tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post8528261606054919697..comments2024-03-28T17:08:15.784-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Ontological Uncertainty and TheologyLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-23222931095293834062014-05-16T05:07:29.056-07:002014-05-16T05:07:29.056-07:00This also contradicts LK's assertion that onto...This also contradicts LK's assertion that ontological uncertainty is dependent on the free will of humans.<br /><br /><i>There is real ontological uncertainty, and the future is indeterminate, not only because it does not yet exist, but also <b>because</b> human beings have free will and their choices are open.</i><br /><br />So theoretically one could construct a reality in which humans have no free will but there is ontological uncertainty at a subhuman level. <br /><br />This would make sense to me, to the extent that a statement about the nature of things in general would no longer be contingent upon the appearence of homo sapiens on planet earth.Olivernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-47392839459912310122014-05-16T04:03:41.073-07:002014-05-16T04:03:41.073-07:00See my below comment on free will. But no, in this...See my below comment on free will. But no, in this case the uncertainty is still ontological for Man because he can never aspire to be God.<br /><br />Your argument is akin to saying that in theory I could know how it feels to be a flower it is just a case of epistemological limitations. I would reply: no, it is a case of ontological limitation as I can never aspire to be a flower.Philip Pilkingtonhttp://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-89028365570674668632014-05-16T04:01:03.125-07:002014-05-16T04:01:03.125-07:00I should also say something on free will. You'...I should also say something on free will. You're correct that if you assume this then God is not omniscient and cannot know the future. Just to be clear: this is a logically distinct question than that of ontological versus epistemological uncertainty. But the two are connected.<br /><br />In general those that championed free will, like Erasmus and Berkeley, basically said that God had given the world certain regularities and had made Man free. You can interpret this in two ways. The first is that the discoverable regularities can be known by Man if he looks hard enough. The second is that they are only known by God and Man can only grasp them in a very provisional manner.Philip Pilkingtonhttp://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-87721836230657633252014-05-16T03:59:36.086-07:002014-05-16T03:59:36.086-07:00"Once you assume that there is an ontological...<i>"Once you assume that there is an ontological difference between God and Man then Man is said to be subject to ontological uncertainty whereas God is not"</i><br /><br />But surely this view does recognise that there <i>is</i> an ontological difference between god and man: god is supposed to be eternal, all powerful and omniscient, whereas man clearly is none of these things.<br /><br />But the point is: if god could really know with certainty precisely what will happen in the future, then that entails people's actions are already predetermined: what happens, necessarily happens. Free will evaporates.<br /><br />Therefore the uncertainty we face really is only epistemological: a problem of insufficient knowledge. <br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-54288791048830537512014-05-16T03:47:15.968-07:002014-05-16T03:47:15.968-07:00I don't think that this is correct. You write:...I don't think that this is correct. You write:<br /><br />"So any being x like god that is truly omniscient in this sense must therefore be able to know the future perfectly. If that were true, then in fact our universe has no true “ontological uncertainty” at all. There is only “epistemological uncertainty,” because human beings are not omniscient."<br /><br />You're making a slip here. Once you assume that there is an ontological difference between God and Man then Man is said to be subject to ontological uncertainty whereas God is not (He is omniscient etc.).<br /><br />This is what most theologians that have dealt with this problem correctly have said. The two most obvious I can think of off the top of my head would be Johannes Scotus Eriugena (another Irishman!) and Johann Georg Hamann.<br /><br />This was a central point in Hamann's critique of Enlightenment, by the way. Hamann said that man’s greatest sin was his desire to become God and that it was this sin that would lead to man’s self-destruction. He was, of course, referring to this desire to overcome the ontological difference between Man and God and Hamann saw this as being sacrilegious and dangerous. Of course, you can make the same point without having recourse to theological language. But I'm glad you see that these issues are actually theological ones and are more explicitly stated in theology than in philosophy.Philip Pilkingtonhttp://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-60637715948625471122014-05-15T23:53:15.459-07:002014-05-15T23:53:15.459-07:00>>In other words, this requires that human b...>>In other words, this requires that human beings have free will and genuine choice.<br /><br />Ontological uncertainty does imply that determinism is false, however its does not imply that humans has free will. The (possible) fact that human behaviour might be affected by, for instance, quantum fluctuations does mean people have "free will".Mordanicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02555552511541697014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-16804575463051889382014-05-15T10:30:02.391-07:002014-05-15T10:30:02.391-07:00If quantum mechanics is correct then there is onto...If quantum mechanics is correct then there is ontological uncertainty involved in the motions of elementary particles. Scientists have tried to find ways around this for most of a century now, and the verdict is that the uncertainty principal demonstrates ontological uncertainty, not epistemological.<br /><br />To the extent that we know the momentum of an elementary particle we are uncertain of it's position, and this is not merely a failure of our measurement techniques but, according to quantum theory an inherent or ontological uncertainty. If ontological uncertainty is impossible, quantum theory is invalidated.<br />Ed Seedhousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05193005256681783842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-39454464153127659112014-05-15T10:21:58.427-07:002014-05-15T10:21:58.427-07:00Many points you make about religion were made by M...Many points you make about religion were made by Mises 65 years ago:<br /><br />"theologians ... conceived an absolute and perfect being, unchangeable, omnipotent, and omniscient, and yet planning and acting, aiming at ends and employing means for the attainment of these ends. But action can only be imputed to a discontented being ... An acting being is discontented and therefore not almighty.... For an almighty being there is no pressure to choose ... Omnipotence would mean the power to achieve everything ... But this is incompatible with the very concept of action. For an almighty being the categories of ends and means do not exist.... Omniscience presupposes that all future happenings are already unalterably determined" (Human Action, pp. 69-70). Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com