The Daily Logos XXI

“It is very hard for a man to defend anything of which he is entirely convinced.  It is comparatively easy when he is only partially convinced.  He is partially convinced because he has found this or that proof of the thing, and he can expound it.  But a man is not really convinced of a philosophic theory when he finds that something proves it.  He is only really convinced when he finds that everything proves it.  And the more converging reasons he finds pointing to this conviction, the more bewildered he is if asked suddenly to sum them up.  Thus, if one asked an ordinary intelligent man, on the spurt of the moment, ‘Why do you prefer civilization to savagery?’ he would look wildly around at object after object, and would only be able to answer vaguely, ‘Why, there is that bookcase… and the coals in the coal-scuttle… and pianos… and policemen.’  The whole case for civilization is that the case for it is complex.  It has done so many things.  But that very multiplicity of proof which ought to make reply overwhelming makes reply impossible.

“There is, therefore, about all complete conviction a kind of huge helplessness.  The belief is so big that it takes a long time to get it in into action.  And this hesitation chiefly arises, oddly enough, from an indifference about where one should begin.  All roads lead to Rome; which is one reason why many people never get there.  In the case of this defence of the Christian conviction I confess that I would as soon begin the argument with one thing as another; I would begin it with a turnip or a taximeter cab.”
-G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

The Daily Logos XX

“He who reflects as a philosopher, that is, under every possible aspect, on realities such as guilt, freedom, or death; or he who considers the fundamental question as to the structure of being (‘What does it mean for something to be real?’), will certainly experience a progressively more profound insight into all that is, in the same measure as his cognitive analysis penetrates every deeper, and as his mind opens up ever more in dispassionate and receptive readiness.  More profound insight, of course, is the philosopher’s aim.  Still, properly speaking, we cannot maintain that the philosopher, through this approach, would discover things totally unknown thus far, totally unthought thus far, things altogether new and original.”
-Josef Pieper, In Defense of Philosophy

In this passage, Pieper goes on to assert an anamnetical principle, that whatever is discovered through philosophy, and indeed, through anything, is something of a remembrance, the discovery of what  what had already been discovered; a re-discovery.  The technical aspects of this claim are not, for the intention of this post, terribly important.  What is important, however, is to see where Piepr actually goes wrong, as near as he is to the mark: certainly, the individual, natural sciences make the discoveries upon which philosophy reflects and ponders; but the impetus to the endeavors of these natural sciences is itself a manifestation of man’s innate philosophical quest.  The two activities are distinct by convention, but not by nature.  Every man is born to be a philosopher, and every philosopher is born to know.

Hilaritatem of the Month – October 09

The Victory Hop Devil.  A perfect beer for the declining temperatures of mid-Autumn, and a great transition towards the darker beers that will be featured in the Winter months.  Enjoy!

Upcoming

We’re trying, at present, to put together a print issue.  It was supposed to be finished in September, but obviously circumstances changed our priorities, and so unfortunately we’re about a month behind with everything.  The new issue should have a bit more aesthetic appeal, and may turn out longer than previous.

If I can get around to it, there will be an article on the blog this week; there will also certainly be a Hilaritatem for October posted on Friday, and possibly a much-belated September beer.

The Daily Logos XIX

“The real trouble with this world of ours is not that it is an unreasonable world, nor event hat it is a reasonable one.  The commonest kind of trouble is that it is very nearly reasonable, but not quite.  Life is not an illogicality; yet it is a trap for logicians.  It looks just a little more mathematical and regular than it is; its exactitude is obvious, but its inexactitude is hidden; its wildness lies in wait.  I give one coarse instance of what I mean.  Suppose some mathematical creature from the moon were to reckon up the human body; he would at once see that the essential thing about it was that it was duplicate.  A man is two men, he on the right exactly resembling him on the left.  Having noted that there was an arm on the right and one on the left, a leg on the right and one on the left, he might go further and still find on each side the same number of fingers, the same number of toes, twin eyes, twin ears, twin nostrils, and even twin lobes of the brain.  At last he would take it as a law; and then, where he found a heart on one side, would deduce that there was another heart on the other.  And just then, where he most felt he was right, he would be wrong.”
-G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

A brief lesson in why scientists must be humble.