Skip to main content

G. E. Moore, absolute isolation, value

G. E. Moore asked us to do a thought experiment in order to determine whether things have an absolute value apart from their being perceived.  We are asked to imagine that we are a god who can choose between creating two worlds, one in which beauty can be found even though no perceivers inhabit it (e.g., a world with the Grand Canyon or its like), and another in which beauty is entirely lacking (e.g., New Jersey).  GEM believes a reasonable being would prefer to create the beautiful world --even though no one will ever perceive it, and he takes this as evidence that some things have value even apart from our valuing them. (This based on Professor Grimm's lecture #13 from A Question of Value)

But isn't the point of this thought experiment rather the fact that we value the very existence of some things apart from our perceiving them?  Maybe I'm not really disagreeing with Moore here.  But his thought experiment seems to point to a contemplative dimension in human nature, and to indicate that this dimension is god-like, and in that way analogous to God's creative love for the world (q.v., "...and He saw that it was good") and especially for the world's rational inhabitants.

Another thought: GEM's thought experiment can help us understand Aquinas's claim that God loves us (and all creatures) in loving Himself.  For while in the aforementioned demigod position, we actually do behold the world in the sense that we have it in mind.  And inasmuch as it exists, it exists for us inasmuch as we delight in the very fact that it is.  It is because we love ourselves that we love to "behold" this world, and it is because of the latter that we will that it exist.

Something analogous is the case with God.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dembski's "specified compexity" semiotics and teleology (both ad intra and ad extra)

Integral to Dembski's idea of specified complexity (SC) is the notion that something extrinsic to evolution is the source of the specification in how it develops. He compares SC to the message sent by space aliens in the movie "Contact." In that movie, earthbound scientists determine that radio waves originating in from somewhere in our galaxy are actually a signal being sent by space aliens. The scientists determine that these waves are a signal is the fact that they indicate prime numbers in a way that a random occurrence would not. What is interesting to me is the fact that Dembski relies upon an analogy with a sign rather than a machine. Like a machine, signs are produced by an intelligent being for the sake of something beyond themselves. Machines, if you will, have a meaning. Signs, if you will, produce knowledge. But the meaning/knowledge is in both cases something other than the machine/sign itself. Both signs and machines are purposeful or teleological...
Post a Comment
Read more

particular/universal event/rule

While listening to a recorded lecture on Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism, it occurred to me that every rule is in a way, a fact about the world. Think about baseball: from the p.o.v. of an individual player, a baseball rule is not a thing but a guide for acting and interpreting the actions of others.  But this rule, like the action it guides, is part of a concrete individual --i.e., part of an institution that has come into existence at a particular place and time, has endured and  may eventually go out of existence.  The baseball rule, as a feature of that individual, is likewise individual.  The term "baseball rule," on the one hand, links us to a unique cultural event; it can, on the other hand, name a certain type of being.  In this way, it transgresses the boundary between proper and common noun. If there were no such overlap, then we might be tempted to divide our ontology between a bunch of facts "out there" and a bunch of common nouns "in here....
Post a Comment
Read more

continuing the discussion with Tim in a new post

Hi Tim, I am posting my reply here, because the great blogmeister won't let me put it all in a comment. Me thinks I get your point: is it that we can name and chimps can't, so therefore we are of greater value than chimps? Naming is something above and beyond what a chimp can do, right? In other words, you are illustrating the point I am making (if I catch your drift). My argument is only a sketch, but I think adding the ability to name names, as it were, is still not enough to make the argument seem cogent. For one can still ask why we prefer being able to name over other skills had by animals but not by humans. The objector would demand a more convincing reason. The answer I have in mind is, to put it briefly, that there is something infinite about human beings in comparison with the subhuman. That "something" has to do with our ability to think of the meaning of the cosmos. Whereas one might say"He's got the whole world in His han...
2 comments
Read more