The Paradox of Tolerance for the Faithful

A devout believer of a specific religion, given the strength of her devotion, is likely to hold that the doctrines of her religion are the monolithic truth, and that her gods are the true gods. Since there are many religions, they cannot all be true, if her religion is the true one. Therefore, she must conclude that the other religions must be false. There hence exists a tension between tolerance, pluralism and truth, with religious ideologies as a potential source of intolerance.

Johan De Tavernier examines this tension at the institutional, cultural and theological levels, explaining how our understanding of tolerance has evolved and can be justified. However, there is a paradox between a staunch religious belief and a tolerance for the belief of others. This paradox can be resolved if we understand that in tolerance, justice and love for others is more important than judging whose version of truth is right. I propose some practical measures that believers can take in the face of the challenge from tolerance, in line with De Tavernier’s belief that believers should avoid fanaticism, and instead adopt a quiet conviction. 

Types of Reasoning According to Averroes

People have different levels of ability, according to Averroes (d. 1198). They belong broadly to the demonstrative class, the dialectical class and the rhetorical class. These 3 classes correspond to the 3 types of reasoning, demonstrative, dialectical and rhetorical. 

 

 

 

Ockham’s Connectedness of Virtues

William of Ockham (d. 1347) posits that moral virtue is an ethically-charged habit caused by moral acts that inclines or disposes us to perform similar acts. It is a feedback loop of acts leading to habits leading to further acts which then further reinforces the habit. This is contrary to the Independence of Act-Opportunity Principle where even if we have the opportunity to have one virtue, say temperance, it does not mean we will have the opportunity for other virtues such as justice. The act-opportunities are independent of one another. Since habits come from doing an act, if we never have the chance to act justly, then according to this principle, we will not be able to develop the virtue of justice, since no opportunities to act justly will mean no acts of justice. No acts of justice mean we do not form the habit of being just, leading to not acquiring the virtue of being just.

How We Learn, According to Augustine

According to Augustine (d. 430), we do not learn about the things themselves through words, since if we did not already know what words like green, room and cabinet mean, the word will not teach it to us. However, words do have a function – they prompt us by directing our attention to “remind us to look for things.” (The Teacher, p. 137, l. 170) We have to be prompted, to compare what we have been told, to consult our “inner light” (p. 140, l. 31), that is, God, to make the judgement if what is told is true. 

Leibniz Explains How to Become Happy

Human beings are never at rest, not even in sleep, according to Gottfried Leibniz. We are constantly bombarded by small perceptions, most of which we are unaware of, which incline us to certain actions. Because our nature wants to be more at ease, these small perceptions give rise to small impulses to overcome small obstacles. This overcoming gives us small joys, which can translate into a larger happiness if we use our experience and our reason to guide us in deciding which small impulses to allow and which to forbid.

Leibniz’s Solution to the Mind-Body Problem

The aim of philosophy, according to Leibniz, is to explain how God does things, “how things are brought about by the Divine Wisdom in conformity with the particular concept of the subject.”[1] In his Discourse on Metaphysics, he already establishes that each substance’s nature already contains all the predicates[2] and is like a “mirror” of all that is in the universe.[3] Leibniz explicitly assumes that God is the creator of all things and the universe – He is the “architect of the machine of the universe,”[4] and being omniscient, knows all the predicates contained in each thing including the future, which is hence predetermined.

Image by John Hain from Pixabay

Each substance is acting in its own “sphere”[5] but yet there seems to be an “appearance”[6] of communication between things. For instance, when ball A hits ball B on a billiard table, it seems to cause ball B to move, even though based on Leibniz’s metaphysics, both balls are independent, each doing what it does because it is already predetermined in its nature rather than because of a causal interaction with each other. Leibniz attempts to explain how this is possible in his article, A New System of the Nature and the Communication of Substances. He then builds on this theory to explain the mind-body problem, or how can an immaterial soul and a material body of a person interact.

Leibniz’s Solution to the Problem of Evil

Leibniz believes that God is omniscient. An omniscient god would know everything about his creations including the future, which is hence predetermined. Leibniz then has to explain how evil, which is seen everywhere in the world, is possible under such a perfect God.