Buzzwords

Google+

Buzzwords

Preface

The review of the Pirie text, entry by entry continues. Originally published on February 21 2016. Revised for an entry on academia.edu, December 16 2023.

THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson, Editor, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

The dictionary defines 'buzzword' as a slang (as of 1995, my add). It is a fashionable piece of especially technical jargon and also a catchword or slogan. (179).

Pirie

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

The author correctly states: 'A buzzword is not in itself a fallacy'. (55). 'It is simply a word or phrase used to impress, or one that is fashionable'. (55).

Pirie explains that the fallacy occurs when the word, words, phrase, phrases, are used to 'give more weight' (55) to what is being stated than the arguments or facts in themselves sustain and provide. (55).

Immediately, in a religious and political Western context, particular buzzwords come to mind that could be used by those in ideological and philosophical opposition to provide more weight in statements against those with whom they disagree. Such tactics are used instead of one dealing more accurately with statements and/or arguments presented by both sides.

A few such words and phrases in orange

My comments

Christian, evangelical, fundamentalist

When I was working on my PhD, first at Manchester and then at Wales, my temporary tutor at Manchester, implied that I subscribed to evangelical, fundamentalist views. But in reality, although there was some overlap in sharing a belief in core, gospel, essentials with those groups, I was actually more Reformed than evangelical and a moderate conservative, that was quite philosophical as opposed to a fundamentalist.

Right wing, fundamentalist

As with the previous example, someone significantly more to the left than you, might assume this...

Someone significantly more to the right than you, may assume not...

Far right

Far right, conservative
Left wing, secularist
Radical socialist

These types of terms are as well, terms often used by opponents to dismiss the views of those that disagree with them, because by definition, these views are considered radical, unacceptable and unreasonable; by those using these buzzwords in a fallacious manner.

Terns should be used in a factual context and manner. Pirie mentions that such buzzwords in the public arena (paraphrased) end up being considered more important because of their use as buzzwords. (55). Buzzwords need to be current to be effective. (55). In other words, they need to be fashionable in order that the reader and listener understands them in order to be persuaded. Using current buzzwords, in my humble opinion, is also important when a person wishes to make a buzzword, politically, socially, culturally, relevant. It may not be accurate though...

The author's examples of buzzwords:

'Corporate social responsibility'. (55).

That reads very familiar from my own corporate work experience...

It makes the corporation appear more caring and therefore able to sell more products. (55).

Social responsibility in my mind in also influenced by the times and may reflect morality and ethics based in trends and fashion. The Biblical worldview, however, represents eternal and everlasting morality and ethics from the infinite, eternal God  ( Examples: Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5,  Matthew 5-7, Matthew 22, Mark 12, Luke 10). Eternal morality and ethics from the eternal God, having no beginning and no end as an aspect of God's character. This is an attribute of God. See for example Erickson (284). Everlasting morality and ethics from the eternal God, having a beginning in time with no end, existing within God's finite creation. Note, humanly speaking, morality is internal, ethics is external.

As a term 'corporate social responsibility' is 'looking decidedly moth-eaten'. (55). 'Big data' (56), is another example provided by the author. It is supposed to represent a move forward and 'not many people would favour using less information'. (56).

But what is the definition of big?

But what is the definition of data?

Pirie is correct 'big data' is an example of fairly empty words and phrases. (56). There is a lack of substantial argumentation and fact attached to those types of terms and phrases.

One has to be on top of the fashionable use of words list for the use of this fallacy. (56).

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Matthew’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD J. (1994) Christian Theology, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids.

FRANCE, R.T. (1985) Matthew, Grand Rapids, IVP, Eerdmans.

 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

PORTER, LAURENCE.E. (1986) ‘Luke’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan. 

SCHULTZ SMAUEL J, AND GARY V. SMITH, (2001) Exploring the Old Testament, Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books. 

SHORT, STEPHEN S. (1986) ‘Mark’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary (1995) Della Thompson, Editor, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

Symbolic Logic & Propositions

Mild winter

Preface

In this review I have reasoned it necessary to work through the methodology provided by the author and this has taken several posts.

If this is a problem, by all means please feel free to blame my British theses advisers and reviewers...

Or email my friend 'Chuck' at the 'complaints department' that sort of, lives up the hill, the opposite direction of the Fraser River, in the two photos provided.

I have been taking professional advice and I loaded my CV to LinkedIn and also upgraded my profile.

LinkedIn

Symbolic Logic & Propositions

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

Chapter 2: The Essentials Of Logical Structure

The logical form of a thing depends on its structure. (45). The way it is put together and how its several parts relate to each other. (45).

Quote:

'Without adding or subtracting any of the factors in the composition of a thing, we may utterly change the character by changing the relations of various factors to each other.' (45).

She uses the examples of the names Ronald, Roland and Arnold. They have exactly the same letters, but the relative positions of these letters are different. (45).

Properties related to each other or that may be related to each other, these characteristics may be understood as elements. (47-48). So, elements constitute a structure but also when the elements combine they relate to one another. (48).

Quote:

'The elements which are connected by a relation are its terms.' (49).

Every relation must have terms in order to become visible and understandable. (48).

The example of two terms 'north of' and 'Montreal' are provided. (48). For 'north of'' to make sense as a term in context, it needs to relate to the term 'Montreal'.

Quote:

'The commonest means of expressing a relation among several terms is the proposition. (50). An example provided is 'Brutus killed Caesar' and 'Abraham was the father of Isaac'. (50).

Quote:

'Any symbolic structure, such as a sentence, expresses a proposition, if some symbol in it is understood to represent a relation. and the whole construct is understood to assert the elements (denoted by the other symbols) are thus related.' (50-51).

The author writes that to avoid ambiguity with literary grammar and syntax. words are replaced in symbolic logic with arbitrary symbols. (52).

For those that have followed my work, I, of course dealt academically primarily with propositions, premises and conclusions in the grammatical, syntax form within theses writing and in questionnaires and surveys. I did however deal with some symbolic logic in my review of philosophical work and philosophy of religion. Alvin C. Plantinga's work being a classic example.

Finally we arrive at some symbols...

The author's first example:

A=Jones
B=Jones' wife

Jones killed his wife

kd=Killed

Therefore

A kd B (52).

Second example:

C=Xanthippe
D=Socrates

wf=Wife of

Therefore

C wf D (52).

Third example:

bt=The relation this preposition names

A bt, B, C,

The author states this is to be read "A is between B and C". (52).

I can add more material on this in comments section following the original posting and this will be a method going forward in future posts, in order to keep articles reasonably brief.

Logic & Philosophy

Google+/NASA

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

Chapter 1: The Study of forms (Continued)

Finding applications for concepts is called interpretation of an abstract form. (37).

For example, the abstract concept of 'rotation' can be demonstrated with the idea of a wheel, a spinning top or the whirl of a propeller. (37).

A fan, that produces a current of air. (My add).

These are all interpretations of the form. (37). All different contents for the abstract concept of rotation. (37).

The author continues:

Physics deals with forms that have physical things for contents. (37).

Biology deals with forms that deal with living matter. (37).

Langer reasons there are two ways in which new forms of things are discovered: (38).

1. By abstraction from instances which nature collects in order to recognize a common form. (38).

2. The interpretation of common forms which have been abstractly constructed. (38).

She states the second way is 'easier'. (38). A variety of forms makes it easier to know what one is looking for while researching. (38).

These would be less abstract, having already been constructed and therefore would be more practical forms,

Langer writes:

'Now what mathematics is to the natural sciences, logic, the more general study of forms, is to philosophy, the more general understanding of the world.' (40).

A key explanation in the section:

10. Logic and Philosophy (40).

She reasons philosophy aims to see reality and all things in proportion to each other, in some order within a system. (40).

'Logic is to the philosopher what the telescope is to the astronomer: an instrument of vision.' (41).

Importantly again, 'Abstraction is the consideration of logical form apart from content'. (42-43).

Therefore abstractions must be used correctly, states the author. (43). This in order to avoid error. (43). Abstracted forms are called concepts. (43). Finding contents for an empty form is known as interpretation. (43).

Logic deal with forms without reference to content. (43).

Logic is a tool of philosophy as mathematics is a tool of physics. (43).

Logic is also a tool of theology, which is in a sense 'the study of philosophy in regard to God', my definition. The two disciplines overlap within philosophy of religion.

Best Possible World Versus Modified Rationalism

Google+/NASA

Best Possible World Versus Modified Rationalism

Edited for an academia.edu entry on July 28, 2022

---

I was recently, as per usual, listening to an online preacher I learn from and deeply appreciate.

The pastor was presenting professional Biblical exposition on Ecclesiastes. I was however, once again reminded of the perils of a speaker not having some significant type of philosophical education while preaching. I reason the pastor correctly noted that King Solomon erred by largely seeking worldly things and worldly wisdom as opposed to seeking the Lord and divine wisdom and the Book of Ecclesiastes reflected this state. I readily admit the pastor knows the Bible, chapter and verse better than I do. But by listening I learn more.

But when this pastor opines into anything very theological or very philosophical, I often start to cringe and there are red flags that arise in my mind. The pastor stated (paraphrased) that looking at the Solomon example, therefore none of us today can possibly be happier or have more joy or peace than we presently have in Jesus Christ. In other words, if we trust is Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, as he stated (paraphrased), we will not have the ability to be any more happy, or have more joy or peace in Christ than we do presently, within the present realm.

This is false.

If the pastor had read and accepted related from philosophers Plantinga or Feinberg, for example, he would realize that there is no such thing as a best possible world.

Plantinga’s reasoning appears sound as any finite world God would create could always be better. Plantinga (1977)(2002: 34). Only an infinite world would be the best possible world, and it is debatable and unlikely God could create an infinite world. The fact that a world is created means it is not infinitely old or eternal, and so this would seemingly make the concept of a created infinite world untenable.

Within modified rationalism, the concept of a best possible world is denied in favour of the view that God chose to create the present world which was initially perfectly good. Plantinga (1982: 167-189). Feinberg (1994: 36).

The fact that the problem of evil exists would be seen within modified rationalism as a result of the free choice of human beings to rebel against God in both free will and sovereignty theodicy which both deny the notion of best possible world. Plantinga (1982: 167-189). Feinberg (1994: 36). 

Modified rationalism would oppose the best possible world concepts of Leibniz from the Enlightenment era, and Mackie from the modern era. Leibniz (1710)(1990). Mackie (1971) in Plantinga (1977)(2002: 32-33).

God has the best possible and maximal within his infinite and triune nature, but in the context of finite creation, there is no best possible anything or maximal anything. Everything is limited as finite.

Therefore, someone in Jesus Christ can be happier, and someone in Christ can also have more joy and peace as these things are never maximally reached in any best possible scenario.

There is no such thing as maximal happiness, joy or peace in a finite context.

There can be more love and success, etcetera.

There can be more finite human interaction with the infinite God.

Perhaps a progression in such is an aspect of everlasting life in the Kingdom of God.

I am not trying to be overly critical or negative, not at all, but instead am pointing out the need for robust education for those publicly presenting the gospel, those speaking in the context of religious studies and preaching.

As much as I deeply appreciate this pastor’s teaching, his fundamentalism and at times over-spiritualization seem to prohibit other perspectives within truth.

The need for a robust understanding within religious studies and philosophy/philosophy of religion is a reason I presently review texts on subjects such as symbolic logic on my Blogger blogs, in order to increase my own learning.

---

ADAMS, ROBERT. M (1996) ‘Theodicy’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books. 

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Theodicy’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 375. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BOURKE, VERNON J. (1958) ‘Introduction’, in The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html 

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

CHADWICK, HENRY (1992) ‘Introduction’, in Confessions, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company. 

FLEW, ANTONY AND A.MACINTRYE (1999) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

FRAME, JOHN M. (1999) ‘The Bible on the Problem of Evil: Insights from Romans 3:1-8,21-26; 5:1-5; 8:28-39’, IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 1, Number 33, October 11 to October 17, Fern Park, Florida, Third Millennium.

FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey. 

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

HASKER, WILLIAM (1989) God, Time, and Knowledge, Ithaca, Cornell University Press. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (1993) ‘C. Robert Mesle, John Hick’s Theodicy: A Process Humanist Critique’, in Philosophy of Religion, Volume 34, Number 1, pp. 55-56. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Philosophy of Religion. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (1994) ‘Can Philosophy Defend Theology?’, in Faith and Philosophy, Volume 11, Number 2, April, pp. 272-278. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (2000) ‘The Problem of Evil in Process Theism and Classical Free Will Theism’, in Process Studies, Volume. 29, Number 2, Fall-Winter, pp. 194-208. Claremont, California, Religion Online. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Counterfactuals and Evil’, in Philosophia Christi, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 235-249. La Mirada, California, Biola University.

HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Is Free-Will Theism Religiously Inadequate? A Reply to Ciocchi’, in Religious Studies, Volume 39, Number 4, December, pp. 431-440. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (2007) ‘Peter van Inwagen, The Problem of Evil’, in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Notre Dame, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews.

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library. 

HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University. 

HICK, JOHN (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) ‘Afterword’ in GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

HICK, JOHN (1993) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, Kentucky, John Know Press. 

HICK, JOHN (1994) Death and Eternal Life, Louisville, Kentucky, John Knox Press. 

HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press.

JORDAN, MARK D. (1996) ‘Augustine’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, pp. 52-53. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

KREEFT, PETER (1988) Fundamentals of the Faith, San Francisco, Ignatius Press.

KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

LAFOLLETTE, HUGH (1980) ‘Plantinga on Free Will Defence’, in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 11, The Hague, Martimus Nijhoff Publishers. 

LEIBNIZ, G.W. (1710)(1998) Theodicy, Translated by E.M. Huggard Chicago, Open Court Classics. 

MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MESLE, C. ROBERT (1986) ‘The Problem of Genuine Evil: A Critique of John Hick’s Theodicy’, in The Journal of Religion, Volume 66, Number 4, pp. 412-430. October, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. 

MESLE, C. ROBERT (1991) John Hick’s Theodicy, New York, St. Martin’s Press. 

MESLE, C. ROBERT (2004) ‘Suffering, Meaning, and the Welfare of Children: What Do Theodicies Do?’, in American Journal of Theology & Philosophy, Volume 25, Number 3, September. Lamoni, Iowa, Graceland University.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN.C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

PLANTINGA, ALVIN.C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

ROTH, JOHN K. ‘Introduction’ (1892-1907)(1969) in The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York. 

ROTH, JOHN K. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1990) ‘The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism’, in Adams and Adams (eds.), The Problem of Evil, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1994) ‘The Problem of No Best World’, Faith and Philosophy, Volume 11, Number 2, April, pp. 269-278. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College. 

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1996) ‘Privation’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

ROWE, WILLIAM L. (1999) ‘The Problem of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom’, in Faith and Philosophy, Volume 16, Number 1, January, pp. 98-101. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.

Saturday, September 19, 2020: PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD