Posts

Showing posts from January, 2010

Views of Time: Eternalism, Presentism, Linear or Cyclical

Image
Did you know that there are two ways people look at time? 1. The Eternalist View. The universe is viewed as a block in which past, present, and future are already just there. In this popular view, the Terminator can travel back and try to kill John Corner or Harry Porter can travel back and save Harry Porter!! Similarly, you can travel into future... or perhaps just see it?? Not that time-travel is possible, but this is the theoretical setup for such views. 2. The Presentist View. Time flows here. The universe is only the present which flees as soon as we can catch the present. The past and the future don't exist in the moment, though the past is fixed, and the future indefinite. Did you know that St. Augustine tried to locate the point in time where the universe is said to be present? Well, divisibility is infinite, so better not try it. No doubt, Kant called the grapes sour by taking refuge in idealism - time for his is just mental. Also , 1. Linear Time: Time is a line that beg

The Meaning of Doubt in Epistemology

© Domenic Marbaniang,   Epistemics of Divine Reality (2007). D OUBT   is the frustration of rationality. It is not the threshold of knowledge. It is the exit-door of knowledge. Doubt precludes knowability by assuming the attitude of will-to-doubt. The will-to-doubt leads in a different direction from that of the will-to-believe. For instance, the problem of pain, of evil and disorder in the universe may be confronted with either a will-to-doubt leading to despair or a will-to-believe leading to hope. [1] Hindu devotee: It is difficult to express. The dumb cannot tell the taste of a laddu [sweetmeat]. Religion is my isht [my choice]. I believe in faith. A son was born to me, and when he died I did not feel the least sorrow for him. That was due to my faith. [2] According to James W. Fowler, the opposite of faith is not doubt but nihilism, ‘the inability to image any transcendent environment and despair about the possibility of even negative meaning.’ [3] But this is a confusion of mea

Is God a Working Hypothesis? The Problem With Pragmatism

© Domenic Marbaniang, Epistemics of Divine Reality (2007). CHARLES S. PEIRCE (1893-1914) coined the term ‘pragmatism’ from the Greek word pragma (meaning act or deed)[1] for the philosophical position that defined truth in terms of workability. According to pragmatism, the test of the truth of any proposition is its utility. William James defined pragmatism as ‘the attitude of looking away from first things, principles, ‘categories,’ supposed necessities; and of looking towards last things, fruits, consequences, facts.’[2] According to the pragmatist view, ‘reality is hardly a single thing: It is pluralistic.’[3] The only thing that matters, therefore, is not what ultimate reality is but what is ultimately useful . Thus, the end decides the validity of the means. In this sense then, it is not important whether God exists or not. The only thing that matters is whether belief in God’s existence is useful or not. Following are certain characteristics of truth as understood in pragmatism: