SeaKayaker

I have returned after a busy summer and am currently in the midst of writing a thesis (required for graduation at my high school). I am writing mine on the philosophical problem of the one and the many. In it, I argue that only Christianity is able to explain this problem in a manner that maintains metaphysical and epistemological consistency while providing a foundation for knowledge. I thought that some people here just might have some opinions on this , so I am looking for both critiques of the paper and material that I need to deal with in my refutations (specific counter-arguments). In short, I am looking for general critiques and specific counter-arguments to this paper. I figure that this is a good way to make sure that I avoid arguing against straw men in my refutations.

So far, I have outlined all of the points that I want to cover in my thesis, but the finished paper will probably be about twice as long as this draft is. I have it posted on my website to avoid any conflict with the copyright or posting rules on these forums. As a final word, I am trying to write it so that it should be understandable to the average high school student (being myself in high school). In a few months I will also be orally presenting and defending this before a hostile panel (a mini-dissertation).

The paper is located at
http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/seakayaker/index.html .

Thanks for your ideas.

Soli Deo Gloria,
SeaKayaker

[Edited to correct the link after moving my homepage.]

Keith Russell

Greetings:

I'm not sure I accept your premise.

You say that 'if the universe is the ultimate reality, it will contain the answer to the question of the one and the many'.

Yet, this question is a human question, pertaining to the human perspective in understanding, interpreting, evaluating, and/or creating the meaning of existence.

The answer to a question formulated within a human consciousness should come from the study of human consciousness: philosophy, specifically epistemology.

You seem to want the universe to provide you with an 'ultimate' answer to this question, but I see no reason--given the introspective nature of the question--to expect it to be able to do so.

Keith.

SeaKayaker

Keith Russell,

Thanks for the reply. First off, I would like to say that I am very unhappy with the way that I stated that condition, but I have not been able to figure out a clearer locution. With that having been said, I do still appreciate your point. In order to better understand your view, I would like to ask you a couple of questions. First, do you think that man can know the universe, or can he only know his own consciousness (or another option)? Second,

I either do not understand or disagree with this. You seem to be saying that the problem of the one and the many is only a problem of human philosophy. The problem, as I see it, seeks to determine the nature of the universe and then sees what implications that has on philosophy. Am I misrepresenting your position?

Does the nature of the universe (whether or not we can know it) have any bearing on the answer to this question?

Soli Deo Gloria,
SeaKayaker

Bill Snedden

I haven't had time yet to read the whole paper, but my initial opinion: You've been reading too much Cornelius Van Til.

Take a look <a href="http://members.aol.com/ironslee/private/VTtrinity.htm" target="_blank">here</a> for a Christian perspective on this issue (the use of God as an answer to the philosophical problem of the "one and the many") that you might find interesting.

I'll try to add some more constructive comments later if I get the opportunity. If not, good luck on your defense!

Regards,

Bill Snedden

NialScorva

/nod what Bill said. I hope to have more time to read up on it this weekend, but you can look through the archives for posts by Jim Mitchell to see another devotee of Van Til and the arguments made on similar subjects about a year ago.

Keith Russell

SeaKayaker said:
"In order to better understand your view, I would like to ask you a couple of questions. First, do you think that man can know the universe, or can he only know his own consciousness?

Keith:
What's the difference? Our consciousness is part of the universe, so even if our consciousness is the only part of existence to which we have access (which I don't believe, by the way) we can at least know reality to that extent...

[Keith said, earlier:] This question is a human question, pertaining to the human perspective in understanding, interpreting, evaluating, and/or creating the meaning of existence.

SeaKayaker:
I either do not understand or disagree with this. You seem to be saying that the problem of the one and the many is only a problem of human philosophy.

Keith: Yes, that is exactly what I am saying; that is precisely what I beleive.

SeaKayaker:
The problem, as I see it, seeks to determine the nature of the universe and then sees what implications that has on philosophy. Am I misrepresenting your position?

Keith: I think so. 'Problems' don't seek, first of all. People seek to find answers to problems. Seeking an understanding of the nature of the universe is the task of metaphysics. Epistemology has the task of discovering the nature of the part of the universe that is human consciousness. Both epistemology and metaphysics are subsets of a larger system of general inquiry: philosophy.

[Keith said, earlier:]
You seem to want the universe to provide you with an 'ultimate' answer to this question, but I see no reason--given the introspective nature of the question--to expect it to be able to do so.

SeaKayaker:
Does the nature of the universe (whether or not we can know it) have any bearing on the answer to this question?

Keith:
Again, I'm not sure that the question of 'the One or the Many' is even relevant, let alone possessing the significance you've ascribed to it. If one can only 'know' one's own consciousness and nothing else, then one cannot really 'know' whether there are 'others', let alone having knowledge about what those others are like.

If one can have knowledge of the universe beyond one's consciousness, then one can gain knowledge about 'others', and all the rest of reality, too.

Keith.

SeaKayaker

No misbehaving on this thread...half the posters are moderators!

Through the combination of physics and calculus homework/test tomorrow, I do not have the time to actually reply to the content that you have posted now, but I do have a couple of replies.

Bill Snedden and NialScorva,

Thanks for begining to look over the paper. Lee Irons' essay has been on my short list of things to read for a while now, so I guess that I should actually get around to reading it. Thanks for mentioning Jim Mitchell's similar posts.

Keith Russell,

Thanks for your reply. I will try to post something tomorrow on it.

Soli Deo Gloria,
SeaKayaker

SeaKayaker

Keith Russell,
Thanks for your post. However I decide to approach these issues in the finished paper, you are helping me to realize points that I need to clarify and consider.

Should human philosophy reflect the nature of reality? It seems that we have different conceptions of the goal of philosophy. I seem to be more concerned with establishing a complete system of philosophy while you are more willing to focus on one aspect at a time. I am stressing not each aspect in isolation from the rest of philosophical thought, but philosophy as a whole. Thus, I am emphasizing the relationship between metaphysics and epistemology more heavily than most modern philosophers.

Should these two branches of philosophy have any bearing on each other? If you wish to propose a rational system, then it is important to have complimentary metaphysical and epistemological systems to retain consistency. I am proposing that only certain metaphysical views are able to provide a sound epistemology. Since all philosophies that claim rationality depend upon a sound epistemology, this is essentially a reducio against any philosophy that cannot provide the metaphysical foundation of an answer problem of the one and the many.

Many people argue that it is impossible to know anything beyond human consciousness, but I have yet to see a person live that way. Everyone assumes in daily life that he is able to learn about the external world through his senses. A worldview has to either deny this (which amounts to a denial of induction, rationality, and science), or provide some means for people to know reality through their senses. If we are to know reality, it must be knowable. I am seeking to argue that reality can only be knowable if the one and the many are equally ultimate in it.

Soli Deo Gloria,
SeaKayaker

Keith Russell

SeeKayaker:

When you say 'the one and the many', of what kind of thing are you speaking?

One 'what'?

Many 'what'?

Also, you speak of 'the problem of the one and the many'. The more you talk about it, the less I think I understand which specific 'problem' you mean. Does it perhaps have another name I might recognize, or could you describe the problem in such a way that it can be understood, rather than just referring to it as 'the one and the many'?

Thanks,
Keith.

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

SeaKayaker

Keith Russell,

Hmm…defining my terms might just be a good idea after all. I am talking about the relationship between unity and diversity. Particularly, I am asking whether oneness (unity) or manyness (diversity) is more basic to whatever it is that humans can know (generally considered to be reality).

This concept is difficult to distill into a concise definition. The problem is a question: is unity or diversity more basic in the object of human knowledge? This same question takes a slightly different form if human knowledge is defined as the relation of the particular to the universal (the relation of a particular item to the idea it represents). If this is the case, knowledge is a relation of the one (the particular object) to the many (the abstract idea). The “problem” here is finding some point of contact between a particular object and the idea that describes it. The illustrative example that first comes to my mind is that of a tree – you see a tree (a particular object) and immediately recognize that it is a member of the abstract set that you call trees (an abstract idea).

Does this make more sense?

I know that you posted this a while ago, but…
I think that what I was trying to get at, but never stated, with this was that knowledge has to reflect the object of knowledge. Hence, if unity is more basic in the object of knowledge, it must also be more basic in our knowledge of that object. The same goes for diversity.

I am going to be out of town for the next few days, but I will reply to any additional comments after I return.

Soli Deo Gloria,
SeaKayaker