The Philosophers

Yesterday's class marked the beginning of our look at the ancient Greek philosophers. We introduced Socrates, Plato & Aristotle, but our primary focus will be on Plato. The basis for our discussion was his Allegory of the Cave which is found in Plato's Republic. I took a few 'prisoners' myself in our darkened 'cave' of a classroom to illustrate the basis of the story. The point being that Plato views the material world as a mere shadow of what is really real--the immaterial spiritual world. This is the realm of ideas or Forms as Plato describes it. Next time we will dig a little deeper into the Theory of the Forms and see how Plato's ideas still influence the world today. (Click on the picture to read a short explanation of the cave allegory.)

Two Paths

In Virgil's Aeneid, the hero's visit to the Underworld illustrates the way in which the ancient Romans viewed the afterlife. It is very clear that, to their way of thinking, a person's life on earth determined their destination after death:



"It is here that the way splits into two paths; one track, on the right, goes straight to mighty Pluto's battlements and by it we make our journey to Elysium; and the other, to the left, brings evil men to godless Tartarus, and with never a pause, exacts their punishment"(1).



The Elysian Fields, the Roman idea of heaven, was called by various other names such as the Field of Joy, the Fortunate Woods and the Homes of Peace where the Souls in Bliss spend eternity singing, dancing and playing games while "snow white ribbons" encircle their brows (2).



Those who wound up in Tartarus, while they are hungry and thirsty, have plentiful food and drink in view, but it is guarded by monstrous creatures who ensure that it always remain just out of reach. And all the while, these tormented souls are undergoing unspeakable torture.



Romans 1:20 says that all men, since the dawn of creation, are made aware of God's nature and power through what is seen around them. With this knowledge comes an innate awareness that one is not in good standing with such a holy and powerful God. The ancient Greeks and Romans were, of course, no exception; however, they continued to worship gods made in their own image. As we mentioned last week, these gods and goddesses were considered to possess all the shortcomings and commit all the sins that human beings do. Next time we will begin to examine how the later philosophers thought that it was inappropriate to think of the divine in this way.

(1), (2) - All quotes are taken from Virgil's Aeneid translated by W. F. Jackson Knight, Penguin Books, New York, NY, 1958.

As we examine the ancient Greco-Roman world, we are summarizing the works of Homer and Virgil. War and peace, love and hatred, jealousy and vengeance, adventure and danger, heroes and cowards, not to mention a few monsters thrown in to keep things from getting boring! These stories run the gamut of all human emotion and passion-the good, the bad and the ugly. The problem is that this describes the gods and goddesses as well. Odysseus and Aeneus perceive the gods to be just like themselves except, of course, for the fact that they are all-powerful and immortal! Now that's a scary scenario! If the gods are just like human beings with all our shortcomings. . .well, this doesn't exactly sound like a refuge to run to when trouble comes in this life, does it? The gods are fickle. They plot and scheme to intervene in the events of earth to benefit their favorite mortals and then take vengeance against others. And what about beyond the grave. . .will I find favor with the gods?

According to Homer, Odysseus was able to visit the place of the dead. Later on Virgil writes that Aeneas also made this same voyage. What a picture they have provided. Yesterday we began to discuss the Greco-Roman concept of the afterlife. We will later see that some of their ideas are comparable to popular conceptions of heaven and hell even to this day. Next week we will place these ideas up against the standard of Scripture.

"Who is like you, O LORD, among the gods?"

We took a detour yesterday from our right-brained look at logic to enter into more of a relaxed left-brained story time! Just what does that have to do with Christian worldview thinking? The next topic in our text examines the Christian view of truth, knowledge and history, so this seemed to be a good time to back up and look at the worldviews which were prevalent in the centuries leading up to the birth of Christ. Our starting point for this segment is the worship of the gods and goddesses of Olympus by the ancient Greeks and Romans. This topic was introduced through the story of "The Golden Apple of Discord" which supposedly formed the backdrop for the Trojan War. Even though the Greek and Roman myths are 'just stories' to us, we can't lose sight of the fact that these myths, especially the works of Homer and Virgil, represented the history and the theology of these ancient people groups; these gods and goddesses were considered to be real.

We are going to spend a little time here and then move on to the different theological views posed by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Next week we will look at the anthropomorphic nature of the gods of Olympus.

Does it line up?

I want to thank Harrison for bringing this imagery to our minds. As we discussed whether or not an argument is valid, he processed it this way: "Does it line up?" That is a great way to define a valid argument. Does it line up? Does it add up? However, there's an important phrase to remember here and that is "If the premises are true. . . ." An argument may have premises that are ridiculous, but the test is this: If the premises were true, would the conclusion logically follow? That will always be the case in a valid argument. Take this example:
P1: Anyone who wishes to may go to Paris, France tomorrow.
P2: I wish to go to Paris, France tomorrow.
Therefore, I am going to Paris, France tomorrow.
Premise 2 is certainly true. If premise 1 were true also, then the conclusion would be logical and true, and I would be on my way to the airport! This means that the argument is valid, but it is not sound. So validity is a very important aspect of a persuasive argument, but validity alone will not get me to the Eiffel Tower. An effective persuasive argument will be sound as well as valid. Yes, we want our premises to line up and lead to the desired conclusion, but we also want our premises to be true. Anything else would certainly be "vain philosophy."
(Mrs. H.)

"Brilliant deduction!"

Dr. Watson, the sidekick of Sherlock Holmes,was often found to be congratulating Holmes on his investigative detective skills by using the phrase, "Brilliant deduction!" If we wanted to be sticklers about it, we would note that what should have been said is "Brilliant induction!" Holmes and Watson were always busy gathering evidence from a crime scene and putting the pieces together to reach their conclusion as to who had committed the crime. So they were really engaged in inductive reasoning.

Remember that inductive reasoning involves examining the particulars that one has witnessed or experienced in some way, evidence that has been gathered in, and moving toward a general conclusion that may or may not be true. Depending upon the kind of evidence and the amount of evidence, the probability of a true and certain conclusion will rise or fall. Technically speaking, deductive reasoning involves moving from a general principle that is accepted as true or assumed to be true and concluding that it has application to particular instances as well. We might need to give Sherlock and Dr. Watson a break, though, because sometimes the term "deduce" is used to mean only that a conclusion has been reached through reasoning. For our purposes, we will keep the terms as we defined them in class today. Knowing the difference will help you to discern whether or not an argument and its conclusion are sound and reliable no matter how logical they may first appear.

Just for fun, I'm including the link to a Sherlock Holmes mystery that I just watched myself. It's about 30 minutes long; check with your parents and make sure you're caught up on all your homework first!
See you next week. . .Mrs. H.

Is it real?

We are continuing on with the subject of epistomology - the study of how we can know anything at all and specifically how we can know what is really real. Thank you, Sadie, for helping us to illustrate this with your homework assignment!



Remember that last week we watched a video clip in which the participants voiced their opinions on this topic. Yesterday we focused on the written transcript of that discussion entitled "Science or Revelation." Parents, you should know that the students were each given a copy of this transcript which you might find useful for continued conversations with your child. Some of the questions involved are:

• Is science the only way of knowing?
• Are empirical methods the only valid means of gaining knowledge? (At this time, we are using the term "empirical" to mean those things which can be learned by experimentation, observation and/or measurement; however, we will soon bring in another aspect of this term as it relates to personal experience).
• Is the material world, and the knowledge we can gain from it, our only source of knowledge?
• Is the scientific method the only way to determine what is real?

In the transcript, you will notice that one of the panelists tells us that reality is viewed through different windows. We know this to be true as it concerns the window of our particular worldview because this is how we interpret everything, but what we must clarify is that what many people are viewing, and clinging to, is a false sense of reality. For further illustration of this, we discussed what we might call peepholes within the bigger worldview window. Some may be viewing reality through the window of science or that of music or art or any other area of interest to the individual. Even around our small classroom table, we are all bringing something different to the 'table' of life. These differences are opportunities for us to learn from each other. We have been emphatic in pointing out that just because each of us may view different facets or aspects of reality, we are not viewing a different reality. We are not saying that we can create our own reality by choosing what is real and true for each of us as individuals (Students, remember that this is called "relativism").

Back to our transcript: the panelists in this discussion have given us glimpses into their own presuppositions, many of which are false. Francis Schaeffer says that one of our apologetics tasks is to lovingly bring unbelievers face to face with the logical conclusions of their presuppositions. We will begin learning how to do that as we tackle the homework assignment for next week. See you then. . .Mrs. H.