Date: 05/25/2005
Student: Vlado Vukovic
Class: PHI 3130 (Mideval Philosophy)
Professor: Bernard Roy

Task: Take Home Final Essay
Topic: Two philosophers we read about that I disliked and liked the most
Nature: In adition to the topic I am to discuss point I agree and another point I disagree with each philospoher.

The philosopher that i liked the most was Ibn Gabirol who was a well known Spanish Jewish Neoplatonist that lived in eleven century AD or in middle ages and whose primary interest was in philosophy rather then theology which is something I amdire a lot about him since I consider philosophy to be of vastly superior logical quality then theology which I regard as primarily being product of human immagination more then anything else. As a result of how I view theology (which is not to say that i am not a religious person but only highly sceptical of any claim that deems certain 'holly' books from certain organized religions as being text whose final inspiration was of devine origin) I view any theologians in a difefrent light and olthough one can clasify Augustine as Christian Neoplatonist I believe that the hold that the religious dogma had on Augustine was too much for my taste therefore I would state that Augustine of 4-5 centuries AD is the philosopher I disliked the most.

Going now back to Ibn Gabirol I will state two positions as the paper asks, one is Ibn Gabirol's position I agree with most and another is Ibn Gabirol's position I disagree with the most.

Ibn Gabirol's position I agree with the most is where he makes a point that only the existence of the first essence (which is defined as infinite and eternal) can be know, not its essance. The reason for that is that the first mover, first essence or however one wants to call God (given of course the possibility that one exist) can only be known to us in as far as we are aware of its existance while we would be incapable of understanding what is its true essence, true nature or what makes God God. Humans berely have enough to go on regarding the speculation of Gods existance and in doing so they use many highly subjetive reasons such as certain 'wholly' books, various superstitions, premonitions, dreams or visions (among other similar and contraversial 'reasonings').

The organized religions (in an effort to explain the existance of 'holly' texts) as they are or as they were (such as in ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia) been primarily used to control the behavior of the subjects that follow them since the days of recorded history. Considering that up to recent century or so vast majority of any given state had been illiterate masses the easiest manner in which they would have been controlled would have been fabrications that were done in the name of certain religions since controlling such primitive masses would be much easier through fear of the unknown and by presenting them with the guide to acceptable behavior. I therefore consider the vast majority of the things claimed by organized religions to be done for above reasons and the true reality of course could never be disclaimed since that would in effect represnet the suicide of the religion as we know it today. Therefore I go back to the stating that I only agree with the part where only the existance of so called first essence can be known but not its true nature and with this statement being true it would void any validity of holly books as such.

The part I disagree with is that there is a contradiction where first we have a statement that we as humans can be aware of Gods existance but not of its essence yet this essence is defined as infinitite and eternal which is actually an attempt to define it thus unintencially interupring the first idea which seems to be most valid of the ones presented so far. Human in their own limitaions and arrogance are attempting to define something they can not possibly comprehend and being by nature scared of unknown try to define it even though there is apolutely nothing to go on except some suposed 'holly' books which might or migt not have any relaton with anything devine (probabily that there is no connection being much more probable in my mind).

Humans are incapable of even understanding how their body functions and their body is something they see and are aware of each and every day of their lives. How in a world can one claim that first essence is eternal and infinite when not one human was ever in a position to even experience anything that would leave one to such conslusion. Humans, in their arrogance, while on one hand are incapable of comprehanding their own body fully and thus their own very nature fully on the other hand state that first essence (which most philosophers agree not to have a full comprehension of which would of course be the most logical conslusion again considering there is such a thing as first essence) can be defined even partially by stating that it is eternal and infinite.

Going now to Augustine I will state two positions as the paper asks, one is Augustine's position I agree with most and another is Augustine's position I disagree with the most.

Augustine's position I agree with the most is where he makes a point that essencially for one to believe one has to have faith and that is probably the only concrete things Augustine stated as far as I am consdired as far as theological views of his are considered. Actually there is apolutely nothing else for a true believe but to believe since there is no concrete proof of Gods existance, there is no concrete proof in tha validity of 'holly' books, various superstitions, premonitions, dreams or visions that might have been connected to the devine. Therefore a believer to remain being a firm believer has nothing esle really to go on by to bellieve and relly fully on faith since any other path might only bring doubts or even disbelief.

Again let me state that a believer has nothing else to firmly rely on by the faith itself and that is because if he tried to use logic to justify his beliefs he will unlitately fail since no religion is based primarily on logic but on much greater extent on faith and basically manipulating with peoples emotions such as fear and otherwise. Even faith or belief in something is primarily of emotional nature since like a halo effet it can make one see the things that this person wants to see but which are neccesarily not there or can not be actually relied upon. In conslusion once the believer attempts to justify his beliefs using logic he will either stop believing or , trough hallo effect, start seeing things the way he or she wants them to be seen and thus in the process logic will be no more.

Augustine's position I disagree with the most is where he makes a point that if a human falls away from God (meanig not following instructons set out by dogmatic religious writtings in this case) that this human does evil thus the source of evil is humans themselves and not God. There are several reasons why I disagree with above line of thinking. I firmly believe that even if there is God that this God is not involved in our everyday lives nor that there is any logical reason for something so great to be concerned over something so not great as a human. Second reason is that what God might consider as good will by no means be neccesarilt clasiified as good by a human for even among humans themselves what someone might consider good another might consider bad or even evil and if suc variations are to be found among humans themselves who are the same spicie then certaionly one is to expect that even greater variatioons will exist between what God preceives as Good (again considering there is God) and what one perceives as evil. Third reason is that if one is to even assume that the 'holly' books are of devine origin (and or inspiration) that considering that some of the biggest historical evils and human misfortunes that happened in human history were caused in the name of 'God' conclusion follows, how in the world can such an ambelenet being indirectly produce such evils.

Date: 05/25/2005
Student: Vlado Vukovic
Class: PHI 3130 (Mideval Philosophy)
Professor: Bernard Roy

Task: Take Home Final Essay
Topic: Two philosophers we read about that I disliked and liked the most
Nature: In adition to the topic I am to discuss point I agree and another point I disagree with each philospoher.

The philosopher that i liked the most was Ibn Gabirol who was a well known Spanish Jewish Neoplatonist that lived in eleven century AD or in middle ages and whose primary interest was in philosophy rather then theology which is something I amdire a lot about him since I consider philosophy to be of vastly superior logical quality then theology which I regard as primarily being product of human immagination more then anything else. As a result of how I view theology (which is not to say that i am not a religious person but only highly sceptical of any claim that deems certain 'holly' books from certain organized religions as being text whose final inspiration was of devine origin) I view any theologians in a difefrent light and olthough one can clasify Augustine as Christian Neoplatonist I believe that the hold that the religious dogma had on Augustine was too much for my taste therefore I would state that Augustine of 4-5 centuries AD is the philosopher I disliked the most.

In my opinion thelogy and phylosophy are more opposing forces then complimentary ones and the reason for that is that philospohy is much more logic based which is something that can not be said about theology whose primary focus is religion and not attempting to understasnd things the way they are ior the way they might truly be. Therefore I will always view people such as Ibn Gabirol as being vastly closer to reality versus people such as Augustine whose primary puporse was to connect philopohy to christian dogma.

Going now back to Ibn Gabirol I will state two positions as the paper asks, one is Ibn Gabirol's position I agree with most and another is Ibn Gabirol's position I disagree with the most.

Ibn Gabirol's position I agree with the most is where he makes a point that only the existence of the first essence (which is defined as infinite and eternal) can be know, not its essance. The reason for that is that the first mover, first essence or however one wants to call God (given of course the possibility that one exist) can only be known to us in as far as we are aware of its existance while we would be incapable of understanding what is its true essence, true nature or what makes God God. Humans berely have enough to go on regarding the speculation of Gods existance and in doing so they use many highly subjetive reasons such as certain 'wholly' books, various superstitions, premonitions, dreams or visions (among other similar and contraversial 'reasonings').

The organized religions (in an effort to explain the existance of 'holly' texts) as they are or as they were (such as in ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia) been primarily used to control the behavior of the subjects that follow them since the days of recorded history. Considering that up to recent century or so vast majority of any given state had been illiterate masses the easiest manner in which they would have been controlled would have been fabrications that were done in the name of certain religions since controlling such primitive masses would be much easier through fear of the unknown and by presenting them with the guide to acceptable behavior. I therefore consider the vast majority of the things claimed by organized religions to be done for above reasons and the true reality of course could never be disclaimed since that would in effect represnet the suicide of the religion as we know it today. Therefore I go back to the stating that I only agree with the part where only the existance of so called first essence can be known but not its true nature and with this statement being true it would void any validity of holly books as such.

The part I disagree with is that there is a contradiction where first we have a statement that we as humans can be aware of Gods existance but not of its essence yet this essence is defined as infinitite and eternal which is actually an attempt to define it thus unintencially interupring the first idea which seems to be most valid of the ones presented so far. Human in their own limitaions and arrogance are attempting to define something they can not possibly comprehend and being by nature scared of unknown try to define it even though there is apolutely nothing to go on except some suposed 'holly' books which might or migt not have any relaton with anything devine (probabily that there is no connection being much more probable in my mind).

Humans are incapable of even understanding how their body functions and their body is something they see and are aware of each and every day of their lives. How in a world can one claim that first essence is eternal and infinite when not one human was ever in a position to even experience anything that would leave one to such conslusion. Humans, in their arrogance, while on one hand are incapable of comprehanding their own body fully and thus their own very nature fully on the other hand state that first essence (which most philosophers agree not to have a full comprehension of which would of course be the most logical conslusion again considering there is such a thing as first essence) can be defined even partially by stating that it is eternal and infinite.

Going now to Augustine I will state two positions as the paper asks, one is Augustine's position I agree with most and another is Augustine's position I disagree with the most.

Augustine's position I agree with the most is where he makes a point that essencially for one to believe one has to have faith and that is probably the only concrete things Augustine stated as far as I am consdired as far as theological views of his are considered. Actually there is apolutely nothing else for a true believe but to believe since there is no concrete proof of Gods existance, there is no concrete proof in tha validity of 'holly' books, various superstitions, premonitions, dreams or visions that might have been connected to the devine. Therefore a believer to remain being a firm believer has nothing esle really to go on by to bellieve and relly fully on faith since any other path might only bring doubts or even disbelief.

Again let me state that a believer has nothing else to firmly rely on by the faith itself and that is because if he tried to use logic to justify his beliefs he will unlitately fail since no religion is based primarily on logic but on much greater extent on faith and basically manipulating with peoples emotions such as fear and otherwise. Even faith or belief in something is primarily of emotional nature since like a halo effet it can make one see the things that this person wants to see but which are neccesarily not there or can not be actually relied upon. In conslusion once the believer attempts to justify his beliefs using logic he will either stop believing or , trough hallo effect, start seeing things the way he or she wants them to be seen and thus in the process logic will be no more.

Augustine's position I disagree with the most is where he makes a point that if a human falls away from God (meanig not following instructons set out by dogmatic religious writtings in this case) that this human does evil thus the source of evil is humans themselves and not God. There are several reasons why I disagree with above line of thinking. I firmly believe that even if there is God that this God is not involved in our everyday lives nor that there is any logical reason for something so great to be concerned over something so not great as a human. Second reason is that what God might consider as good will by no means be neccesarilt clasiified as good by a human for even among humans themselves what someone might consider good another might consider bad or even evil and if suc variations are to be found among humans themselves who are the same spicie then certaionly one is to expect that even greater variatioons will exist between what God preceives as Good (again considering there is God) and what one perceives as evil. Third reason is that if one is to even assume that the 'holly' books are of devine origin (and or inspiration) that considering that some of the biggest historical evils and human misfortunes that happened in human history were caused in the name of 'God' conclusion follows, how in the world can such an ambelenet being indirectly produce such evils.

In conclusion I find it arrogant by Augustine to state things in the line such as that certain ancient prechristian philospohers almost got it right but were unable because they lived in times prior to the comming of Christ as if in the times prior to coming of Christ people were less relying on logic and thinking versus to after his comming and after people were expossed to dogmatic techings. Augustine was in my mind blinded and usurped philisophy in an attempt to connect something that can not be connected and that is reason and the other being faith.

Time frame: Medieval Philosophy

(philosophers covered; Early Medieval Christian Philosophy: Augustine, Boethius, Anselm of Canterbury, Peter Abelard, John of Salisbury; Islamic Philosophy: Alfarabi, Avicenna, Algazali, Averroes; Jewish Philosophy: Saadia, Ibn Babirol, Maimonides; Early Christian Philosophy: Aquinas)

Topic: Two philosophers that I disliked and liked the most

Nature: In addition to the topic I am to discuss point I agree and another point I disagree with each philosopher.

The philosopher that I liked the most from the list was Ibn Gabirol who was a well known Spanish Jewish Neo-platonist that lived in eleven century AD or in middle ages and whose primary interest was in philosophy rather then theology which is something I admire a lot about him. The reason is that I consider philosophy to be of vastly superior logical quality then theology which I regard as primarily being product of human imagination. As a result of how I view theology (which is not to say that i am not a religious person but only highly skeptical of any claim that deems certain 'holly' books from certain organized religions as being text whose final inspiration was of divine origin) I view any theologians in a different light. Although one can classify Augustine as Christian Neo-platonist I believe that the hold that the religious dogma had on Augustine was too much for my taste therefore I would state that Augustine of 4-5 centuries AD is the philosopher I disliked the most.

In my opinion, theology and philosophy are more opposing forces then complimentary ones and the reason for that is that philosophy is much more logic based which is something that cannot be said about theology whose primary focus is religion and not attempting to understand things the way they are or the way they might truly be. Therefore I will always view people such as Ibn Gabirol as being vastly closer to reality versus people such as Augustine whose primary purpose was to connect philosophy to Christian dogma.

Going now back to Ibn Gabirol I will state two positions as the task asks, one is Ibn Gabirol's position I agree with most and another is Ibn Gabirol's position I disagree with the most.

Ibn Gabirol's position I agree with the most is where he makes a point that only the existence of the first essence (which is defined as infinite and eternal) can be know, not its essence. The reason for that is that the first mover, first essence or however one wants to call God (given of course the possibility that one exist) can only be known to us in as far as we are aware of its existence while we would be incapable of understanding what is its true essence, true nature or what makes God -- God. Humans barely have enough to go on regarding the speculation of Gods existence and in doing so they use many highly subjective reasons such as certain 'wholly' books, various superstitions, premonitions, dreams or visions (among other similar and controversial 'reasonings').

The organized religions (in an effort to explain the existence of 'holly' texts) as they are or as they were (such as in ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia) have been primarily used to control the behavior of the subjects that follow them since the days of recorded history. Considering that up to recent century or so vast majority of people of any given state had been illiterate masses the easiest manner in which they would have been controlled would have been fabrications that were done in the name of certain religions since controlling such primitive masses would be much easier task through fear of the unknown and by presenting them with the 'devine' guide to acceptable behavior. I therefore consider the vast majority of the things claimed by organized religions to be done for above reasons and the true reality of course could never be disclaimed since that would in effect represent the suicide of the religion as we know it today. Therefore I go back to the stating that I only agree with the part where only the existence of so called first essence can be known but not its true nature and with this statement being true it would void any validity of holly books as such.

The part I disagree with is that there is a contradiction where first we have a statement that we as humans can be aware of Gods existence but not of Gods essence yet this essence is defined as infinite and eternal. Last part is actually an attempt to define God thus it consistitutes unintentionally interrupting the first idea which seems to be most valid of the ones presented insofar. Humans, in their own limitations and arrogance, are attempting to define something they cannot possibly comprehend and being by nature scared of the unknown they try to define it even though there is absolutely nothing to go on except some supposed 'holly' books which might or might not have any relation with anything divine (probability that there is no connection being much more probable in my mind).

Humans are incapable of even understanding how their body functions and their body is something they see and are aware of each and every day of their lives. How in a world can one claim that first essence is eternal and infinite when not one human was ever in a position to even experience anything that would leave one to such conclusion. Humans, in their own arrogance, while on one hand are incapable of comprehending their own body fully and thus their own very nature fully on the other hand state that first essence (which most philosophers agree not to have a full comprehension of -- which would of course be the most logical conclusion again considering there is such a thing as first essence) can be defined even partially by stating that it is eternal and infinite.

Going now to Augustine I will state two positions as the paper asks, one is Augustine's position I agree with most and another is Augustine's position I disagree with the most.

Augustine's position I agree with the most is where he makes a point that essentially for one to believe one has to have faith and that is probably the only concrete things Augustine stated as far as I am considered as far as theological views of his are considered. Actually there is absolutely nothing else for a true believer but to believe since there is no concrete proof of Gods existence, there is no concrete proof in the validity of 'holly' books, various superstitions, premonitions, dreams or visions that might have been 'connected' to the divine. Therefore a believer to remain being a firm believer has nothing else really to go on by to believe and rely fully on faith since any other path might only bring doubts or even disbelief.

Again let me state that a believer has nothing else to firmly rely on by the faith itself and that is because if he tried to use logic to justify his beliefs he will ultimately fail since no religion is based primarily on logic but on much greater extent on faith and basically manipulating with peoples emotions such as fear and otherwise. Even faith or belief in something is primarily of emotional nature since, like a halo effect, it can make one see the things that this person wants to see but which are necessarily not there or cannot be actually relied upon. In conclusion once the believer attempts to justify his beliefs using logic he will either stop believing or, trough halo effect, start seeing things the way he or she wants them to be seen and thus in the process logic will be no more.

Augustine's position I disagree with the most is where he makes a point that if a human falls away from God (meaning not following instructions set out by dogmatic religious writings in this case) that this human does evil thus the source of evil is in humans themselves and not from God.

There are several reasons (I will name three) why I disagree with above line of thinking.

I firmly believe that even if there is a God that this God is not involved in our everyday lives nor that there is any logical reason for something so great (at least when compared to us) to be concerned over something so opposite of great as a human would be when compared to a God (again considering there is one). This hypothetical God would have no benefit not would he feel any threat coming from something when compared to a God would be like comparing an atom to a human thus would more then likekly have no value of importance in the eyes of the hypothetical Devine.

Second reason is that what God might consider as 'good' will by no means be necessarily classified as good by a human for even among humans themselves what someone might consider good another human might consider same thing as bad or even evil. Following the last though, if such variations are to be found among humans themselves, who are members of the same specie, then certainly one is to expect that even greater variations will exist between what God perceives as Good (again considering there is God) and what one perceives as evil.

Third reason is that if one is to even assume that the 'holly' books are of divine origin (and or inspiration) that considering that some of the biggest historical evils and human misfortunes that happened in human history were caused in the name of 'God' then conclusion follows; How in the world can such an ambivalent being indirectly produce such evils?

In conclusion I find it arrogant by Augustine to state things in the line of thinking such as that certain ancient pre-Christian philosophers 'almost got it right' but were unable to fully grasp the 'truth' because they lived in times prior to the coming of Christ. Question is in the time prior to coming of Christ were people less relying on logic and thinking versus after his coming and after people were exposed to dogmatic teachings or was it the other way? Augustine was in my mind blinded and basicaly usurped philosophy in an attempt to connect something that cannot be connected and that is -- reason and faith.