Soren Kierkegaard (PhD Edit)

Facebook & Momchantha.com

While I was working on my PhD and a questionnaire, I stated to readers that I would share both my questionnaire results and the PhD in segments.

Most of the thesis work has been presented at least once online in an article. But looking through Blogger archives, now thankfully very helpfully updated after years, I have not done an entry, specifically on Danish philosopher and theologian Soren Kierkegaard, known in particular for work on existentialism.

Overall, in my academic work,, I have dealt with his writing, minimally. I concentrated mostly on writers that could be connected to theodicy and the problem of evil within theology and philosophy. 

Briefly…
---

Soren Kierkegaard states that ‘sin is man’s destruction.’ Kierkegaard (1847-1848)(1955)(1966: 108). 

Compatibilism allows for limited but significant human freedom. Kierkegaard suggests that Christianity is a religion of freedom and Christians are convinced to voluntarily give up all contrary to Christ. Kierkegaard (1847-1848)(1955)(1966: 186). The term 'convinced' is a good one and I reason this is a work of the Holy Spirit.

KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1847-1848)(1955)(1966) On Authority and Revelation, Translated by Walter Lowrie, New York, Harper and Row, Publishers, Incorporated.

KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1848-1849)(1961) Christian Discourses & The Lilies of the Field and The Birds of the Air & Three Discourses at The Communion on Fridays, Translated by Walter Lowrie, New York, Oxford University Press.

Tricky Equivocation?

Today

Tricky Equivocation?

Updated on August 14, 2022. Mainly a review of the Pirie text.

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

'Equivocation' means the use of words ambiguously. Often done with intent to deceive, it can even deceive the perpetrator.

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when words are used with more than one meaning, even though the soundness of the reasoning requires the same use to be sustained throughout. (90).

Happiness is the end of life 
The end of life is death 
So happiness is death (90).

Pirie notes importantly that the above argument is valid in format. (90) But it is fallacious.

I would deny the proposition that happiness is the end of life. I do not agree. Happiness can be part of life.

Based on the Pirie's point that the argument format is valid; this again, as I have noted in previous articles, demonstrates the difference between a logical argument and a reasonable argument,

More important is the reasonableness and soundness (truthfulness) of an argument.

A key to denying questionable arguments is to deny at the proposition & premise stage.

A proposition is the same as a statement.

A premise (s) is to support the conclusion.

'Equivocation use of words is fallacious because it invites us to transfer what we are prepared to accept about one concept onto another one which happens to have the same name.' (90).

'Calvin Coolidge was once asked:

'What do you think of the singer's execution?'

(He replied: I'm all for it') (91).

Blackburn: Equivocate

'To make a statement that is capable of being taken in more than one way, with the aim of exploiting the ambiguity.' (124).

A friend: 'I saw Chucky, murdering someone last night.'

Me "Did you call the Ridge-Meadows RCMP?'

A friend: 'I saw Chucky (fictional doll), murdering someone last night.' (on television)

Me "Did you call the Ridge-Meadows RCMP?' (In regard to Howard: also known as Chucky)

Why assume it is our friend, Chucky?

This would be using fallacious reasoning. A fallacious proposition & premise.

Texas State University: Department of Philosophy

Cited 

'Equivocation 

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.'

Example 

Cited

'Sure philosophy helps you argue better, but do we really need to encourage people to argue? There's enough hostility in this world.'

(Argue1 = Argue more effectively)

(Argue2 = Argue with hostility)

(An argument does not necessarily imply hostility)

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

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

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

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

TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY: DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY (2022): 'Equivocation', Dr. Craig Hanks, Chair, Texas State University.

Texas State University: Department of Philosophy

Trulyfallacious.com

Predestination Too

Predestination Too 

Predestined September 2010 

2 Peter 3 September 2016

This further revised section from my PhD post-viva final revisions, connects to my most recent 2 Peter 3, article.

PhD revised

In my mind, the philosophical and theological concept of compatibilism, although the term is not used, is implied in Scripture. The subject of predestination for salvation, for example, is a complex theological discussion and could be a topic for a Biblical Greek thesis.

However, within Ephesians 1, ‘predestined’ which is προορίσας[1] within Ephesians 1: 5,[2] and in the context is ‘predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ’ and προορισθέντες[3] at Ephesians 1: 11, as in ‘we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to his purpose’ appear to support Reformed compatibilist notions. 

Strong defines προορίζω[4] which is the root word connected to the forms of the word in Ephesians 1, as to limit in advance in figurative terms,[5] and to predetermine, determine before, ordain, and predestinate.[6]  Bauer defines the root word as meaning to decide before hand, predestine of God and applies this definition to Ephesians 1: 5 and 11. [7] Minimally, there appears reasonable textual support from this verse[8] that could support a Reformed compatibilistic perspective on how God chooses persons for his ultimate culminated Kingdom. 

2 Peter 3 article revised

Quote

Erickson:

‘We must distinguish between two different senses of God’s will, which we will refer to as God’s “wish” (will1) and God’s will (will2).’ (361).

Will1 is God’s general intention and Will2 is God’s specific intention.

Or it could be stated Will1=God’s perfect will and Will2=God’s permissible will.

However, there is a theological and philosophical problem. If it is God’s eternal permissible will to save only some, then God caused this in a sense. I reason it can be traced to the fallen human nature that works through limited free will. As my Hebrews professor told me at Columbia Bible College (paraphrased), although we all have a fallen nature outside of Christ by default, some have a fallen nature that will never accept Christ and be acceptable to God. Others will be regenerated.

Therefore, God’s eternal, perfect will would actually be for some to reject him and remain everlastingly outside of his Kingdom, although in a sense, God wishes it would be otherwise, as can be seen biblically and theologically in 2 Peter 3: 9 and 1 Timothy 2: 4. There are various interpretations, however. 

The question arises if God wishes to save all people as in all individuals or all peoples? I have seen the all peoples explanation raised in Reformed writing and dialogue.

This places doubt that God's wish is God's perfect will. Rather it may be a divine wish. God wishes salvation for all (universalism) within his will, but it will not occur.

This is not outlandish or unreasonable. On one hand, God desires me not sin, he does not tempt me (James 1), but on the other hand God created humanity with an eternal plan of salvation from sin. This implies significantly free creatures that will sin is the eternal plan.

God, in my view, could create significantly free finite creatures than remain morally perfect, in a finite sense. The classic example, being angels that did not fall. Jesus Christ was both God and perfect man.  He never appealed to the sinful nature inherited by Adam and Eve. 

The atonement, resurrection and gospel work are from and in God’s perfect will (Ephesians 1, those chosen in Christ before the foundation of the word, implied eternal), I reason, and this leads to God ultimately producing humanity as desired within the Kingdom of God from start to finish.

BAUER, W. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

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

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company. 

THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (1993) Stuttgart, United Bible Societies.

---

[1] The Greek New Testament (1993: 654).

[2] The Greek New Testament (1993: 654). 

[3] The Greek New Testament (1993: 655).

[4] Strong (1890)(1986: 81).

[5] Strong (1890)(1986: 81).

[6] Strong (1890)(1986: 81).

[7] Bauer (1979: 709).

[8] I realize many other verses could be examined concerning this subject.  I provide Ephesians 1 as a prime Reformed example within a limited space allotted for this topic.

Those emotional appeals...

This week

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

Emotional appeals as fallacy occur when 'it becomes the means of deciding the soundness of an argument.' (87). Emotions being used to influence what is determined as fact.

This fallacy can be triggered by a person (s) abusing the emotions of the determined audience. To play on the emotional disposition of such an audience. (88).

The author writes that 'sentimens is a clever fallacy.' (89). Perhaps this should be documented as 'sentiments'; a more common usage.

If someone does not play along with this sentimental philosophical approach, he or she may be considered 'cold'. (89). This can lead to an abandonment of reason. (89).

In contrast, emotional fallacy should be abandoned. Not emotions, but the abuse of emotions should not be used in attempts to determine reasonable arguments and truth.

I have written articles on this website noting the dangers of sentimental theology. See Blogger search, top right.

Blackburn is helpful here noting on emotion. (117).

'Each indicates a state of some kind of arousal, a state that can prompt some activities and interfere with others.' (117).

Emotion should not interfere with reasonable, intellectual activity that decides soundness of arguments and truth.

Those emotional appeals can influence thought on academic and personal levels. A counter, I suggest, is a reasonably open-minded review of different views that oppose heartfelt ones. Even if these opposing views are not accepted it keeps one's own views sharper.

From a Christian, biblical perspective, one should seek God (and God the Father) through the incarnation of his Son, Jesus Christ who in eternal truth and the Holy Spirit, also a member of the eternal trinity (John 14).

Although the Scripture is not specific philosophy, philosophy of religion or scientific text, it can be reasoned that 'all truth is God's truth', and God should be sought for both biblical and extra-biblical knowledge. I am not meaning primarily (obviously!) an emotional religious, spiritual appeal to God, but one that encompasses the human experience of emotion and intellect.

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

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

Tumblr