Search results for ""author richard a. watson""

The atheists Daniel Dennett in Breaking the Spell and Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion talk down to believers. Sam Harris in The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation insults believers outright. All three assume that believers are not very bright. Their approach is not productive of much understanding. In The Philosopher’s Enigma, Richard Watson explains to believers in temperate and readable prose why he and many others are not believers. His discussion is based on strict Augustinianism, the foundation of seriously argued Christianity. God is hidden – that is, the concept of God is unintelligible – as discussed at length by Leszek Kolakowski in his Religion If There Is No God (St. Augustine’s Press) – in the sense that there are no known rational arguments for God’s existence. Moreover, Augustine argues that finite human beings cannot understand God’s infinite perfections. Augustine concludes that God has omniscient knowledge of every human being’s behavior, which after all, is predetermined by God prior to His creation of the world. Most difficult to accept, as Calvin later stresses, is the inference that because humans do not determine their own behavior, God predetermines who is saved and who is damned with no reference to this behavior. A foundation of Christianity is that because of the Fall of Man, we are all sinners, and thus there is no reason why God should pick this person for salvation and that one for damnation. But most Christians believe that faith, God’s grace, Jesus’ sacrifice, being born again, and in particular, good works, can earn one salvation. But Augustine and later Calvin see no evidence for these views. Even if, or perhaps even because, God gives a sinner the grace to be good – a person’s good works do not assure salvation. After all, even before God created the world, God predetermined the behavior of every human being. Thus because humans cannot determine their own behavior, they cannot be saved or damned with reference to this behavior.A major difficulty in understanding and accepting the story of the Creation, then, is that even though God determines Adam’s behavior, God punishes Adam for disobedience by decreeing that all Adam’s progeny will be born sinners. Watson begins his book with the steel-trap objections made by his daughter, when she was seven years old, as he read the Bible to her. To the story of the Garden, she objected: “But God made Adam! God made Adam sin! God is not fair!” She slid off his lap, and he had to bribe her to return.In The Philosopher’s Enigma, Watson also discusses in detail the concepts of the soul, angels, ghosts, mind, and body. He argues that the classic Cartesian mind/body problem of how an immaterial mind or soul and a material body can interact will eventually be superseded by a concept of a human being according to which, even though a person’s body/mind is bound by physical laws, it still makes its own considered decisions, and to that extent a human being is free. And because the mind/body is one entity, there is no problem about two different things – a mind and a body-interacting.Watson concludes that this means there is no such thing as a disembodied mind or soul, and so no such things as angels and ghosts that could help or harm you. Basing this discussion in the context of contemporary neurophilosophy, his conclusions about the relationships of mind/soul follow those of Kolakowski in being reminiscent of Spinoza.

Read more less

Solipsism is the ultimate empirical theory of human existence. It is the metaphysical position that there is only one self-conscious person in the universe, i.e., the present selfconscious being reading these paragraphs. A weaker version is the position that one can know for certain that there is only one conscious person in the universe, oneself. The present study is the only book-length examination of solipsism. It treats the origin of solipsism in the works of St. Augustine and René Descartes as well as all serious attempts to refute the thesis of solipsism. Such attempts were made primarily by British empiricists, specifically by George Santayana. Santayana concludes that solipsism cannot be refuted. Watson also concludes that solipsism cannot be refuted. He examines attempts by Descartes, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, British Idealists, Logical Positivists, Sense Datum Philosophers, and in particular Nelson Goodman and Gilbert Ryle (they are just pathetic). The spector haunting Modern Philosophy is not the Ghost in the Machine; it is solipsism. Watson argues that the foundations of Western Philosophy are solipsistic, and that all the major figures recognize this and know that solipsism cannot be refuted, but nevertheless continue by ignoring it, by pretending that it cannot be taken seriously, by offering inadequate solutions, and by treating solipsism as a joke. Watson’s book is the only study of solipsism by a professional philosopher, other than Santayana, in which solipsism is taken seriously as a threat to Modern Philosophy

Read more less

Rich food for thought—a philosopher’s guide to losing weight, and keeping it off, by embracing a whole new approach to life.In this slim volume, a middle-aged philosopher takes on the weighty double challenge of comprehending an expanding universe while fighting an expanding waistline. Witty, thoughtful, and practical, this is a thinking person’s guide to the how—and why—of watching what you eat.“I urge you to live at the peak of enjoyment of life,” Richard Watson writes. “Descartes said that the essence of the soul is self-consciousness. If you want to enjoy your life, pay attention to what you are doing. Control as much of your life as you can. Live in full consciousness. And don't stop thinking for yourself.”Here’s an erudite and fascinating combination of common sense, Cartesian philosophy, and the presumption that understanding the mysteries of weight loss and the universe are somehow compatible, even sympathetic, ambitions. If Descartes had written a treatise on losing weight as a way to maintain discipline amidst life’s vicissitudes, it would have read much like this. Richard Watson wants you to lose weight, as he did, while gaining new wisdom about yourself—and what you eat.

Read more less

Combines historical research and philosophical analysis to cast light on why and how Cartesianism failed as a complete metaphysical system. Far more radical in its conclusions than his 1966 study The Downfall of Cartesianism (a slightly revised version of which forms the main body of the current work), Watson argues that Descartes's ontology is incoherent and vacuous, his epistemology deceptive, and his theology unorthodox--indeed, that Descartes knows nothing.

Read more less

Combines historical research and philosophical analysis to cast light on why and how Cartesianism failed as a complete metaphysical system. Far more radical in its conclusions than his 1966 study The Downfall of Cartesianism (a slightly revised version of which forms the main body of the current work), Watson argues that Descartes's ontology is incoherent and vacuous, his epistemology deceptive, and his theology unorthodox--indeed, that Descartes knows nothing.

Read more less

In this engrossing double volume, the work and thought of Nicolas Malebranche is examined through the eyes of Simon Foucher and Dortous de Mairan. Part 1 consists of Richard A. Watson’s translation of the first published critique, by Simon Foucher, of Malebranche’s main philosophical work, Of the Search for the Truth. In the second part, Marjorie Grene presents a meticulous translation of the long correspondence between Malebranche and Jean-Jacques Dortous de Mairan that ended shortly before Malebranche’s death. Both Watson and Grene provide insightful introductions to their translations.The influence of the works of Malebranche has been extensive, as has the influence of the lesser works of his first critic, Simon Foucher. Although Foucher was a minor philosopher of the seventeenth century, he provided arguments that led to a crucial turning point in modern philosophy. Listened to with care and treated with respect by Leibniz, Foucher’s arguments were utilized by Bayle, Berkeley, and Hume toward the destruction not only of Cartesian metaphysics but of substance philosophy as well. In this translation of Foucher’s work, it is now possible for readers of Malebranche’s Of the Search for the Truth to evaluate the immediate response of a young philosopher about town to one of the most important philosophical works of his day.The correspondence between Jean-Jacques Dortous de Mairan, an obscure provincial, and Nicolas Malebranche has usually been viewed as a small addendum to the works of Malebranche. Marjorie Grene, however, in her translation of this correspondence, considers it not only a contribution to the Malebranchian corpus but also an example of a reaction to Spinoza. Born at Béziers in the south of France in 1678, Mairan went to Paris in 1698, where he studied mathematics with Malebranche. Their correspondence began four years later when Mairan returned to Béziers to accept a position with the local bishop. In his letters to Malebranche, Mairan reveals himself to be one of no more than a handful of known readers of Spinoza who, in the early eighteenth century, admitted fascination with Spinoza’s presentation of his thoroughly unorthodox God and his equally unorthodox nature.

Read more less