"'No one could doubt that God is omnipotent.'
'No one, at any rate, who is in his right mind would have any doubt about it.'
'But there is nothing that an omnipotent power could not do?'
'No.'
'Then, can God do evil?'
'No.'
'So that evil is nothing, since that is what He cannot do who can do anything.'"
-Boethius
It's eerie how a man can write a book in 524 A.D. and dialog through so many of my current questions.
I must say that it's a little encouraging too. When 'Philosophy' takes the trouble to answer it, I guess 'What is a straw?' must be worth asking. :)
Teach us to care and not to care. Teach us to sit still...
About Me
6 comments:
'what is a straw?' is most definitely worth asking. especially taking into considering the many branches that take off from trying to answer that question. however, nick had a good point in asking what we were really trying to get at in discussing 'what is a straw?' even though it may ruin the bit of fun we may get from getting hung up on straws or cut-down garden hoses, getting to the heart of the issue is sometimes good. plus, there are some limitations to these microcosmic analogies, as we saw with the author-book analogy. so, the question 'what is a straw' has many uses but it's important and healthy to realize the its limitations and touch on the more sensitive core issue--just my two cents.
You definitely have a point (and one that Nick is very good at reminding me of:). I do have a tendency to linger for long periods of time on very small examples. It may be that I linger too long, I'm still trying to figure that out.
Keeping in perspective the real question is, I think, very important.
I think that there are three things on the table:
(a)straws, (b)souls, and (c)essence or existence.
We can all agree that 'what is a straw?' is not the question we care about, but maybe 'what is the soul?' isn't the final question either. I think the question may be more 'what is?' What does it mean to 'is'? If that were the question, then would you still consider the straw to be a limited analogy, or would it be an actual sample for us of 'isness?'
Now when I look over the question "What does it mean to 'is'?" I can't see the division between asking the former and asking "What does it mean to exist?" Although, I may be making a logical presumption somewhere in there. So, I think the question still revolves around existence. And not to break off into too much of a tangent here, but if the question "what is a straw?" is an off-shoot from "if a straw is bent to a point where it can no longer [...] is it still a straw?" I think we can answer the "is it still a straw?" question or maybe I just feel I can; therefore, the question "what is a straw?" we're addressing now must be dealing with something besides the soul, because I feel that the soul is addressed more accurately in the other question. That leads me to believe, we're onto more of a question of existence. (Good luck understanding all this BTW because I'm really starting to get that "what did I just say?" feeling.)
That being said, (I'll answer your question now) in accordance to the 'new' question I would not say that the straw is a limited analogy. However, I would venture to say that it is "limited" in a different sense. It is limited, in that, the straw can serve a definite set of purposes, and I believe we can divide those purposes into "what is proper" and "what is improper." Also, a straw is finite (I realize I probably just shot myself in the foot with that statement) and so it is limited to this finite world (well sort of, but we have the idea of a straw and that isn't limited so does the essence of a straw then transfer over into the metaphysical? and now I'm for to ask "what does it mean to 'is'?"--talk about walking around in circles...) Well, I guess I gave you another out on that one (How depressing...) I'll give and say that the straw can be used as a accurate example of 'isness' But my intuition seems to point out that it is only a "sample" and in that way "limited" (maybe that's what I was trying to say all along). I think that was my round-about way of saying, "Yes, I consider the straw to be an actual sample for us of 'isness' in context to the question of 'is.'"
Is it really that difficult to agree with me? is it my 'hammer' that makes it so challenging?
yes, asking the question 'what is a straw?' is not half as confusing as trying to ask myself what I'm asking by asking it! :-/
Ummm... when I ask "what does it mean to 'is'?", I am asking "what does it mean to exist?" So, you're right: the two questions are the same.
With regards to a straw being finite (btw, not quite sure how that shoots you in the foot), I agree. Regarding the idea of a straw being "unlimited", I'm not so sure. Maybe I don't understand the meaning of 'finite', but I didn't think that just because something was immaterial it would also be infinite. So I guess I'm agreeing with you to some extent in saying that a straw (whether material, or only in its hypothetical intellectual existence) is limited.
Don't worry (and no need to be depressed) I'm not really looking for an 'out' with this topic. I was just curious if you thought the question could have more substance than I had previously given it credit for.
All that means I guess is that I'll probably just keep inquiring of random objects (and random individuals) around me until I have some sort of ontological resolve.
Haha. No, no. It's not that it is difficult to agree with you (Pardon, if I came across that way, also). It's simply that I have difficulty agreeing with myself. Also, the 'hammer' does make things challenging, and even though I am bit of a stubborn perfectionist on the exterior, I've learned through the bumps and bruises on my ego that a challenge or being wrong has much more value than being 'right.' (You know the whole respect as false supreme good Boethius goes over, Yup, that can easily be me.) So, the 'hammer' has its place and proper function :)
Before I go on, I must apologize again for the extraordinary insanity found in the previous comment I had just polished off a cup of coffee and my brain was swirling in it (I think I get it now: coffee= frankenstein, kurtz, and rick blaine while tea= syme, darcy, and victor laszlo ;) Anyhow, I'll try my best to decipher my own babble for you.
I said, 'a straw is finite.' In my mind, there was a problem with that statement, specifically the 'is.' At the time, I was not exactly sure what you meant by "what does it mean to 'is'?" and without any real foundation I assumed you meant existence. So, if you meant so if you meant something else then I should have stopped right there, but I guess we're on the same page after all so it doesn't matter. And of course, I did start to wonder off in my brain and start asking "what is 'is'?" which led too much 'is' for me than I could handle.
Also, don't worry, you understand the meaning of 'finite.' I think had a lapse of thought when I assumed the connection between immaterial and infinite; either that, or an instance of clarity. Unfortunately, I fail to see the connection that I thought I understood at the time. I'll throw this out there though since I did manage to remember some of my thought: before all straws, there had to be an idea and intellectual understanding of a straw in the maker of the proverbial first straw. so if 'straw' first existed as an idea and then once it was created it became manifested in a material form, does 'straw' hold its existence as an idea or as material? --regardless of how you answer the question, I admit I made an error and for some reason thought that at some point the mind was beyond finite, but I realize I stuck my foot in my mouth with that one and I'm sorry for the confusion I may have caused (it was the coffee talking ;)
It's pretty funny to finish a conversation, only to continue an ongoing 'blog-alog' on whether or not the topic was worth discussing in the first place. Are we bored or something?! Maybe I need to take up crossword puzzles! (maybe I could take up crossword puzzles if I didn't have a heavyset man in his mid-forty's constantly squishing me!)
Whichever way this topic-thing has turned out, I think we've come this far - it seems that we both agree that 'what is a straw?' is a useful question that should be asked and discussed by those who find it so. Also, both its limitation and degree of significance should be taken into account when discussing the topic in order for a person to remain 'balanced' in their thinking.
I think this goes along with Dante on the ordering of loves thing: people, for example, are more important than the essence of straws - and should be treated as such.
It seems like knowing the degree of an argument's significance is just as important, if not more so, as the accuracy of its content.
So...good call on bringing that in.
I think if I understood what I think, I'd probably agree with whatever it was you said! :)
Post a Comment