this family. While the other four religions are built around a great divine, deity or god, Buddhism isn’t. Christian devotion lies in Jesus Christ believed to be the ‘son of god’, forgiver of sins, and savior of mankind. Monotheistic in basis Christianity is considered a continuation of Judaism, also monotheistic, built around a supreme God and creator of all. Islam, founded by Mohammed, is also monotheistic in base. Centered around Allah, it is much like Christianity and Judaism at first glance, following a God believed to be the creator and ultimate reality. Hinduism is also monotheistic (although there is a common misconception that it is polytheistic due to the worship of many different forms of the ultimate reality) and centered around service and worship of their chosen deity. Buddhism is neither monotheistic, nor based around service and worship of a deity.

But lets instead look at the similarities and common ground shared between these religions. All of these traditions have millions of followers who have built their life and ‘morals’ on the principles of these traditions. They have all had a part in shaping the world and society as we know it today. They have all transformed the lives of their followers and provided their own unique answers to seemingly unanswerable questions such as whether or not there is life after death, how the world came to be, what our purpose on this earth is, the meaning of life, and the path to peace and contentment. Religion has provided guidance and hope for multitudes of people from each generation dating back to the beginning of time.

While most religions have been the basis of war and conflict throughout history, Buddhism is known more widely for its peaceful nature. From the very beginning it changed lives. Buddha offered freedom for Hindus from the caste system, and a more fulfilling life through balance and devotion. Buddha believed in neither extreme self denial, nor overindulgence. It is believed that ‘life inevitably involves suffering, is imperfect and unsatisfactory’. Suffering originates in our desires, and will cease only if all desires cease. There is a way to experience this state, and it is through the Noble Eightfold Path. So if religion is about devotion to something, and a way of life based on beliefs and principles encouraged by these traditions, then all of these belief systems (including Buddhism) fit the requirements of ‘religion’.

Webster’s Dictionary defines religion as “man’s expression of his acknowledgment of the divine” or “something which has a powerful hold on a persons way of thinking, interests, etc.” It is under the second definition that I believe Buddhism falls. Living Religions states “The word (religion) is probably derived from the Latin, meaning “to tie back,” “to tie again.” All of religion shares the goal of tying people back to something behind the surface of life—a greater reality, which lies beyond, or invisibly infuses, the world we can perceive with our five senses.” So my conclusion: These definitions back my belief that Buddhism is correctly acknowledged as a religion based on the influence it has on its followers. Religion is what you want it to be. What you need to fill some kind of spiritual hole in yourself. Religion and spirituality are the ties that hold the world together.

Join in the Debate:
http://wis.dm/questions/54314-do-you-class-buddhism-as-a-religion-y-or-a-philosophy