Heraclitus (c. 535 – c. 475 BCE)
purveyor of the Logos
For the next few weeks I will develop my Deep Strictures argument (Transcendental Signifiers). It beings with a Prolegomena so this is before we are in a position to make an argument,It;s just laying the ground work, But it offers a new God argument no one else makes.
So what is a TranscendentalSignifier and why is it a problem? In semiotic terms, the TS is the ultimate source of meaning, the eye watching over things, saying what signifies what. The history of western philosophy, according to Derrida, has involved the belief in and search for The Transcendental Signifier, the Signifier of all signifiers, the concept that stabilizes the system of meaning and limits interpretive possibility. Call it Truth or the Platonic Ideal or G-d, or Man, or The Unconscious, or, for our purposes, Haman.https://www.slideshare.net/hrobbins01/latke-hamentaschen-debate
Western
thought has always assumed a logos, a first principle that gives
meaning to all ambiguity and grounds all knowledge and norms. This
concept has been embodied in many different ideas, collectively
Jacques Derrida calls them “transcendental
signifiers”
(TS).
These differing notions all point to a single idea, the one thing
that is necessary and universal that orders and gives meaning to all
signs and signification. That is the thing signified
by the words used to mark
it, the transcendental
signified (TS).
Humanity has been unable to find any
matching candidate for this post in modern thought primarily because
we gave up the idea of a logos. Modern science has a sort of
truncated logos in the idea that empirical observations will
eliminate all hypotheses
until just the true one's are left and that will give us the
understanding we seek. That will never happen because it cannot;
science can't
render first principles in areas like ethics and morality and it
can't delve into the spiritual, the phenomenological, the existential
or anything not immediately
verifiable empirically.
Postmodern thought has given up on the whole project. They reject the
concept of truth itself and seek not to understand anything beyond
their self referential language game. Yet in rejecting
the concept of truth,
and
tearing
down hierarchies, they create their transcendental signifier
differance,
(with an a)[1].
Only the
concept of God fits
the parameters for the TS.
God offers the best explanation for hierarchical
ordering, thus offers the most likely correlate for TS. Or
to put it another way, mind is the missing dimension that enables the
TS to unite human experience of being with understanding. That
in itself should warrant belief in God.
Human thought in general and Western thought in particular has always sought an ἀρχή, a first principle, a logos that will sum up everything and give meaning to reality. The Greek notion of the logos, which was always about finding a way to understand reality through observing the world: “...Heraclitus of Ephesus (540-480BC) succeeded best in giving mythos and logos a philosophical meaning in a new world structure and putting man in a position to find his rightful place in it. The problem...to establish the reality of observable phenomena, to uncover its governing force, and to teach man the proper way of relating himself to both.”[2] The notion, in one form or another, was deeply rooted among the Greeks: the stoics, for example, used it to mean the divine animating principle pervading the universe.[3] William James, in The Varieties of Religious Experience, reflections upon Kant's notion of categories, “Ideas of pure reason,” that ground all our ideas and support all concrete knowledge even though they themselves are not given in sense data.[4]
...such ideas and others equally abstract, form the background for all our facts, the fountain-head of all the possibilities we conceive of...everything we know is what it is by sharing in the nature of one of these abstractions.We can never look directly at them for they are bodiless and featureless and footless, but we grasp all other things by their means and in handling the real world we should be stricken with helplessness in just so far forth as we might lose these mental objects, these adjectives, these adverbs and predicates and heads of classification and conception.[5]
James
argues that these abstract notions is
one of the “cardinal facts” of our human existence. We can't
escape them, we can't deal with life without them.
He
talks about Plato and Emerson as examples of thinkers whose grasp of
such abstractions defined the nature of ideas in such a way as to
both define
thought and infuse ideas with a sense of the divine, “treat the
moral structure of the universe as
a
fact worthy of worship.”;'[6] Such notions, such links between the concrete and the abstract are
replete in human history. Around the turn of the nineteenth into
the twentieth century James observes this kind of transcendentalism
moving into a scientific venue. “Science in many minds is genuinely
taking the place of religion.”[7] He finds schools of thought that saw the Greek gods as reflections of
the abstract ideas. While in the current age we find scientists
openly talking about science
replacing
religion or providing a short cut to God.
The
rise of Christianity saw a clear interpretation of the logos. In the
rise of modern science we saw the Christian thesis discorded but
another logos was put in it's place, in the form of the laws of
physics.
It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion science offers a surer path to God than religion…People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.[8]
So
modern thought assumes these disembodied laws that are sort of the
residue of God without the will or volition. Pierre-Simon
Laplace
reshaped science in the post Newtonian era, removing all the
independent clock winding and repairing Newton had God doing in his
system, and when Napoleon asked him why he left out talking about God
in his science he supposedly answered “I have no need of that
hypothesis.”[9] It was upon that basis that God was taken out of modern science and
all the built in theological assumptions with it, based upon the
explanatory power of cause and effect. From that point on there has
been steady progression of putting aside thinking about ideas and
final causes and assuming laws of physics just are. They are out
there they make God unnecessary (supposedly)
and though we don't know where they came from
we don’t
need to know.[10] As
Alfred North
Whitehead once observed:
"We
are content with superficial orderings form diverse arbitrary
starting points. ... science
which is employed in their development [modern thought] is based upon
a philosophy which asserts that physical causation is supreme, and
which disjoints
the physical cause from the final end. It is not popular to dwell
upon the absolute contradiction here involved..”[11]
The
climate of opinion in modern physics, according to physicist Paul
Davies, is still similar. Physicists assume the laws of physics “have
some independent reality, prior to universe they describe,”
not in terms of prescribing what nature has to do but in terms of
being
“base
of explanatory chain.”[12] Davies
argues that fine tuning of the universal constants is an
embarrassment to modern physicists. They are embarrassed because it
appears that the universe has been “fixed” to produce life. In
order to cover the embarrassment modern physicists reduce
physical laws to something less binding.
“The
Cambridge cosmologist Martin Rees, president of The Royal Society,
suggests the laws of physics aren't absolute and universal but more
akin to local bylaws, varying from place to place on a mega-cosmic
scale.”[13] Davies
goes on:
The root cause of all the difficulty can be traced to the fact that both religion and science appeal to some agency outside the universe to explain its law like order.....This shared failing is no surprise, because the very notion of physical law has its origins in theology. The idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws comes straight out of monotheism, which was the dominant influence in Europe at the time science as we know it was being formulated by Isaac Newton and his contemporaries. Just as classical Christianity presents God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, so physicists envisage their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships. Furthermore, Christians believe the world depends utterly on God for its existence, while the converse is not the case. Correspondingly, physicists declare that the universe is governed by eternal laws, but the laws remain impervious to events in the universe.[14]
But
the model has lost coherence since they can't move away from the word
“law” and yet the laws are said to be mere “descriptions.”
They seek to avoid a law giver. Then they vacillate
between resorting to prescriptive or descriptive laws. This will
be
discussed in much detail in chapter 4.
Modern
scientific thought lacks the principle of grounding necessary to
complete a correlate between our theoretical picture of the world an
understanding what actually is because we have given up on the logos.
We have a fragmented set of observations, laws and principles but no
higher scheme uniting the fragments under
single transcendental signifier:
And most cosmologists agree: we don't need a god-of-the-gaps to make the big bang go bang. It can happen as part of a natural process. A much tougher problem now looms, however. What is the source of those ingenious laws that enable a universe to pop into being from nothing? Traditionally, scientists have supposed that the laws of physics were simply imprinted on the universe at its birth, like a maker's mark. As to their origin, well, that was left unexplained.[15]
They
are still assuming a framework at the top without knowing what that
framework is. For those who have given up on the project of truth
it's even worse.
Notes
Notes
[1]
John D. Caputo,
The Prayers and
Tears of Jacques Derrida,
Bloomington, Indiana:
University of aindiana
Press, 1997 2.
Difference
is not God but it functioms as aTS
[2 ]Alexander Sissel Kohanski, The Greek Mode of Thought In Western
Philosophy. Rutherford,
Madison, Teaneck: Fairleigh, Dickinson University press, London,
Toronto :Associated University Presses, 1984, 27.
]3]
Cambridge Dkctiomary of Philosophy. London:
Cambridge University Press, 2nd
Edition, 1999, 45.,
[4]
William James,The
Verities of Religious Experience, a Study In Human
Nature: Being the Gifford Lectures on Natural Religion Delivered at
Edinburgh in 1901-1902.
London, New York, Bombay: Longmans, Green, and Co, 1905
56
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.,
57.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Paul
Davies, “Physics and The
Mind of God: the Templeton
Prize Address,” First
Things, August 1995, on
line version
URL:https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24
accessed Nov 25, 2016
[9[ Taner
Edis, The Ghost in the Universe: God in Light of Modern Physics.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus
Books; 2nd Printing edition ,June 1, 2002, 107.
Edis is
professor of physics
at Truman State University.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Alfred North Whitehead, Science and The Modern World. New York: Free Press, 1925, (1953), 76.
[12]
Paul
Davies “When Time Began” New
Scientist
(oct 9 2004) 4.
[13] __________,
“Yes The Universe Looks like a fix, But ;that doesn't mean God
fixed it,” The Guardian, Monday (25 June 2007) 19.07 ED on
line copy, URL:
[14] Ibid.
[15 ] __________,
“Stephan Hawking's Big Bang gaps,” The Guardian. (Saturday 4
September 2010) 03.30 EDT
