« Philosophize This!

Episode #020 ... Two Medieval Approaches To God

2014-04-24 | 🔗

On this episode of the podcast, we discuss the concept of God from a philosophical perspective. We first broaden our definition of God by recalling the multitude of ways that the philosophers we’ve already studied have approached the subject. Next, we examine St. Anselm’s famous “Ontological Argument” in proof of God’s existence, which is strangely reminiscent of a tongue twister Ron Burgundy might use to prepare for his evening newscast. Finally, we learn why Moses Maimonides would say that the first rule of God is, “You do not talk about God.” Or at least, “You do not talk about what God is, only what he isn’t.” All this and more on the latest episode of Philosophize This!

Support the show on Patreon!

www.philosophizethis.org for additional content.

Thank you for wanting to know more today than you did yesterday. :)

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
For more information about this or any episode of the podcast check out the website at philosophy? Why is this dialogue? We have additional content further reading, transfer so every show all pre, of course, But if you value this shows an educational resource and you want to help keep it going, you can find not more about how to do that at patriarch, dot com, slash philosophize this or alter if you're buying something from Amazon this week anyway on clicking through our banner it's at the bottom center of the landing page of philosophize, this org Small percentage goes back to the show. It may just be a click for you, but every little bit adds up there key for wanting to know more today than you did yesterday, and I hope you have a show. One of the hallmarks of philosophy is looking at one question from multiple different angles. I mean it's not enough.
Just think about stuff for a while and come to what seems like a reasonable conclusion about something and then just call it a life. After that, you can't do that. In fact, our thoughts on any subject should really be a constant evolution. In my opinion, will the subject we're going to talk about today is one that we ve danced around a little bit. We covered little pieces of it, but today we're gonna talk about it much more by the end of the show. Today, you guys are all going to defend We know the answer to the question: does God exists now? Obviously, I'm just kids, may people been arguing about that for thousands of years and certainly not solving on one episode of the issue, but I would like to talk. But some common ways that people think about that question and addressed them a long time ago, for about a year of my life. I spent most of my free time reading proofs of God's existence or non existence, not just philosophical proofs, although I did read a lot of those, I read all kinds of stuff
I read books, forums, articles, I read tons of hateful, you two comments the time I called at my spiritual quest. You know there are many philosophers that we talked about on the show where they come to a place in their life, where they question the nature of existence or what they think about things. And they go on some long spiritual transformative journey where they find themselves. I'm pretty sure I compared to John Travolta MID life crisis on the movie, while hogs at some point, but this year that I spent was my wild hogs. When it comes to the question of does exist and what I saw was like most things, the major A people are emphatically on one side or the other one of the main lines of thinking I saw from the atheist side of things, was that they were proving. God didn't exist or at least making fun of the eye the other gone existing based on a very limited view of what God is these people, born into a world where my
atheism rules the day when it comes to religion. People are given a code of ethics to follow their given forbid. And behaviors and if they don't do the forbidden behaviors there given vip treatment in the afterlife? That's the world their born into that's what God is and the exact see only concept ever been introduced to because they ve never bothered to study it and they just a what conclusion about it and call it a life. You know pathetic fairytale only meant to keep humans in line. God doesn't exist case closed right. Well, it's not that simple, just like when philosophers use words like two and a good and truth, and when they say those words, they mean something very different based on who was saying them at the time, because the individual definitions of them change, the word, God is describing a concept that change is based on who was saying it. I mean how ridiculous would it be to think that when Plato talked about God, he had
same concept in his mind as a modern day christian or do when he lived hundreds of years. Before Jesus even supposedly walk the earth. I feel like some of these people get so caught up in thinking. Look at me. I realize it. Snakes can't actually talk and that a guy didn't actually round up two of each animal. Well, God killed everybody else on the planet. I know that's just a story they get so caught up in that phase. That they quit. They don't look at any deeper. They don't think about the underlying concepts and whether they have merit or not. They don't think about the fact that maybe they just disagree with the medium it's being communicated through just think about something for a second just on the concept of God. Just on this show, we already talked about several definitions of the concept we ve talked about, God being the thing whatever it is, that brought this
as most into existence. Nothing more not interested in things like whether you set a bad word yesterday, not interested in whether cheated on your math test last week to put em. Spent on it the thing that caused the big bang. What is that creative mechanism? Couldn't that be considered? God later philosophers would say stuff like God is the totality of all existence. Think of everything It exists as a single unit, a unit that we and everything else in the universe are just aspects of couldn't that totality be considered God to now. If you didn't think the big Bang needed a cause, you certainly can't think pointless to entertain the possibility that it had one we ve talked about the stoics in their pantheistic view of God, or God is the universe. You know this this thing that's very difficult to describe with words that animates all things that possess life can we call that God we talked about play
kindness and his transcendent one and guess what guys we ve barely even gotten started with the concept of God. In fact, there are people for each and every one of these philosophers that I just talked about that dedicate entire lives to understanding just what they meant by their concept of God. You know how they used ray. Send to determine that something transcendent like that might exist. If you logically keep going well what caused that come into existence? What caused that come into existence? Now, here's the point of all this. That's just what guy It is that's just one very small part of what's laid out in these monotheistic Religions Tex. Just imagine being. Five years old and your parents take you to church for the first time. You know it's your first day, Europe. Excited to get all dressed up and when you get there instead, Hearing this story about the man who built the giant ship and with gods window is back managed a car this seemingly unconquerable task. Just imagine if you started
diving right into Platos Timaeus. Just imagine he started talking about the concept of a transcendent they can serve as a wind. Your back when you try to live a virtuous life, I mean how many Sundays would it take before on Sunday morning, you just started convulsing on the floor of your room like your in paranormal activity. Just so, you don't have to go to church. The philosophical concept of each virtue goes equally as deep as the concept of a god, People go to school for years to understand these things with any kind of depth and, like a very always pointed out, last episode. Can we expect the average person to go through them kind of schooling and to understand the underlying concepts of religion in depth. Make no mistake when philosophers talk about the concept of a God, they're thinking about it in a philosophical way, they have a lot of different definitions for that God. Today we're going to be talking about probably the most famous proof
of God's existence in the history of the world, and it was put forward in the middle ages where were studying, philosophy right now now, as we talked about before monotheistic religions were very powerful, and very in charge during the middle ages? The whole time period is marked by that. And as a result, most of the great thinkers of the time period were members of these monotheistic religions. And most of them used all their excess brain power to make adjustments to either Plato or Aristotle, to make them compatible with their particular brand of monotheism. Some examples of this that we ve seen we seen plot Pinus and his NEO platonists em in Saint Augustine, was heavily influenced by him we ve, seen people like FILA Alexandria, trying to make Plato compatible with the poorer and Judaism playlist. Philosophy really lent itself to being compatible with these new religions for various reasons, one he believed in a creator
He believed in mind and body being separate from each other, which then allows for the possibility of an immortal soul. I mean many things were good about it. But Aristotle was a tougher sell to the church, much harder to make that compatible, we ve seen how the islamic world and beyond work to reconcile Aristotle's philosophy with islamic theology but what was going on in the west during that time? Have you ever heard the phrase Greek EAST Latin West? It refers to this period of time that were in right now, when the roman empire fell, it broke into two parts: the very Greek Byzantine Empire of the EAST and the latin speaking west. Now, philosophy continued in both areas, but the more historically significant thing to talk about is what was happening all throughout Europe at the same time, it's what's known as scholasticism people use scholasticism as a way to categorize the philosophy of the time you have a the name's known as scholastic philosophers, but
ly, scholasticism is just just a method of acquiring knowledge and learning that focuses heavily on dialectical. Reasoning is what Socrates Socrates used the time. It's a style of doing philosophy, that's conversational One or more people have opposing viewpoints about a certain subjects and they argue against you other being sure to use their tools of logic and reason as best they can and hopefully, at the end of, conversation there a little bit closer to the truth for the process, but one of the guys we're talking about today is known as the Father of Scholastic Autism, Saint Ands Home of Canterbury, and it's his argument for the existence of God, which would later become known as the ontological argument. It's the most famous proof of God's existence, and history like I said, but I want to give it to you guys and true dialectical,
passion. I want you guys to have a conversation was Saint Anselm and let him convince you that God existed, but first the most important thing is. We need to understand the way saint and some would have been thinking about things that exist at all, simply put. He would have broken things down into two types things it exist and our human understanding alone and things that exist in reality. So let s think about some examples of these. What are some things, that exists only in our human understanding, but that would be any that exists in our imagination. That does not exist. In reality, there are millions of options. You can take your pick, my little pony Harry Potter Let's say you have an idea for an invention and it exists only in your mind, because you haven't actually created it. Yet these are all things that can be thought of as
only having existence in relation to a human understanding them now, if you had that invention manufactured let's say you finally put penda paper and gone off your parents food and made that invention exists in reality, and it would not only exist in reality. The invention would still exist in your imagination to write well at that point. Do invention falls into the category of most everything we see around us along more a vacuum: cleaner, a Honda Civic with the muffler taken off of it, All of these things exist not only in our imagination. In reality where they ruin the recording of this podcast week after week, but there is another class of things things that exists only in reality and not inhuman understanding, for example, every once in a while, some back packers go deep into the Amazon Rainforest and come across some new species of bird or insect a species that was buried.
So deep in the Amazon Jungle, no human knew that it existed. No human had understanding of it. No human had it in their imagination, but it still existed in reality, despite the fact that a human didn't know about it yet- and there are all kinds of examples of this- are maybe galaxies distant- that we ve never seen before, but they still exist now There may be strange, invisible beings flying all around us all the time, but we can't see them. We don't know that they exist, but they still exist, well that's how Saint Anselm would have been thinking about things that exist and when we look at ants, helm's famous proof of God's existence, we have to be careful well not to let our individual modern biases of what the word God means get in the way I see an home is proving the existence of the concept of God. He says himself quote, I began to
I ask myself whether there might be found a single argument which would require no other forts proved itself alone and alone would suffice to demonstrate that God truly exists and that there is a supreme good requiring nothing else which all other things require for their existence and well being and whatever we believe, regarding the divine being end quote now, focus on what he said. They're all he's looking to do is prove that there is a supreme good. That requires nothing else for its existence, which all other things require for their existence and well being. If that's the criteria, he could equally be proving the existence of protagonists transcendent, one or good, which didn't have any human characteristics what's important to point out, is that whenever you're proving that God exists or your proving that anything exist for that matter, the most important thing you have to do is define terms you have to understand exactly what it is worth trying to prove. You need to give a definition,
And this is where Saint Anselm's ontological argument begins and ends definition of his definition of what God is he setting up? The idea here quote therefore, Lord. You who give knowledge of the faith, give me as much knowledge as you know, to be fitting for me, because you are as we believe and that which we believe, Indeed. We believe you are something greater than which cannot be thought or is there no such kind of thing for the fool said in his part there is no God, but certainly that same fool. Having heard what I just said, something greater than which cannot be thought understands what he heard and what he understands is in his thought, even if he does not think it exists, for it is one thing for something to exist in a person's thought and quite another for the person to think that thing exists
quote so if you were having a conversation with St Anne's helm- and you are one of those people who know for a fact that God doesn't exist, he would start by setting a trap for you. He would say. Okay, I hear what you're saying God doesn't exist all right. Let's just talk about what we religious people. Think of as God. Would you agree that if God existed, remember we're only talking hypothetically here? If God existed, he would the greatest thing you could ever imagine if this thing existed, you as a mere human could never imagined something greater than him right now. The seems perfectly region well, I think. Ninety nine point nine percent of people would answer yes here he's not saying that that thing exists yet he's just a final. What it is worth trying to prove the existence of any does so describing it as that, then, which nothing greater can be thought now.
Fanastic atheists that claims to know that God doesn't exist. You're quick to agree to this, because you see him. as just shining a light on this delusional concept. He believes in, but wait it's a trap. He quickly makes that person feel a little bit stupid with this quote here quote. Thus, even the fool is compelled to grant that something greater than which cannot be thought exists and thought, because he understands what he hears and whatever is understood, exists in thought, and certainly that greater than which cannot be understood cannot exist only in thought for if it exists only in thought it could also be thought of as a this thing in reality as well, which is greater if they're, for that than which greater cannot be found existing thought alone, then that than which greater nothing can be. Thought turns out to be that than which something greater actually can be thought, but that is obviously impossible there for something then, which greater cannot be sawed undoubtedly exist.
In both thought and reality, end quote not something he does a lot in his writing. He writes in these crazy tongue twisters, and nobody can understand It's seriously like something RON Burgundy would read before he goes out onto the air, but good thing. You got me to turn it back into English for you. What he's saying is this by acknowledging that God is the greatest thing you could ever imagine you are again acknowledging that God exists in your imagination. Right now again, most atheists wouldn't have a problem with that they would say he only exists in my imagination. The problem I have is saying that he exists in reality and remember, as we talked about before, there is a difference to saint between things between things, exist only in human understanding and things that exists in reality will then Anselm would say. Well, certainly it's wonderful to be able to imagine things mean you could imagine that new invention of yours
made manufactured and on store shelves, but it's much greater when that invention exists in reality, when it's actually on store shells right most people would say. Yes, here Things that exist in reality are a little bit better that same thing only existing in a daydream of ours the reason. Why is because they not only have existence in our human understanding, but they also have existence in reality, whatever small benefit that might be, it still might be considered a benefit right watch. What Anselm thought then he goes in for the kill. He says Will you agreed that God is the greatest thing you could ever imagine, and you say this God: It only exists in your imagination. Is the greatest thing you can ever imagine, but you and also imagine that that concept of God also exists in reality. It wouldn't that be greater than only existing in your imagination What he's saying is if we define God as the greatest thing,
can ever imagine, then you can, imagine that God exists. So, therefore, according to the definition that you agreed to, he does exist, God exists something funny. I've noticed I've been re reading. All this medieval philosophy is that whenever one of these guys assert something to be absolutely true, like they pre face, what they're saying with obviously orbs, certainly most of the time that's the poorest. The argument that I take issue with the most it some weird psychological thing: it's like they're, trying to convince themselves of it. Now when most people here this argument for the first time, if they're not invested in the Alps, one way or another. I think most people is something like. While that's interesting, it sounds good. But it also sounds kind of weird I think, there's something wrong with it. I just can't really put my finger on what it is right now, For the record, this was my reaction. When I first read it, I was nineteen years old and homeless and on my personal spiritual quest,
And really, I was incredibly open minded to either outcome being true, this argument of say and some, as laid out in chapters two and three of one of his works, and I read chapters two and three probably ten more times, and I thought about it for like a week and I'll have you know, because I am very proud of this myself. I independently arrived at the same conclusion that a guy named Emmanuel caught did centuries after hence home, and he wrote the most famous reputation of the Ontological argument is actually the guy that named the ontological argument. But I'd like that. Went out, I'm nowhere near as good as caught. My thoughts were now where nearest justified as his, and he did it with a much different educational at bringing the mace a score count. One Stephen West Negative one. But what concerns us at the problem with the argument lies in two main areas, both of which are centred around the initial definition of God. God is that then, which nothing greater can be
but but why necessarily is something that exists in reality, greater than something that doesn't exist in reality, that some a lot like a bias inherent in a human that values existing over not existing. The second thing caught said is it ends home is wrong to think of existence as a quality is something for example, you can't think of a banana as being yellow thin calorie, dense and existing. The quality of existence is not the same type of thing is the quality of yellow. In fact, caught would say. Existence is not even a quality costs without existence. The banana wouldn't have the ability to be yellow, thin or calorie dense. What if we invented a brand new fixed issues fruit and made existence. Part of the definition of it lets say we believe in a fruit called a Washington, the deaf
of a Washington. Is that it's a small green fruit, that's round and it grows on trees, and that has an outer shell that you have to peel off to get to the fruit and it exists. That's the definition well, based on our definition. If you thought that Washington's don't exist, or you said it you're contradicting yourself, because they buy definition exist, this sort of tacking existence on after the fact is what can set and helm did in his ontological argument. One of the other really popular reputations to it. That's valuable because he was devoutly. Religious himself was by a guy named gun neo who ass she lived at the same time as Anselm. He thought there was a serious problem with the argument itself when he does it, point out that you can use the exact same argument to prove that lots of other things exist that don't actually exist. The example he gives was
Thailand Ghani Low, says that he believes in an island existing somewhere out there. That is greater than ever island. You can imagine this island that then, which nothing greater, can be conceived. Every single thing about this. Island is perfection. We can imagine the perfect amount of trees, the perfect temperature, deep, perfect amount of, say and on the beach. We can imagine this glowing perfect island, but if we defined it an island then which nothing greater, can be conceived. Then Anselm per who's that that island exists based on ontological argument, but then again, as a reputation to that argument. That says that there can't be a perfect amount of trees on the island. There can't be a perfect temperature on the island. There's no perfection when it comes to those traits, but there can be a perfect goodness and justice, and these are the qualities and helm was proving the existence of with his argument to be.
What's the best way for you to figure out what you think about, it is to either sit alone or with friends and just think about it. Does the kind of thing I do all the time and for the record sometimes people? think I'm a little weird for it, but when I'm in a setting setting People are sitting around each other and no one saying anything like in the car or at a dinner or something. What I do is I look around for the person of the group that obviously think Sir very wise, and I asked them what they think about some concept from philosophy or politics. That's highly debated that there isn't a right answer to like Saint answer, ontological argument see it's fun, because I know both sides of the argument going into it and this person, last thing there ever gonna do with say I dont know about anything, so it's bundle, since their answer and either find the
policies in their answer, or you could offer the counter argument and respectful way and just hear what they have to say. I've learned so much about how people arrive at what they think. The truth is just by doing this and I highly recommend it come to think of it. Now that I'm saying it, it sounds a lot like what Socrates Hopefully, it won't get me killed one day now, real quick, there's, also a reading of Ann's helm. That says that, because a quality of a perfect God would be that he exists in all possible realms, not just one, he would be infinite. That fact somehow proves that, if there's even a possibility of him existing, he must exist, but all the same fallacies are present in that argument, they're just in different places, I mean thought I mention it to be fair and balanced. Now, if this argument doesn't convince you that God exists at least let it illustrate that the concept of God is not a narrow one. Dimensional conversation to have
imagine being born four thousand years ago and the civilization of Babylon. If you were living at that I'm in someone stole something from you. You'd be go and buy something similar to Hammurabi's coat justice to you was cutting their hands off. Conversely, if you're born into today's world and someone steal something from you, you have a very different idea of what sort of retribution balances the scales of justice. Just how you can't be born into modern times and allow modern social conventions to tell you what justice is and then pretend understand. Everything there is to know about justice, be can't, did the same thing with the concept of God: either it's not because it's not fair to the. Thinkers of the past the past. It's not fair to yourself to severely limit your understanding of anything. If you experience something once and then pretend like, there's nothing else to know about it. We talked last time about the period of time before Avicenna.
Where people read Aristotle once and declared it was practically worthless, and then people like Alpha I became along and were able to look at it from a different angle, update the examples and find a way to make it compatible with islamic theology. While this still two major monotheistic religions left that could have found a way to make Aristotle compatible with them, Judaism and Christianity. We'll Christianity is done unquestionably best by next week's episode. Saint Thomas Aquinas, it's a huge episode, but first I want to talk about what many consider to be the great jewish thinker and the history of the World Moses monitors the discussion about Moses. My monitors in his philosophy is centred around.
Something we were touching on at the beginning of the show. Should we look at the Bible or in the case of my monitors, the Torah, the rest of the old testament and some other works? Should we take those things literally? Should we look at the stories in the Torah and the way that Moses described this monotheistic all powerful creator, and them to be the perfect account of what God is well. My Monet thought to do. That was ludicrous. The first thing we have to understand is that my monitise was smart. Really, Smart, he was trained, is not only a doctor, but a lawyer to both of em I mean there is no guy in the history of the world at a girl would rather take home to her parents than a guidance, both a doctor and a lawyer not even fair,
and he applied this massive brain of his two philosophy. Have you ever thought about the fact that when the old testament talks about God, they talk about him as though he has human characteristics? You know, God said: let there be light he's speaking like he has vocal cords in electronics they always refer to God, as though he's a he is, though, he has higher levels of testosterone than other gods right. They call him the father as though he actually impregnated something they even use terms like create that have a very human where to them so did the untrained reader. This god sure does seem like something I just made up and didn't think about a very hard when they wrote it down. While my monarchies thought this was a terrible mistake to make. Firstly, even in his times the old testament was written
a long time ago by Moses monitors lived in the eleven hundreds in the old testament was written. Most people believe right around fourteen hundred BC. So if we use those dates, my monitors commenting on a book that was so old. Well, my motto: these was to the old testament If we are to the new testament, that's how long ago it was to him Quantity says that Moses, when he wrote the first five books of the old testament had a giant task in front of him see we have to understand that the people of his I'm period weren't familiar with the idea of a monotheistic personal God Moses. Had enough of a mountain to climb just relaying to people that this single God existed, let alone everything else about it. He had to write it in terms that were understandable to the humans in his day It's funny, because this is really similar to what we were talking about. At the beginning of the show I mean what was this going to do. Do we expect him to go from zero,
who calling God and it in three seconds similar to the way that a church. What tell somebody just getting into things about Plato's, Tamas or abstract concepts like that was Moses supposed to tell the people of his time about this perfect. Infinite entity that was beyond any linguistic explanation. Now my monody says that he couldn't have done that or it never what a cot on. So that's why he wrote the Torah using all this personification. God is not a he. God doesn't have a hand. That he reaches down with he doesn't speak. These are all metaphors that are used for what he actually did that humans can understand easier. In fact, he goes even further than that when people that believe in God picture God in their head, they must think of something right. Do they think of a homo sapiens sitting on a throne with Jesus had his right hand? What is God look like my monarchies doesn't just say that God,
doesn't have any human qualities. He actually says that God doesn't have qualities at all. To have qualities is have a certain amount of plurality in that begs and obvious question one that goes all the way back to zero in his famous paradox of Achilles running halfway to the finish line and then halfway to the finish line and never actually reaching the finish line, because he has to go half way before he can get the whole way. You guys remember that if multiple parts exist in any sense the question what brought those two parts together becomes valid, God cannot actually possess attributes. Because of this to my monarchies, he says quote: there is no oneness at all, except in believing that there is one simple essence in which there is no complexity, but one notion only so that from whatever angle you regard it and from whatever point of view you consider it, you will find that it is one not divided in any way and by any cause into two notions
end quote now, there are obvious similarities between this conception of God and protagonists transcendent one. This is the same thing. In and has said about the DOW it is beyond the unfair category. Position of words, remember the first rule of the one is that you can't say anything about the one: it's not fair to it. The reason why is because, whenever we say anything like justice and God to bring it back, full circle were categorizing them. That is the object of language to convey a specific idea. This is actually
a good thing. It's just the function of language. Language wouldn't work very well at all. If words were like what they are in Hawaii, where one word means twelve different things, but language does run into problems when it tries to categorize something like God, God is infinite to my montes. My monies repeatedly says that God is indefinable or other similar things. What he thinks the way around this is is that he says that it's impossible for us to say what God is. We can only say what God is not one I was randomly walking down the road and there was this mother duck and like seven baby, ducklings all in a line behind her and they were walking across the road, and there were some people trying to drive and a couple of them were getting pretty impatient. They were honking their horns at the ducks and swerving around them. So I went into the road and I tried to hurry the ducks up across the road, and I held my hands up to the next car that was waiting in line. I'm actually not sure why I even held my hand up like I'm directly,
in traffic or something, but after the ducks crossed the person that was waitin rolled down their window, and they said yours oh benevolent, and I was like thank you at least, I think that's what he said to me, so I'm benevolent for helping the ducks, but his calling God benevolent at that point fair to him at all. To put gods benevolence on the same level as mine for help in some docks across the road is completely ridiculous to minorities when he draws from this. Is that anything the old testament says about? God is completely a metaphor to my monitors to think it's. The truth is naive. You can't actually categorize God with work in fact, outside of understanding what it says in the Torah as a metaphorical representation of God to my mom these there's only two other as you can accurately say anything about God. One is what is known as negative theology or a concealed negation. You can't talk about what God is. The only thing you can talk about is what God is
not if you were saying that God is benevolent. That would be wrong because we can use the same word to describe me with the ducks. Instead, we would say that God is not merciless right. That's the only thing we can say we can only say what we know. He is not the only other way you can talk about God? According to my ease, is by talking about what God does and then making inferences yourself afterwards, you can say things like God bless me with a certain quality, but you can't say things like: God is loyal to his children, or things that you would infer from God, blessing you with a certain quality. So I'd like to end the episode today with quote by my monies that stuck with me for years. He said quote when I have a difficult subject before me I find the road narrow and can see. No other way of teaching a well established truth, except by pleasing one, intelligent man and displeasing. Ten thousand fools I prefer to it. Press myself to the one man and take no notice
Whatever of the condemnation of the multitude, I preferred to extricate that intelligent man from his embarrassment and show him the cause of his perplexity so that he may attain perfection and be at peace. End quote hello everyone you can follow me on twitter at I am Stephen West. You can join in the discussion on Facebook, we find me oral dilemmas within the Popular NEWS of the weak and ask questions about it even find that at Facebook, dot, com, slash philosophize, this show if you love philosophize this and want to make sure you never miss in episode. Please consider signing up for email notifications, what it is is whenever new episode is released We send out an email, letting you know that it was released. We let you know what the episodes about and we also send you some additional text, content that we created about whatever philosophical topic. We were talking about that weak, there's, no Spam and about sending you a bunch of emails all the time it's just whenever new episode is released, so if that's something you're in
and you can sign up at philosophize, this dot, Org and as always Thank you for wanting to know more today. Then. You did yesterday
Transcript generated on 2020-09-30.