Theo and Logos

Theo and Logos

Characters

Theo – a Theologian

Logos – A Scientific Logician

Narrator – Narrator

Narrator

Knowledge exists in this strange paradoxical stasis, where it is valid and invalid, finite and infinite, sound and unsound.

Our common reasoning is that there are two primary schools of thought that contradict each other radically when used on each other, contradict themselves subtly when analyzed in a certain way, and equally justifiable on their own merits.

Both schools make assumptions based on empirical and or rational evidence, and both seek to use that evidence to answer many of the same questions.

These two stances are the Theological and the Logical.

[Theo and Logos stand on a hill and watch the sunrise]

Logos

Science has shown that the world rotates and that the sun enters and exits our field of vision, creating the sensation of a sunrise

Theo

Perhaps, but I believe that God wills the earth to rotate in that way. You are basing your knowledge on the assumption of continuing causality. If the earth were to suddenly stop rotating, you would not only be wrong, but you would be forced to admit a new truth based on your new found information: the earth does not have to rotate, but it can. This means that your knowledge is completely subjective to circumstance. Similar is the black swan story. If you were to say “All swans are white,” then one day came across an animal that had all the same properties of a swan, but had black feathers, then you would have to rewrite what you originally thought to be an absolute and objective truth.

[Theo and Logos witness as a thunderstorm forms. A man walks up the hill before them when he is suddenly struck by lightning]

Logos

This event is plausible, unfortunate, but logical. It is simply by chance that this man was struck by lightning, although the events leading up to the strike, such as the science of weather, could explain why the events occurred in such a way. Events can occur by chance, but they can also be plausibly explained by circumstance.

Theo

Perhaps, but I believe that God willed for this man to be killed. It is possible that he was an immoral man and did not deserve the life he was given, or he was a righteous man, and his death will hopefully teach a lesson to someone else in the world, such as his family. They may learn the value of life and the value of the sacrifices this man made for them.

Logos

So tell me, this man was struck by lightning. That is unquestionable as he lies charred at our feet. We do not know what kind of a man he was, but we can assume he rests upon one of three degrees of morality: Moral, Immoral, or some type of neutral ground.

Theo

That is correct. Only God knows exactly why it happened and all of the things that it will affect. We, as humans, can theorize many things, such as the direct impact this tragedy may have on his family, but it would be impossible for us to see how this event will affect the world 3,000 years from now. However, God, being an infinite and omniscient being, can know all of these things and more. While our knowledge is unidirectional, (i.e. we only learn what we do from our birth to our death, nothing before or after), God’s Knowledge is all encompassing. He knows everything that has happened before our time, everything that is happening right now, and everything that will ever happen.

Logos

So, if God knows everything that we will ever do, then we as humans have no free will, because God already knows what we’re going to do. If we chose to be devoted to Him, he would know, and if we chose to be rebellious, he would also know.

Theo

That is correct. God has a plan for everyone and knows our every thought and action.

Logos

So, why would God make us if he knows all that’s going to happen?

Theo

Because our God loves human beings, and he finds great joy in our devotion to him.

Logos

But if God loves everyone, then why would there be sinners in the world? Why not just make everyone righteous?

Theo

Because then righteous action has no meaning. If I forced you to buy me a gift, then I wouldn’t feel elated, because you did not perform that act out of any personal desire to see me happy, you did it because I forced you to. Now, if you chose to buy me a gift, then I would feel elated because I know that you could have just as easily chosen to not give me a gift. However, in this current scenario, you did, and it is that positive influx that generates such a wonderful feeling.

Logos

Yes, but that feeling is created by God, correct?

Theo

Yes it is, God created happiness and service.

Logos

God also created the world that those emotions exist in, correct?

Theo

That is true, God made the entire universe.

Logos

Now, could God just as easily made a world where he not buying you a gift brought you pleasure? Couldn’t he just as easily make a world where negative actions produced positive feelings?

Theo

Perhaps, but that universe would be logically contradicting because the world would inevitably destroy itself.

Logos

But isn’t logic created by God? Couldn’t God just as easily rewrite the laws of logic and science? God, being all powerful, could create a world where the slash of a sword miraculously heals a person, and it would make just as much sense in that universe as the same sword slashing off a person’s arm would in our present universe. The logical foundations of our world are entirely dependent on the way that God decided to make it. Is that not true?

Theo

That would all be true.

Logos

So what is the value of positive acts against negative acts?

Theo

Our current world, positive actions yield positive results, and our God receives positive feelings from our positive actions, which are given meaning by the dichotomy of positive and negative acts. Anything else would be logically impossible in our current dimension.

Logos

So why DID God create the world to be the way it is? Wouldn’t our new paradoxical world with the sword be just as valid since both worlds are just as subjective to the will of God? Or is there some other entity above God that assigned Him to our specific world? Are there other dimensions where our paradoxical world does exist and there is another God, let us call him God2, who finds pleasure in people destroying each other?

Theo

It is entirely plausible for there to be other dimensions that exist paradoxical to our own. However, we currently live in our own spatiotemporal world. Under the circumstances, we must believe in the way that world currently works, and abide by the way it works. It functions in the way that God wills it, and we exist within his Will, despite it being entirely subjective to His perspective.

Logos

But how can we prove or disprove the existence of God or God2 and their respective dimensions?

Theo

We can prove and give validity to whatever we want to give validity to. I could write on a piece of paper ‘God2 exists’ and make the claim ‘God2 exists because the paper says so. The paper says so, therefore, God2 exists.’ You could then write down on a new piece of paper ‘God2 does not exist’ and make the same claim. Your claim would have just as much validity because of the foundation you placed it on. Therefore, if you were to say ‘Divinity can only be proven through divine knowledge’ then it could be true that we will never ‘prove’ whether God or God2 exist or not because how are we to say what divine knowledge is? If God2 entered this world and spoke to a me, I could make the claim ‘God2 exists because I saw him and heard him,’ but that would simply be me asserting my claims based on the empirical sensation of interacting with this being and the rational reasoning that I can only interact with something if it exists. However, empirical evidence and rational reasoning are not definitive sources of knowledge if you do not give validity to them. If you do give validity to them, then they are valid, but that is entirely subjective to what you believe in. what you believe in is a choice you personally make.

Logos

So, I can believe in Logic and science and it would be just as valid as you believing in God due to us both putting our respective faith in what we believe to be truth.

Theo

That is correct. We are both equally correct, albeit paradoxical.

The Fundamentals of Marriage

Thomas Agrusti

Prof. Barbara Andrew

Philosophy of Sex & Love

March 29, 2013

The Fundamentals of Marriage

            Allow me to begin with a cliché: “I, ____, take you, ____, to be my lawfully wedded(husband/wife), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.” These words have echoed through the halls of many churches, legal halls, and casino chapels, but many of us have forgotten the true meaning that these words hold. So many people have hurtled toward marriage like this holy end goal, while others gripe about the horrors that marriage create. I’d like to use this essay in order to lay the ground rules of what marriage is, what it takes to create a fulfilling marriage, and what marriage does not have to include.

            Throughout the course of this essay, I will make reference to several authors, citing words spoken in their articles, as provided in the book Philosophy of Sex & Love: A Reader by Robert Trevas, Arthur Zucker, and Donald Borchert. These authors include Immanuel Kant, and his “Lecture on Ethics” and “Philosophy of Law” (p. 125-129); Richard Taylor and the excerpt from his book Having Love Affairs (p.138-139); Lawrence Casler and his “Permissive Matrimony: Proposals for the Future”; and finally, Richard Wasserstrom and his article “Is Adultery Immoral”.

            The four fundamentals that we will be focusing on are as follows: first, we will be discussing love and fidelity in all of its forms; next, we will be looking at the reciprocal nature that marriage must have in helping and humanizing all those involved; finally we will look at communication & compromise (C&C), which are two elements necessary to sustain marriage. Afterwards, we will explore common misconceptions about marriage.

            Quintessential to marriage is love, which is we shall define as “an affection, trust, and service between two or more persons in a physical, mental, and possibly spiritual manner.” The physical aspect would be the desires of each person(s) in regards to sex and physical health. The mental aspect would incorporate any psychological functions, such as emotional and social health. Dependent on the persons involved, the group may want to incorporate a spiritual aspect, which would involve adherence to religious or spiritual properties they may practice. These aspects of love change in their absolute meaning based on the agreements made between those involved. True fidelity is defining these aspects between all those involved, and adhering to them. Once all persons are comfortable with their definitions and parameters, all of those involved are able to coexist within the relationship and thrive as they seek best. This comes into play as well when we talk about C&C.

            Kant sets up the principle that all humans should treat humans as human, and any degradation of a person’s humanity is morally wrong. In the case of sex and love, a person acts in an immoral way when they objectify another person as a means to an end, the end being sexual pleasure. Sex, as Kant proclaims, is only justified when the persons involved in the act of sex love each other, further confirming and committing to that love through marriage. In this way, the persons involved treat each other as humans, seeking to care for the other outside of sex, and using the act of sex in order to gratify the other person(s), which in turns gratifies the self. This mutual exchange of sexual service, and furthermore loving service, creates a reciprocal relationship where all those involved serve and treat each other in a moral, human manner.

            Once these fundamentals are in place, a marriage can be established. After a marriage is set up, all those involved need to use proper communication and compromise. Communication encompasses the expressing of one’s thoughts and desires to the group in an unbiased manner. This allows all those involved to have a clear scope of that each person is looking for in the relationship. If there is a conflict at any point in time, be it caused by miscommunication, unfortunate circumstances, or otherwise, then problem solving, or compromise, is necessary. Through compromise, all those involved in the relationship can choose what they are comfortable in changing or sacrificing in order to promote harmony within the marriage. Most marriages fail because of an inability or a failure to communicate and/or compromise. By practicing harmonious communication and compromise, a marriage can grow, thrive, and succeed.

            Now that we have the fundamentals of what a marriage is, we shall discuss many of the misconceptions of marriage. One of the first misconceptions is that marriage is exclusive, meant only to be between two people. This does not have to be true, but it can be preferred. Intrinsically, people have different ideas and practices that they may or may not be comfortable with. For example, a heterosexual man can feel uncomfortable being physically intimate with another man. This is not because there is anything immoral about practicing homosexuality, but because this is something that the first man is not personally comfortable with. With this in mind, there are persons who enjoy a sexually active lifestyle, enjoying the company of multiple partners. Kant’s principle requires love in order to justify sexual behavior, but it is the love that is quintessential justify sexual behavior, and marriage affirms that love through commitment. However, it is possible for a person to love more than one person. Wasserstrom gives the example of a parent who has four children. The parent loves each of his or her children equally, and has no preference of one over the other, and never withdraws love from one to attend to another (p. 174). In this same way, Man A, Man B, and Woman A, who are all bisexual, can love one another and maintain a reciprocal relationship. As long as all of them practiced the fundamentals of marriage, they would have a moral relationship.

            Casler furthers this idea in his article on permissive marriage. Permissive marriage is a compromised form of marriage, allowing all persons involved in the relationship to summarize what they want from the marriage and pursue that in a harmonious, legal, and moral way. Permissive marriage would allow persons involved in a marriage to maintain a sexually active lifestyle with persons other than they spouse, would allow group marriages, and any combination of marriage and living that the persons involved could desire. This also breaks one of the common misconceptions that sex and love in marriage must be exclusive those involved in the marriage. Through proper communication, those involved in the marriage can agree on what types of sexual practices everyone is comfortable. These practices may seem unconventional, but they are not intrinsically immoral. It is when deception and promise breaking is involved that the act becomes immoral. This is the definition of true infidelity: the breaking of predetermined promises.

            This also flows into one of the final misconceptions about marriage: Infidelity and adultery are strictly sexual acts. In Taylor’s book, he describes a situation where there is an emotional expression of infidelity. In this example, a husband is emotionally cold to his wife, and his wife seeks refuge in another man. Marriage is meant to be reciprocal in every aspect, and when a person does not provide for and support their spouse(s), they are breaking the initial promise(s) that their marriage represents. In this way, infidelity can be expressed physically, mentally, and even spiritually. It is up to those involved in the relationship to provide and care for one another in all of these aspects. If they cannot, then they need to communicate that inability and compromise. For example, let’s say a husband and wife are married and the wife’s father passes away. The husband, who has never lost a loved one, does not know how to help his wife through the grievous time. The wife’s best friend, however, has also lost her father. The husband and wife can communicate and compromise to see the wife consoled by her best friend in order to be helped through this harsh time in a way that the husband could not. This does not take away from the husband’s role or person, but instead provides a way for the marriage to overcome this obstacle and encourage that harmonious state that marriage is meant to have.

            Marriage is not a ball and chain. It is not the end of fun, or sex, or adventure. It is exactly the opposite of all of those things. Marriage creates a loving relationship between people who seek to serve one another. Marriage creates a reciprocal relationship where those involved can experiment and try things that they may otherwise never have the security to try. A great marriage can survive the most brutal obstacles. With this in mind, return to our original cliché, and notice the true meaning of these famous words.