Same Old Thing

SAME OLD THING

Although the contention being addressed in the following is necessity vs. contingency, and the issue on the AAA is natural vs supernatural/humanism vs theism, with a seasoning of the proper representation of each, and the discussion being presented from a considerably different level of expertise, the manor and nature of argumentation is apparently little different —the passage of, just less than, 300 years also having had little effect.

I started to highlight the points of similarity which I saw, but did not; thinking it better to allow each reader to draw their own parallels and conclusions.



Edwards, Freedom of the Will, Conclusion, 1st paragraph:
Whether the things which have been alleged are liable to any tolerable answer, in the ways of calm, intelligible, and strict reasoning, I must leave others to judge; but I am sensible they are liable to one sort of answer. It is not unlikely, that some, who value themselves on the supposed rational and generous principles of the modern fashionable divinity, will have their indignation and disdain raised at the sight of this discourse, and on perceiving what things are pretended to be approved in it. And if they think it worthy of being read, or of so much notice as to say much about it, they may probably renew the usual exclamations, with additional vehemence an contempt, about the fate of the heathen, Hobbes’s necessity, and making men mere machines; accumulating the terrible epithets of fatal, unfrustrable, inevitable, irresistible, &c., and it may be, with the addition of horrid and blasphemous; and perhaps much skill may be used to set forth things, which have been said, in colours which shall be shocking to the imaginations, and moving to the passions, of those who have either too little capacity, or too much confidence of the opinions they have imbibed, and contempt of the contrary, to try the matter by any serious and circumspect examination.* Or, difficulties may be started and insisted on, which do not belong to the controversy; because let them be more or less real, and hard to be resolved, they are not what are owing to any thing distinguishing of this scheme from that of the Arminians, and would not be removed nor diminished by renouncing the former, and adhering to the latter. Or, some particular things may be picked out, which they may think will sound harshest in the ears of the generality; and these may be glossed and descanted on, with tart and contemptuous word; and from thence, the whole treated with triumph and insult.

*A writer of the present age, whom I have several times had occasion to mention, speaks once and again of those who hold the doctrine of necessity, as scarcely worthy of the name of philosophers. I do not know whether he has respect to any particular notion of necessity, that some may have maintained; and, if so, what doctrine of necessity it is that he means. Whether I am worthy of the name of a philosopher, or not, would be a question little to the present purpose. If any, and ever so many, should deny it, I should not think it worth the while to enter into a dispute on the question: though, at the same time, I might expect some better answer should be given to the arguments brought for the truth of the doctrine I maintain; and I might further reasonably desire, that it might be considered, whether it does not become those who are truly worthy of the name of philosophers, to be sensible that there is a difference between argument and contempt; yea, and a difference between the contemptibleness of the person that argues, and the inconclusiveness of the augments he offers.

Oh great, another post its going to take me 2 or 3 days to figure out
You and Israel are killin' me!

WaltL1 said:

Oh great, another post its going to take me 2 or 3 days to figure out
You and Israel are killin' me!

Click to expand...

WaltL1 said:

Oh great, another post its going to take me 2 or 3 days to figure out
You and Israel are killin' me!

Click to expand...

I am told that the one essential exercise for older people is stretching.
Now if I could just get to the physical part.

hummerpoo said:

I am told that the one essential exercise for older people is stretching.
Now if I could just get to the physical part.

Click to expand...

Thank you brother.

Am I wrong to say, in seeking to understand both what Edwards has written, and perhaps make a sense of your posting it to a necessity... that in a certain matter frequently mentioned to augment an argument, and by which it appears a particular undercut is made of final contradiction (no further exploration or considerations necessary or even utterable) is contained in:
confirmation bias?

I know this is not the full sum of what is written, and may not even seem part nor parcel, but it has led me there.

The man who would use confirmation bias as ultimate refutation in any argument, may not see at all he is just as subject to it as the one at which he may level the accusation.

Essentially nothing is answered by its utterance except by the "giving away" of position of arguer of his own limited understanding.

Israel said:

Am I wrong to say, in seeking to understand both what Edwards has written, and perhaps make a sense of your posting it to a necessity... that in a certain matter frequently mentioned to augment an argument, and by which it appears a particular undercut is made of final contradiction (no further exploration or considerations necessary or even utterable) is contained in:
confirmation bias?

I know this is not the full sum of what is written, and may not even seem part nor parcel, but it has led me there.

The man who would use confirmation bias as ultimate refutation in any argument, may not see at all he is just as subject to it as the one at which he may level the accusation.

Essentially nothing is answered by its utterance except by the "giving away" of position of arguer of his own limited understanding.

Click to expand...

The essence of motivation for the post consists in “the manor and nature of argumentation is apparently little different”, thus the title “Same old thing”. The proposition proposed is that we would be wise to recognize that we are on well trod ground; therefore, to not look for sign, to ignore the tracks we find, or to follow signs that give every indication of being made by one who is himself being led by a faulty map, or one who is wearing blinders, rendering him unable to himself follow clear sign, cannot but lead us to another destination than the one we seek, or worse, wander around interminably.

Edwards first says he may, or may not, be open to sound refutation; and he seems open to such. Then states that he fully expects that, if they even pay attention, he will be subject to all manor of unsound, dogmatic, completely bias, irrelevant attacks, which are meaningless and add nothing. In other words, he admits to possible undiscovered confirmation bias on his part, and anticipates that some will make no effort to discover theirs — particularly Daniel Whitby (*footnote), whose writing he is, primarily, refuting.

Once again, I discover that I could as easily have said, “You are not wrong”.

hummerpoo said:

The essence of motivation for the post consists in “the manor and nature of argumentation is apparently little different”, thus the title “Same old thing”. The proposition proposed is that we would be wise to recognize that we are on well trod ground; therefore, to not look for sign, to ignore the tracks we find, or to follow signs that give every indication of being made by one who is himself being led by a faulty map, or one who is wearing blinders, rendering him unable to himself follow clear sign, cannot but lead us to another destination than the one we seek, or worse, wander around interminable.

Edwards first says he may, or may not, be open to sound refutation; and he seems open to such. Then states that he fully expects that, if they even pay attention, he will be subject to all manor of unsound, dogmatic, completely bias, irrelevant attacks, which are meaningless and add nothing. In other words, he admits to possible undiscovered confirmation bias on his part, and anticipates that some will make no effort to discover theirs — particularly Daniel Whitby (*footnote), whose writing he is, primarily, refuting.

Once again, I discover that I could as easily have said, “You are not wrong”.

Click to expand...

No, I appreciate you saying the more.

I am guessing that Edwards was engaged in a philosophical/theological argument/discussion with some, who, rather than take the time to (as he would consider) necessary to investigate his propositions they fell back to mere rote and ad hominems instead?

I do not know much about Edwards, nor his theological bent. But again I would guess by his collection of what I infer are the "easy" fall backs against his propositions that he stood firmly for the sovereignty of God's will in all, and wasn't the least bit scandalized by the objections thrown against what might be seen in a doctrine of predestination? He knew they must come, and would, through others who were offended at this.

Do I understand this as you might, or am I missing a significant something else here:

and I might further reasonably desire, that it might be considered, whether it does not become those who are truly worthy of the name of philosophers, to be sensible that there is a difference between argument and contempt; yea, and a difference between the contemptibleness of the person that argues, and the inconclusiveness of the augments he offers.

Click to expand...

That he (Edwards) was not disallowing his being found a person of some "contemptibleness", but nevertheless was not making argument to seek to escape such an accusation, but that regardless, he desired his argument evaluated on its own merits, and not simply dismissed by the easier dismissal of himself as being contemptible?

Or is he just saying "if argument is met with nothing more than epithets as to the (could we say?) character of the proposer it is not truly philosophical in nature to do so"?


And yes, I agree that this is all well trod ground as to the nature of things presented in opposition to the gospel. The arguments against, and the reasoning purported to be found there, are nothing new. And I appreciate your words of caution in

therefore, to not look for sign, to ignore the tracks we find, or to follow signs that give every indication of being made by one who is himself being led by a faulty map, or one who is wearing blinders, rendering him unable to himself follow clear sign, cannot but lead us to another destination than the one we seek, or worse, wander around interminable.

Click to expand...

Israel said:

No, I appreciate you saying the more.

I am guessing that Edwards was engaged in a philosophical/theological argument/discussion with some, who, rather than take the time to (as he would consider) necessary to investigate his propositions they fell back to mere rote and ad hominems instead?

Click to expand...

Yes, the discussion was started, though not really started, with the reprinting (the first printing having received little attention), in 1730, of a book by Daniel Whitby titled, I think somewhat humorously, “A discourse concerning I. the true import of the words election and reprobation : and the things signified by them in the Holy Scripture. II. The Extent of Christ's Redemption. III. The Grace of God ; where it is enquired, Whether it be vouchsafed sufficiently to those who improve it not, and irresistibly to those who do improve it ; and whether Men be wholly passive in the Work of their Regeneration? IV. The Liberty of the Will in a State of Trial and Probation. V. the perseverance or defectibility of the saints ; with some Reflections on the State of Heathens, the Providence and Prescience of God” (thankfully, it has become known as “On the Five Points). I gather from the preface to John Gill’s response that, after the reprint, Whitby’s book was, for reasons I cannot discern from the reading, considered, in some circles, the definitive, final, and unanswerable proof of the Arminian view (in many areas more Pelagian to me). I also gather, from later publications, that there had been some back and forth between the publishing of Whitby’s book and the publishing of Edward’s book, from which I, correctly or incorrectly, assume the remark, I paraphrase, “no determinist can be considered a philosopher” to have come.

I do not know much about Edwards, nor his theological bent. But again I would guess by his collection of what I infer are the "easy" fall backs against his propositions that he stood firmly for the sovereignty of God's will in all, and wasn't the least bit scandalized by the objections thrown against what might be seen in a doctrine of predestination? He knew they must come, and would, through others who were offended at this.

Click to expand...

Yes, I believe your characterization is correct.

Do I understand this as you might, or am I missing a significant something else here:

and I might further reasonably desire, that it might be considered, whether it does not become those who are truly worthy of the name of philosophers, to be sensible that there is a difference between argument and contempt; yea, and a difference between the contemptibleness of the person that argues, and the inconclusiveness of the augments he offers.

Click to expand...

That he (Edwards) was not disallowing his being found a person of some "contemptibleness", but nevertheless was not making argument to seek to escape such an accusation, but that regardless, he desired his argument evaluated on its own merits, and not simply dismissed by the easier dismissal of himself as being contemptible?

Or is he just saying "if argument is met with nothing more than epithets as to the (could we say?) character of the proposer it is not truly philosophical in nature to do so"?

Click to expand...

While aware that I can only see from one place at one time, I also tend to the former; and would point to his refusal to respond to personal attack, and, if he were to insinuate that his opponent were underserving of the title “philosopher” he would undermine his contention that neither appellations, nor any of the attacks he describes, contribute to discussion.

I wonder what Edwards would think of the idea that the quality and character of past and contemporaneous works of an author are a factor in determining the worthiness for consideration of a particular work; is it “worth the while”, to use his expression, to engage in researching and considering, much less responding to, work of one who has been shown to be generally unworthy elsewhere.

And yes, I agree that this is all well trod ground as to the nature of things presented in opposition to the gospel. The arguments against, and the reasoning purported to be found there, are nothing new. And I appreciate your words of caution in

therefore, to not look for sign, to ignore the tracks we find, or to follow signs that give every indication of being made by one who is himself being led by a faulty map, or one who is wearing blinders, rendering him unable to himself follow clear sign, cannot but lead us to another destination than the one we seek, or worse, wander around interminable.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yes, if we look, we find that the same sort of mischaracterizations, inaccuracies, and unrelated issue tactics were used long ago as are being used today. And I would point out that they are found on both sides of most issues, at one time or another.

And, thanks to your post, I went back and put a “y” on “interminable”.

Hummerpoo, I refound this this a.m., knowing you have probably seen it, yet how it continues to speak.

Israel said:

Hummerpoo, I refound this this a.m., knowing you have probably seen it, yet how it continues to speak.

Click to expand...

No, I had not found this “Doodle”, but it’s wonderful that you have brought it into this discussion, as it goes back to that which, I recall having once mentioned here, was the genesis of my thinking on the subject of what I refer to as, “same old thing”. I had come to realize that when I have been so arrogant as to think that God had led me to an original understanding, it was not that at all. Having not heard, or read — and could not imagine the possibility that I had heard, or read, and subsequently forgotten — that understanding would lead me to dwell upon it, sometimes for quite a long time, even years. This I would do because, in all previous such experiences there had been new information “discovered” which changed that understanding in some way; or, in other such experiences, new information did nothing but reinforce that “original understanding” to which I felt led. Without fail, in those cases where my understanding was being reinforced, and occasionally when my understanding was being contradicted, by new information, one of those new pieces of information would be the finding of someone else who had the same understanding before me; usually long before me, leading to the thought that all was “in the beginning”. So, when Lewis says “Going back is often the quickest way on”, it is confirming to me: and I would add, “the surest way forward”; back there … we may find either confirmation or correction; if we are looking for either or both.

An example of the experience to which I refer may turn out to be Whitby’s postulate that we (men in this life) are in a condition of “trial and probation”, to which I would respond, if we are in condition which can be described in that sort of terms, “No, we are in a condition of training and preparation”. It’s not a very good example, in that I think the opposing postulates have likely been debated; others have not been so probable, but were found.

hummerpoo said:

No, I had not found this “Doodle”, but it’s wonderful that you have brought it into this discussion, as it goes back to that which, I recall having once mentioned here, was the genesis of my thinking on the subject of what I refer to as, “same old thing”. I had come to realize that when I have been so arrogant as to think that God had led me to an original understanding, it was not that at all. Having not heard, or read — and could not imagine the possibility that I had heard, or read, and subsequently forgotten — that understanding would lead me to dwell upon it, sometimes for quite a long time, even years. This I would do because, in all previous such experiences there had been new information “discovered” which changed that understanding in some way; or, in other such experiences, new information did nothing but reinforce that “original understanding” to which I felt led. Without fail, in those cases where my understanding was being reinforced, and occasionally when my understanding was being contradicted, by new information, one of those new pieces of information would be the finding of someone else who had the same understanding before me; usually long before me, leading to the thought that all was “in the beginning”. So, when Lewis says “Going back is often the quickest way on”, it is confirming to me: and I would add, “the surest way forward”; back there … we may find either confirmation or correction; if we are looking for either or both.

An example of the experience to which I refer may turn out to be Whitby’s postulate that we (men in this life) are in a condition of “trial and probation”, to which I would respond, if we are in condition which can be described in that sort of terms, “No, we are in a condition of training and preparation”. It’s not a very good example, in that I think the opposing postulates have likely been debated; others have not been so probable, but were found.

Click to expand...

Yes. I believe I hear your meaning.