Review Zhuangzi Indexicals

Terms whose reference changes– Refer but not fixed—always from here/now– Relational—relative: many answers

• Not none, or one mystical, or can’t say anything

Rejects “all is one” – anti-language contradiction– Pointing to the one—makes two

Dao Axis is infinite possibility– But no actual position– The view from nowhere– Needs careful statement

• Or run into anti-language position

Judgments

Do make them—accept this– But always aware that could be different– From different “position”

No view from cosmos (nowhere)– But can gain from others—broadening

• Maybe will work—maybe won’t– Handan walk

– Absolute point of view useless• No argument for quietism/stoicism• No argument for absolute toleration

– Mao and Gandhi are different from actual POV

So what advice?

Strong skepticism doesn't entail anything– This is mild skepticism

• No argument against your perspective• Just awareness that there are alternatives

– Tolerance, openness, and don’t kill b/c different

Three bits of advice– Flexibility and youth– Accept convention as useful (no more)– Skill transcendence (satisfaction in excelling)

• Cook/butcher Ting

Slight inconsistency: life limited– Skill and Defect

Question

Quiz and back to the West

Back to the West: Nietzsche

Long wait for an antithesis: Nietzsche anti-rationalism

Life – Born 1844 Lutheran father– Dependence on women. Anger!

Existentialism and Nietzsche

Existence over essence (formula)– Plato’s forms essence

Opposes reason (rationalism)– God, abstractions, reality, meaning and

value

Two Theses Under Attack

Rational metaphysics and Christianity

Metaphysical basis of morality– Plato & God

• Christianity as blend of Greek rationalism and Judaism

• Science as their offspring

– Reason & science• Investigating the “mind of god”

Science Attacks Its Parents (Oedipus?)

God—the rational structure of the universe

Thesis that gave science birth but– Scientific reality has no affinity with our

rational souls– Cannot be known – Changing, dead, and valueless– No reality basis for meaning/value in life

God Holds It Together

Constant threat from science– Western conflict of science and religion

Dim awareness that it is a myth– God is dead—the madman in the marketplace– We can no longer fool ourselves with the myth– Nothing binds reality to value

Descartes

"Father of modern philosophy"– Rationalize science

Make it compatible with religion-rationalism

– Classic detail of Nietzsche's target

Science undermines his beliefs– Copernican revolution, evolution, dead matter,

light waves– Can we really know anything?

• The evil demon‑‑brain in a vat fantasy– From new theory of vision

Cartesian "Radical" Skepticism

Doubt everything—not from specific arguments, but general ones– Main target: objects and other minds

Strategy: prove something immune to evil demon doubt

• I think, therefore I exist• Even if I doubt, can't doubt that I'm thinking

Is Cogito Valid?

Back to Parmenides– If a sentence is true then its subject term must

denote something• Any true sentence of the form "X Q's" entails "X

exists"• So, if the premise (I think) is true then it follows as

a matter of form that I exist– "Santa Claus thinks" is false– Thought doesn't matter here

» "Santa clause walks" is also false

Is Cogito Sound?

Is the premise true?Certainly! Whenever I think itCan we know it is true? Yes

– It is true– We believe it is true

• (When we think, we think we are thinking)

– We have good reason to believe it• We are good judges of our own conscious

states

To think you do not think is a paradox– Different from semantic (liar) or prescriptive

(Shendao) paradoxes• The meaning inconsistent with truth• Conforming inconsistent with meaning

– Pragmatic (action) paradox• What you say is inconsistent with the act of your

saying it• "I cannot speak one word of English"• The speech act of asserting is inconsistent with its

truth

Paradox Analysis

我不會

想。用中文

I cannot think

In English.

Thinking Thoughts and ThinkerThinking Thoughts and Thinker

Next step cannot reach outside thoughtNext step cannot reach outside thought– A way to get all A way to get all rationalrational truths back—prove truths back—prove

God existsGod exists

So ontological argument for GodSo ontological argument for God– Unique in following from definition aloneUnique in following from definition alone

Ontological Argument

St. Anselm model—easier and more famous

Definition of the ‘god' concept: – The perfect being

Start with that thought of god—a concept– Can be thought of by a non-believer

• The non-believer contradicts himself in thinking:– “God does not exist”

• Not derived just from thinking• From the content (meaning/definition) of the thought

Existence

Perfect=df has all positive qualities completely

Qualities = predicates

'Exists' is a predicate

‘Exists’ is positive (better than 無 )

Not to predicate 'exists' of the being that has all positive qualities completely is a contradiction

So I am not deceived when I think clearly and distinctly