Passion Without Certainty

Should we be passionate about beliefs only to the extent that we are certain of them?

I admit, being passionate in direct proportion to my certainty sounds very sensible on the surface—and since I’m fairly logically minded, I do, in fact, often find myself being passionate to the extent that I am certain of something. But I’m beginning to see that this common-sense view ignores some important aspects.

In the beginning of his Critique of Pure Reason (maybe better translated as Analysis of Pure Reason, by the way), Kant observes that our reason has this peculiar fate: It is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer.

So:
1. Reason is driven by questions it cannot ignore.
2. Reason alone can’t answer them.

To put it a different way: Some of the most important issues for human beings are precisely those things that evade certainty, things that, both rationally and empirically speaking, might even be below a 50% probability. And yet to turn off all passion in these areas only because of a lack of certainty would be to cease being human.

I’ll expound on that rather provocative last statement in my next post.

“I Think, Therefore I am” – Descartes

I made this cartoon as a playful take on the phrase Cogito ergo sum by René Descartes: I think, therefore I am.

Though you wouldn’t be able to tell from the cartoon, I actually take Descartes very seriously, particularly when it comes to the amount of certainty I have about my beliefs.

About some things, I have great certainty in my mind, but the certainty about my belief being true is still in my mind, and I’m aware of the fallibility of my mind. Since my deficient mind is all I have to work with, work with it I shall. I commit to beliefs, I defend and critique, I’m passionate and outspoken – but all with the humility of admitting the fallibility of the instrument that is my mind.

I firmly believe that there is something outside of my mind – that you, for instance, really exist and are reading this somewhere on this globe – but I might be wrong. I have no absolute proof that I’m not in the Matrix, or, as Descartes put it, that some demon isn’t playing tricks on me. For all I know, you might not really exist.

Not existing is an absurd thought for you, of course, but I can only access your thoughts via my own thoughts, and therefore it doesn’t help me if you say: “But here I am! I exist.” That, too, might be part of the Matrix or the spiteful demon or my own insanity.

I am imprisoned in my mind. Therefore, any statements I make about the outside world have to be prefixed with the admission of my inescapable subjectivity and hence fallibility.

That’s more or less what Descartes was driving at by his famous saying, not what I made it to be in my cartoon. That is, if I really made it and did not just imagine making it .

Friedrich Nietzsche: Moralist or Realist?

Friedrich Nietzsche was an outspoken and controversial philosopher whose ideas are sometimes used to justify Nazi Germany.

But to what degree does Nietzsche recommend ideas, views, and morals at all? Is he not primarily a keen observer and a philosophical poet? In a word, doesn’t Nietzsche strive above all to be a realist, not a moralist?

For example, when he contrasts the slave morality of Christianity with the master morality of ancient Greece, his main objective is to make an observation about reality. He doesn’t want to say that slave morality is all bad and master morality all good. His criticism of each arises inadvertently from his observations.

The same goes for his treatment of power. Is not his main point to simply observe the fact that almost everything in human society is determined by power? Power becomes the grit through which he views people and society at large. For Nietzsche, power can be both positive and negative. The will to power means to accept the reality that, as a human being, you can’t get around power. It is a major player, perhaps *the* major player for Nietzsche. Not conceding its role would be to deny reality.

And the most famous example is of course the death of God. Here again, Nietzsche observes rather than recommends. His objective is not that of an atheist who wants to de-convert true Christians. He doesn’t say: "There’s so much faith in the world, and faith is bad. Let’s go and kill God." Instead, he observes that in the 19th century the role of God in society was becoming less and less important. Churches were turning into sepulchers of God. God was dead. Not admitting the human usurpation of what was previously considered God’s role would have been a denial of what was going on. Nietzsche makes an observation of what is, not a recommendation of what should be.

Nietzsche the realist who embraces what is, who wants to live with eyes wide open, even if what he sees disturbs him–that is the man I have encountered in my incomplete and often too hasty reading of his books. "What does Nietzsche recommend? What does he justify? What kind of life or morality does he propose?" That, to me, seems to miss the point of Nietzsche. The point is: "What does Nietzsche observe? In what way do his poetic paintings of reality make me aware of myself and of the world around me? Even of bleak realities?"

My Ideal: The Paradoxical Fallibilist

A fallibilist is someone who thinks that all beliefs are basically fallible.

I have various degrees of certainty about my beliefs, but I hold no belief with absolute certainty. I’m open to the possibility that every single thing I believe might turn out to be false, except for the belief that there is something in existence that I call “me". Cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I am—whatever exactly this “I” is.

My goal, however, is not just to be a fallibilist, but to be a paradoxical fallibilist. By that I mean someone whose strong sense of fallibility does not keep him from being passionate about his beliefs.

A difficult endeavor, I know. But I want to passionately defend certain beliefs and passionately critique others, while I never forget how very fallible I am and that I might be wrong about everything—even about my belief that all beliefs are basically fallible. For perhaps they aren’t.

Daniel 11 – An Interpretive Paraphrase of the “Prophecy”

One of my vocational projects at the moment is to translate a Study Bible, and I’ve been doing Daniel this past week. When I got to Daniel 11, I remembered that I once wrote an interpretive paraphrase of that chapter. I searched for it on my harddrive, and—lo and behold!—there it was.

I’ll post the paraphrase here, just in case anyone is interested.

I tried to stay as close to the text as possible, with the significant difference that I add names, dates, and more details to the prophecy.

When I say “prophecy”, it should be understood that modern scholars generally regard this as a retrospective prophecy, that is, written as if Daniel received these details regarding the 2nd century BC four centuries earlier when in fact they were written by an anonymous author after the events had taken place.

That would explain why the predictions do not fit anymore toward the end of the chapter—because the author now ventured to predict what was the near future for him, whereas before he simply recorded history. Verses 36-39 might conceivably still fit Antiochus Epiphanes, the nemesis in this chapter, but verses 40-45 are clearly off. That’s why I ended my paraphrase at verse 39.

Anyway, here it is:

In 539/38 B.C., the first year of Cyrus’ Median governor Darius-Gubaru, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him. And now I will show you the truth. Behold Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius shall successively arise in Persia; and a fourth king, Xerxes, shall be far richer than all of them; and when he has become strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the kingdom of Greece.

Then the mighty Alexander the Great will arise, who shall conquer the known world in 330 B.C. and do according to his will. And when he has arisen his kingdom shall be broken and divided into four dynasties, but not to his posterity, nor according to the dominion with which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up and go to others besides these. The four dynasties and their rulers shall be: Macedonia under General Cassender, Asia Minor under General Lysimachus, Syria and the East under General Seleucus, and Egypt under General Ptolemy. Then Ptolemy shall be strong, but one of his generals, Seleucus Nicator, shall be stronger than he. He shall become king of Syria/Babylon in 311 and go forth conquering, even up to India. He shall be the strongest of the successors of Alexander the Great.

After some years Ptolemy’s successor, Ptolemy II (285‑246 B.C.), and Antiochus II of the north (261‑247 B.C.) shall make an alliance, and Ptolemy II’s daughter Berenice shall come to the king of the north to make peace but she shall not retain the strength of her arm, and he and his offspring shall not endure; but she shall be given up, and her attendants, her child, and he who got possession of her. For Anitochus II shall promise to divorce his first wife Laodice in order to marry Berenice. But Laedice shall murder Antiochus II by poisoning him. She shall also murder Berenice and the offspring produced by Antiochus II and Berenice. In those times Berenice’s brother, Ptolemy III, shall arise in the place of Antiochus II; in retaliation for his sister’s murder, Ptolemy III shall march north out of Egypt and victoriously invade Syria. He shall reign from 246‑221 in Egypt. He shall also carry off to Egypt their gods with their molten images and with their precious vessels of silver and of gold; and for some years he shall refrain from attacking Seleucus II (247-226). Then the latter shall come into Ptolemy’s III’s realm, but shall return into his own land, because Ptolemy III shall defeat him in 240 B.C.

His sons Seleucus III and Antiochus III shall wage war and assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall come on and overflow and pass through, and shall carry the war as far as Ptolemy IV’s fortress in Gaza (on the Egyptian border). Then Ptolemy IV, moved with anger, shall come out and fight Antiochus III; and he shall raise a great multitude, but Ptolemy IV shall defeat Antiochus III in 217 at Raphia. And when the multitude is taken, his heart shall be exalted and he shall cast down tens of thousands but he shall not prevail. For Antiochus III shall again raise a multitude, greater than the former; and after 14 years he shall come on with a great army and abundant supplies. In those times many shall rise against Ptolemy IV; and the men of violence among the Jews shall lift themselves up in order to fulfill the vision; but they shall fail and the Holy Land shall be devastated in 200 B.C. under the leading General Scopas.

Then Antiochus III shall come and throw up siegeworks, and take a well fortified city, Sidon, in 198. And the forces of the south shall not stand, or even his picked troops (among them General Scopas), for there shall be no strength to stand. But Antiochus III shall do according to his own will, and no one shall stand before him; and he shall stand in the Holy Land and all of it shall be in his power: Palestine shall be under his control. He shall set his face to come with the strength of his whole kingdom, and he shall bring terms of peace and perform them. He shall give his daughter Cleopatra to Ptolemy V for a marriage alliance, hoping that by doing so he would gain advantage over Egypt; but it shall not stand or be to his advantage, since Cleopatra shall side with Egypt and the Ptolemaic kingdom. Afterward he shall turn his face to Thrace and Greece, and shall take substantial parts of them; but at Thermopylae in 189 B.C., a Roman commander shall put an end to his insolence; indeed he shall turn his insolence back upon him. Then Antiochus III shall turn his face back toward the fortresses of his own land; but in 187 he shall stumble and fall, and shall not be found.

Then shall arise in his place Seleucus IV (187-175) who shall send an exactor of tribute through the glory of the kingdom; but within a few days (in 175 B.C.) he shall be broken, neither in anger nor battle, but by assassination.

In his place shall arise a contemptible person, Antiochus Epiphanes, to whom royal majesty has not been given; he shall come in without warning and obtain the kingdom by flatteries—taking the throne away from Seleucus IV’s rightful heir. In his vigorous program of Hellenisation, armies shall be utterly swept away before him and broken, particularly Ptolemy VI of Egypt. He shall also murder the High Priest in Jerusalem and have him replaced with his brother, Menalaus. The latter shall make an alliance with Antiochus Epiphanes, giving him generously from the temple treasury. And from the time of the alliance he shall act deceitfully; and he shall become strong with a small people. Without warning he shall come into the richest parts of the province, attacking Ptolemy VI in 170 B.C.; and he shall do what neither his fathers nor his fathers’ fathers have done, scattering among them plunder, spoil, and goods. He shall devise plans against strongholds, but only for a time. And he shall stir up his power and his courage against Ptolemy VI with a great army; and Ptolemy VI shall wage war with an exceedingly great and mighty army; but he shall not stand, for he shall suffer mutiny among his subjects and thus fall from power. Even those who eat his rich food shall commit treason against him; his army shall be swept away, and many shall fall down slain. And as for the two kings, their minds shall be bent on mischief; they shall speak lies at the same table, but to no avail; for the end is yet to be at the time appointed.

And Antiochus Epiphanes shall return to his land with great substance, but his heart shall be set against the holy covenant. And he shall work his will, going to Jerusalem and desecrating the temple together with Menelaus. Leaving his soldiers in command of Jerusalem, he shall return to his own land further north. In 168/9 B.C. he shall return and come into the south, to Egypt, due to a report of treachery against him there; but it shall not be this time as it was before. For Roman ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he shall be afraid of the growing Roman might and withdraw, and shall turn back and be enraged and march 22,000 men against Jerusalem on a Sabbath, plundering and burning Jerusalem and killing many people. In 167 B.C. he shall attempt to utterly obliterate the Jewish religion. He shall forbid the observance of the Sabbath, the festivals, sacrifices, and even circumcision. He shall burn the Torah. Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt offering. In its place idolatrous altars shall be set up and Jews shall be forced to offer up unclean sacrifices and eat pork. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate: on December 16, 167 B.C., Antiochus Epiphanes shall designate the temple in Jerusalem as a place of worship for Zeus. An altar of Zeus shall be erected on top of the altar of burnt offering. Swine flesh shall be offered on this altar. The Jews who submit to these abominations shall be allowed to live, the opponents he shall try to kill. He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant; but the people who know their God, the courageous Maccabees, shall stand firm and take action. And the Maccabees shall make many understand, though they shall fall by sword and flame, by captivity and plunder for some days. When they fall they shall receive a little help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery; and some of those who are wise shall fall, to refine and to cleanse them and to make them white until the time of the end, for it is yet for the time appointed.

And the king shall do according to his will; he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, declaring himself to be an incarnation of Zeus; and he shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods. He shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is determined shall be done. He shall give no heed to Apollo, the historic god of the Seleucids, or to the lascivious cult of the “darling of women,” he shall not give heed to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all. He shall try to unify all religion to the worship of himself as Zeus incarnate: a god whom his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. He shall deal with the strongest fortresses by the help of a foreign god; those who acknowledge him he shall magnify with honor. He shall make them rulers over many and shall divide the land for a price.

The Groundswell for Authentic Living

In my last post, I quoted the philosopher Rick Roderick about the problem of the "non-person”. It’s a great quote, but I wonder: Is it more true or less true now than twenty years ago when Rick made this observation?

In a way, the non-person seems even more rampant today than in 1990. Our culture is more commercialized, more virtual, more pre-packaged, more conformist than ever.

On the other hand, there does seem to be a groundswell against this lack of authenticity:

• More and more people are tired of commercialized religion, cookie-cutter answers, and hypocrisy.
• More people desire real relationships rather than mere Facebook friends.
• More people want to have real food on their plates rather than mass-produced, chemically infested junk.
• More people look for real experiences rather than just watching the news.
• More people go and work out rather than doing it vicariously on their sofas by admiring Michael Jordan.
• More people like to explore nature rather than being locked up in an artificial city their whole lives.
• More people try to do their own thinking and find their own way rather than accepting the latest ten-step self-help plan of someone else.
• More people resist the reverse psycho therapy of our culture where we all sink into unconscious living rather than bringing our unconscious self to the light of consciousness.

Or am I deluding myself? Is there no such groundswell?

The Problem for Today’s Christians: The Non-Person

“For Christians, the problem today is not the non-believer, which used to be the problem. The problem today is the non-person. In other words, to find someone for whom belief or disbelief means any damn thing either way.”

- Rick Roderick (slightly paraphrased)

“The despair that is unaware that it is despair”: Kierkegaard and the Contemporary Spirit

An excellent analysis of Kierkegaard and the culture in 1990—still very much relevant today (you may skip the first five minutes if you want to get to the most relevant parts quickly):

Democracy Came to Germany 100 Years too Late

 

A few days ago, I visited the Paulskirche in Frankfurt – the place where German democracy was born in 1848.

It was a good opportunity to ponder the value of freedom. How different history would have been if the democratic revolution of 1848 had succeeded! Alas, democracy took root in Germany a hundred years too late.

The Numinous Sense of Majesty: When the Self Grows Small, So Small

I’m reading Das Heilige by Rudolf Otto at the moment and came upon an anecdote about one of those tall, strong-willed, silent Boers who usually don’t speak of anything more profound than their sheep and cattle and the habits of tiger-leopards.

After driving for about two hours together with (I think) a journalist, he turned to her and said slowly in the Taal:

“There is something I have long wanted to ask you. You are learned. When you are alone in the veld like this and the sun shines so on the bushes, does it ever seem to you that something speaks? It is not anything you hear with ear, but it is as though you grew so small, so small, and the other so great. Then the little things in the world seem all nothing.”

The numinous sense of majesty, the moment of the Übermächtigen, of being overpowered by something indefinitely greater than the self—that’s something I often experience when alone in nature. In fact, I think that’s probably what I love most about being alone in nature. Curiously, there is also a strong feeling of freedom in being overpowered like that.

(I took the above photo at the beach not far from our house.)