Hermeneutic of Continuity and Rupture

Where is the church going? Many Catholics are unconsciously puzzled by the many activities of the Church and individual religious men and women whose mentality are also distorted. Unconscious because the Church somehow jibes with the modern thinking of doing things like going to concert for fund raising, which they see religious perform and dance the modern way, and distorted because they think and do the way people in modern and secular world do, like doing business and becoming materialistic. People know to group them where they belong, either the traditional thinking or modern thinking. But understanding deeply what Pope Benedict XVI is saying about hermeneutic of Continuity and hermeneutic of rupture, one would rather be able to appreciate the right direction of the Church as a whole, which many of the religious do know but not keeping it, or just hanging around in their comfort zone and be ignorant with advantage.

The term Hermeneutic

The word ‘hermeneutic’ derives from a messenger, whose name is ‘Hermes.’ He is a messenger in Greek mythology. And the Church, in her theology, adopted that word in its critical understanding and interpretation of the Biblical text. It is very important to do that in order to bring out the essence of God’s word or message and put things in its proper place together with the teaching documents done by the teaching authority of the Church called the Magisterium. The magisterium serves well the Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Tradition according to the document Dei Verbum.

Hermeneutic of Rupture

The term rupture implies a decisive break and an entity, totally new, emerges. And this kind of mentality is found with satisfaction because it is totally different from what has been accustomed to. This is an attempt of what is going on to disrupt the Church mission to teach faithfully all what the Lord has commanded to his first disciples. It is an attempt to introduce a new perspective, as influenced by modernization and secularization. It is modernization because it is something new, and secularization because it is something peculiar to the Church – it is not-church related. An example to this is the introduction of same-sex marriage – totally new from what has been practiced for many centuries, that is, not same-sex marriage or a boy-girl union.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

The term continuity implies evolution, a forming out of something better. This is the kind of path being followed by the Church. It is something different to many or some of us, but definitely it is a combination of the old and the new. It is old because the Church remains faithful to what has been handed down to them by the Lord, and it is something new because what has been handed down is being implemented according to the situation of the time. When the Church speaks about each Catholic as a missionary in his own right, she speaks the truth about the nature of the sacrament of baptism – the three-fold mission of Christ given to the newly baptized.

The Church and the Hermeneutic of Continuity

The position of the Church is very clear that she follows the hermeneutic of continuity. By this the Church do not just come up with something new policy or let us say, rules and regulations that is not in accordance with her doctrines and with the Code of Canon Law. The right term here is corroborates and enhances what has been implemented. And what has been implemented before is being subjected to the signs of the times. And behind this hermeneutic of continuity is the principle of infallibility by the pope that guides the whole activities of the Church to the right path, and frees her from all errors that contradicts her teachings. When the Church is talking about the immorality of corruption in the government, it is not a sign of being rebellious against the politicians. It is indeed a sign of her mission as part of matters in faith and morals. 

Source: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=296

Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans (Part 1)

Who is Pythagoras?

Pythagoras, one of the known pre-Socratic philosophers, is hard to be figured out as the main actor of the Pythagoreans. There is unclear and hesitation on the part of many scholars that he is the main actor and author of the group’s philosophic ideas. Even Aristotle, one of the great triumvirates, says that when he mentions the name of Pythagoras in any of his writings, he does not mean that he is – Pythagoras – the one; he is referring to them as a group called the Pythagoreans.

Who are the Pythagoreans?

Pythagoreans are members of a society, a society that is religious by nature. Its founder is Pythagoras, and its foundation has taken place in South Italy, Kroton, during the half of the 6^th century. Some of the noted members are Philolaus and Eurytus.

As a religious group, they devote themselves to idea of purity and purification rituals, believing in the transmigration of souls, i.e. transferring of souls from one entity to another, love of silence, and the influence of music and studying math as aids in tending their souls. According to scholars, their care for the soul is something special compare to the teaching of Homer wherein the latter treats it as a mere shadow-image of the body.

Is it a Religious or Political Group?

Scholars sometimes link the group of Pythagoras to a certain religion called Orphicism. It is because the teachings of Pythagoreans are similar to the religious doctrines of Orphicism. An example to this is the doctrine of transmigration of souls. An attempt to digging on this issue would probably make them unworthy to be part of the history of philosophy. They are more qualified to be part of the history of religion. Another claim is that Pythagoreans as a political group because there was a part of Italy wherein most of the people were identified as part of the group. But the counter-claim to this is the fact that there was no governing exercise happened and was handled by the Pythagoreans. But the influence of their teaching was so pervasive, an attraction to everyone during their times. Thus it is a purely religious and political activity.

The Ionian or Milesian Philosophers

The three known Ionian or Milesian philosophers – Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes – are the earliest thinkers in this Greek period. They all belong to Milesian School in Miletus, and they were the first to take stride in providing unfamiliar answers to the primary question about the basic stuff of the world. It is unfamiliar answers considering that the influence of religion at that time prevails.

In reading some books on these three philosophers pre-Socratic philosophers, one may discover that the authors quote different historians of the field to put forward a wholesome presentation as towhat makes them worthy to be called ‘philosophers’ including how their thoughts were shaped and other attributes about their achievements. That’s the first thing I will do before presentingthose simple ideas whichare indisputably theirs.

A. Thales

He is known in the ancient period as the first Greek philosopher who tries to formulate an answer to his basic question about the basic stuff of the world (urstoff). Herodotus claims that Thales had predicted a solar eclipse, while Laertius Diogenes also claims that Thales once fell into a well because of star gazing. And lastly Aristotle, one of the great thinkers of the west, attributes to Thales two things, which are his main ideas.

First, Thales answers water as the basic stuff of all things. And second, he conceived that there lies a soul in the magnet, for the reason that magnet has the capacity to move iron.

B. Anaximander

Our source on Anaximander is Theoprastus. Here are the accounts of Theoprastus regarding Anaximander.

First, Anaximander constructed a map for the sailors. Second, his answer on the basic stuff of the world is the indeterminate. What does it mean by it? This indeterminate is to be describing as a never ending movement which consists of different elements, including water of Thales, consuming each other in forming the world. It is a substance without limits, or in Greek it is called ‘to apeiron,’ and this is the material cause.

In such a movement, the interpretation of the concept of justice and injustice is found here. When one element encroach another element, this is an instance called injustice. And the only means for that element to pay its debt is by letting itself be encroached by other elements.

C. Anaximenes

A little fraction is left from Anaximenes’ work where we could draw his ideas.

According to that fraction, he abandons the idea of ‘to apeiron’ or substance without limits, and assigns a determinate element as the basic stuff of the world. It is somehow a backward movement rather than advancing as what Anaximander did.

And what is his answer to the ‘urstoff?’ It is air. Air is the principle of life, and without it we will die. It is air that holds all things together like our soul and the world.

How did he explain further about his air, which is considered as invisible? It is only through the notion of condensation and rarefaction. Air becomes fire through rarefaction and solid like stone by condensation.

Other things attributed to him were his idea of the earth as flat that floats on air like a leaf, and the existence of rainbow as due to the sun’s ray falling on the thick cloud. Since the ray could not penetrate the thick cloud, it produces rainbow on the other side of the cloud.

A little note on Theoprastus

Theoprastus was mentioned under the subjects Anaximander and Anaximenes. He knows the age gap of these three philosophers as he says that Anaximenes is younger than Anaximander, and Anaximander is younger than Thales because of the word ‘associate.’ Anaximenes is an associate of Anaximander, and Anaximander is an associate too of Thales. Thus Thales is the eldest of them all, and Anaximenes is the youngest.

The ‘How’ and ‘Why’ to study History of Philosophy

Philosophy is a very difficult subject to many of the college students. Other branches under the topic are being marginalized in the priority and interest of the learner. And the burden of bringing the discipline to them lies on the teachers. It is the task of the teacher, with patience and endurance, to make philosophy meaningful in the learning endeavor of the students.

But Frederick Copleston, S.J., author of many history books on philosophy offers some ways on how and why to study philosophy. They are effective means to come to the holistic knowledge of philosophy, and somehow plants the seed of interest and appreciation of philosophy.

The ‘HOW’ to study philosophy

First, the reader must consider the historical setting. One must study how idea of the philosopher developed through the influence of the environment. His idea must be understood in connection to his own milieu. It is precisely that the thinker and his own thinking are not isolated from the reality of time and place.

Second, the reader must possess a bit of sympathy, a sort of psychological approach to the thinker and his thinking. One must be able to enter the system of the thinker and be absorbed somehow. Simple to say, one must be able to go down to his level for better understanding what is on his mind.

Third, if one desires to be a specialist in one philosophical method, he must get deeper into the system of the thinker. One has to make a necessary pause at a certain period of the history of philosophy to possess a well-rounded understanding of the whole system of a particular thinker. He must venture in studying the philosopher’s language, his expertise, etc.

The ‘WHY’ to study philosophy

First, we study to learn from their mistakes and right. History is undeniably rich in knowledge. It teaches us to look into the past knowledge and use them what is still applicable to our present situation as solution to the current problem. Otherwise the only option left is to develop a new solution by utilizing the present resources at hand.

And secondly is to see the development of philosophy where some new ideas are accepted and added, some being rejected and replaced anew, and some ideas become the point of departure and some as point of continuation.

Useful or Just a Waste Opportunity

Many people aspire for change. But to execute change is not that simple. Everybody knows that change results to something that is novelty. This novelty is either in itself serves for the betterment or for the worst. And since the world seems so cruel, disordered, unpleasant, dreaming of making the scenario exactly the opposite is not far-fetched. Change is an ideal prize that each one wants. There are two types of change, among the many types, I would like to highlight here. The simple kind of change is the change of one’s self. And this change is considered elementary – it brings change only in a narrowed and limited sense. The other type of change is complex by nature – a change that is broad and boundless. And everybody benefits from it. It results to make other people better, and so with the environment.

This type of change is intertwined with power. This power is not rested on the lowest part of the social strata, but on the highest plain. One has to climb up the ladder in order to reach the top. And once you are on the top, change that you are aspiring for is now in your hands. What does it mean? Change is realistic when one has the means – power. Its implication is power means positions. And this position is pragmatically the best venue to bring about novelty. A position is not all is there the case. It is also tangled with another means in order for the occupant to enjoy the luxury of executing change. And this is money. Money is the means for transacting change with other means of change. Thus power is accompanied with money in the execution of necessary change in one’s place.

The locus of change could be in any of the existing institutions today. Institutions exist to serve the needs of the people, like the government and the church for instance. These two institutions are known to be in the Philippines as the savior of the masses. Any institutions are being administered by authorities. These authorities are being elected by their subjects who are being seen as qualified to be in the position. And those positions are being assisted with power as executor’s power, sustained with money as machinery. It is an illusion when authorities occupy those noble positions without power and money. And that is why, many are tempted by these means, in spite of one’s noble and ideal intention of ‘to serve’ or be ‘of service.’ Service has become the password and the bridge to have power and money.

But being in authority is a rare opportunity and privilege. It is rare because not everyone can climb the ladder to that position. It is also a privilege for those who are chosen to be there. Election is not only the sole privilege. Selection is also a privilege because only few people are involved in that process. In the religious world, to be in the position is also a privilege coming from above. Armed with power and money, the mission entrusted by their Master is now within its reach. That mission is the heart of evangelization – for the BUILDING OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD here on earth. The sign of failure in not realizing that mission is because the hearts and minds in authority are worldly. It simply means that their focus is now on the means at the expense on ends. To be in authority in fulfilling that mission is a very rare golden opportunity. But to be in authority for power and money is just a WASTE OPPORTUNITY.

Carnap on Linguistic Framework (Part 3)

V. Limitation of the Framework

            The linguistic framework, which has been set up by Rudolf Carnap, is an excellent type of strategy he employed as a way of verifying the meaningfulness of the statement. But the nature of the framework is somehow defined, limited, and narrow. It is defined because he categorizes questions into two – internal and external. It is limited because it entertains questions to what particular language to be picked up and verified. It is also narrow because only those meaningful statements can be analyzed analytically and synthetically or empirically. Other statements that talk about non-empirically could not be verified by the framework, and they are treated as pseudo-questions and pseudo-debates.

A. Ayer and his Emotive Theory

Ayer, in his Language, Truth, and Logic, admits that not only meaningful statements through empirical observation could be verified. Ayer considers other language like ethical language or moral language as significant. This kind of language could not pass the verification principle of Carnap, for they are not objects of empirical matters. Ethical language is not literally significant within the linguistic framework of Carnap. For Carnap ethical language is considered pseudo-questions. Ayer instead proposed his emotive theory to justify ethical language as somehow significant. In what manner did Ayer justify his position?

            An example of ethical statement is “Stealing is wrong.” If this statement is going to be based on the internal questions of Carnap, it cannot find the answer, for the statement is neither analytic nor synthetic. It does not purport empirical fact. But Ayer has said that such ethical statement like “Stealing is wrong” functioned to express feelings or emotions. Only that such statement is not literally significant. The justification for such statement to be meaningful is this that ethical statement is emotive significance. Emotive significance is not the same as metaphysical significance. What is the peculiarity of emotive significance in order to become meaningful?

            The criterion is this: when an ethical statement evinces feelings on the part of the speaker and on the hearer. This possesses genuine emotive significance, only when some observable behavior occurs on the speaker and on the hearer.

B. Quine and his Two Dogmas of Empiricism

            Quine has made his attack on the understanding of analyticity first on Kant and Frege’s thoughts before Carnap’s. His attempt on sharp distinction between analytic and synthetic has separated himself from Carnap, his greatest teacher. There is no enough space here to expose how Quine’s argument has come about against Kant, Frege and Carnap. But it is very clear that, in general, Quine is not satisfied the way these philosophers explore on the meaning of analyticity.

            In his Two Dogmas of Empiricism, there are two things he did emphasize in relation to analyticity. He has commented that these philosophers did not achieve in creating boundary between analytic and synthetic. For him, it is a must neatly divided between those statements which are analytic and those statements which are synthetic or empirical. This is because for him, in doing so would be treated as unempirical dogma of empiricist. It would also become a metaphysic article of faith. But for Carnap, the combination of analytic-synthetic is very important in disposing any metaphysical questions and debates.

            The second part of his Quine’s writing is the idea of reductionism. The definition of the term holds that a meaningful statement could be translated to another statement on immediate experience. This means that reductionism does not parting ways from the original goal of the movement – Vienna Circle – that any knowledge should be based on sense-experience.

VI. Conclusion

            The thought of Rudolf Carnap is indeed a product of his brilliance as analytic philosopher. Any empiricist could be, at his own disposal and intelligence, immediately accept or reject statements which expresses cognitive significance. But he has come up with a language called linguistic framework which entertain questions that are internal and external, with logic or method and syntactical rules. And the highlight of having framework is the treatment of any metaphysical language as pseudo-problems.

            The repercussion to this initiative in rejecting metaphysical problem is also the rejection of ethical and moral language. The ethical language is anchored on metaphysics, and so with religious and aesthetic language. But thanks to Julius Ayer, with his emotive theory, he has rescued the reality of the world through the indispensable role of human behavior.

But the position of Ayer, like Rudolf Carnap, is somehow did not escape from being identified as solipsism. They posit that “If knowledge is based on sense-experience, then whose experience?” Prior to this, Ayer’s argument has to be proven whether the behavior being produced by certain action is a truly and literally cognitive in accordance to ethical language. And when affirmative answer is given to the question of solipsism, and then another repercussion may also occur, i.e. the answer becomes extreme subjectivism if without taking any precautionary measures.

But going back to the basic, why do Carnap put more premiums on sense-experience? Of course, the movement is assisting in the improvement of scientific procedures. In other words, Vienna Circle is at the service of science and not on metaphysical speculation.

Bibliography

Books

Hylton, Peter, Quine. New York and London: Routledge, 2007.

Martinich, A. P. and David Sosa ed. A Companion to Analytic Philosophy. USA and UK: Balckwell Publishers Inc., 2001.

Miller, Alexander. Philosophy of Language, 2^nd ed. New York and London: Routledge, 2007.

Stumpf, Samuel Enoch and James Fieser. A History of Philosophy: Socrates to Sartre and Beyond. 7^th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005.

Article

Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology of Rudolf Carnap

Electronic Source

Encarta Dictionaries 2007

Carnap on Linguistic Framework (Part 2)

III. Questions

            In order to explicate more on the kind of language, first is the need to understand the two questions being said to draw out the interest with verified answers. After this junction, we will return to the context of what is language all about in the mind of Carnap.

            Carnap speaks of two kinds of questions – either internal or external. This is crucial in getting into deeper clarification of linguistic framework. To make the distinction of the two simple, let me use the above example about the game like playing cards and the four friends. If one of them feels like not playing card, instead of basketball, then he could not be judged whether he is wise and skilled in playing cards. If he does, then judgment can be carried out. The first instance is a clear indication that the three are in the same boat, sharing the same language, while the second is not.

A. Internal Questions

Internal questions are matters that involved the verification whether it is right or wrong, as when the three of them shared the same interest of playing the game. In the internal question, to carry out the judgment if he is good in playing cards or not, if he is qualified to go the game or not, set of rules has to be employed as standard of the game. Thus we see in the demonstration that language and logic go together.

B. External Questions

External questions are matters that involved no verification of right and wrong. The situation is very lucid that not all of them share the same interest. No single language has been figured out. But if the person who is not one with the group’s interest, and begin to judge that playing card is not a good game to play instead of basketball, then certainly, the question of the rules and its language is out of the picture.

What is the criterion in choosing language? Carnap is very practical in his answer to the question. One has to make a choice. The choice of language has to be based on pragmatic consideration. Since Carnap is anti-metaphysical and empirical, no other language could be allowed than this.

IV. Linguistic Framework

What does it mean by language for Carnap? Remember that in every language, logic will always be its partner. Once language is being chosen, then that language has to be understood within a framework with set of rules called logic. If language is being compared by another language, it is considered as external question with the absence of being judged as right or wrong. But our concerned framework here could be welcomed and treated with only internal questions.

A. Types of Framework

Framework can be defined more or less that contains vocabulary with set of rules and conventions in governing the use of such vocabulary (Alexander Miller). What are these vocabulary and set of rules and conventions for? There are two frameworks given by Miller in his book Philosophy of Language to explain what does Carnap mean by it, and they are logical framework and factual framework.

Logical Framework

            The logical framework contains vocabulary such as numerals, variables, general terms and various conventions. The given example of internal question to this particular framework is, “Is 5 a prime number?” The given question could be judged according to the rules of language with its vocabulary. 5 is indeed a numeral, but this 5 could be replaced with a variable like X. The general term refers to the predicate part of the question – ‘is a prime number,’ but this general term could be judged with the various conventions like “5 is a prime number” is true if X can be replaced by 5.

Factual Framework

            The factual framework has the same content as that of logical like mass terms, general terms, and linguistic conventions. The given question here is, “Is lead soluble?” The term lead is the mass terms, and soluble is the general term. Now, the linguistic convention in this question is really to test whether lead is indeed soluble by dissolving that element with some liquid solution. Then, after the experiment, the question could be judged if it is true or false.

B. Logical and Factual differences

            As there are two types of frameworks that judges either the question is true or false verification, there are also two kinds of answers that yields.

The first framework is called logical because the nature of the answer is formulated a priori. The 5 in ‘5 is a prime number’ is coming from the subject of the sentence such that between 4 and 6, there is a prime number called 5. The answer to the internal question is called analytic. The second framework is called factual because there is, aside the available application of relevant convention, an appeal to be made to empirical evidence and observation. Like the question “Is lead soluble?” it has to undergo a process, an experiment in the laboratory, to prove whether lead is soluble or not. In short, the answer to the internal question depends on a posteriori matter.

A short scheme can be made out of the above. A linguistic framework that is logical admits an analytic answers, while factual framework admits of non-analytic answers or a posteriori answers. Logical framework is literally significant because the result emanates from the given subject in the proposition, while the factual framework is not literally significant because its result has to be verified empirically, like dissolving the lead with special solution to prove if it is indeed soluble or not.

C. Analytic and Synthetic Categories

            The above kinds of framework have shown from where it emanates its respective result – logical framework is a priori and factual framework is a posteriori. These frameworks have been understood by other philosophers as another extension to the internal and external questions. What is it? Logical framework, since it answers to the question analytically, belongs to the province of internal questions; while factual framework, since it answers to the question synthetically, belongs to the province of external questions. Miller’s explanation is that this kind of understanding of Carnap’s thought is misleading. These two categories could not be separated from different frameworks, but these two has to be taken as one within the province of one particular framework chosen.

            These two categories are the results coming from logical and factual frameworks. These truths are defined as: analytic truths are coming from the framework’s convention alone, while synthetic truths are those from the framework’s convention in the presence of empirical evidence. This is the character of the framework of Carnap’s being empiricist.

            A question can be posed here. Since the logical framework is plausible because it yields answers analytically, how about the factual framework on the possibility of knowledge that does not depend on sense-experience? Is it possible?