[lit-ideas] Credo quia absurdum est
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 10:09:51 -0500 (EST)
R. Paul:
>he didn't just say that.
This is what I like to refer as "Loeb is all you need"
Loeb Classical Library 250
TERTULLIAN
"Apology"
"De Spectaculis"
Translated by T. R. Glover and Gerald H. Rendall
The "Credo quia absurdum est" fits as a counterexample to the online review
of Craig's book, "Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction", to wit:
"What would happen if you decided not to believe anything without having
a good reason for it?"
P. Enns mentions all political bias as along the same vein.
Tertullian was of course referring to the Hebraic-Christian tradition, as
opposed to what philosophers call the "Graeco-Roman tradition".
Note that there are a few things in the Graeco-Roman tradition that one may
count as 'absurd', too, e.g. that
Tereus, for example, is said to have snatched up an axe and pursued Procne
with the intent kill her.
In desperation, Procne prayed to the gods to be turned into a bird and
escape Tereus' rage and vengeance.
The gods transformed Procne into a swallow.
-----
Plato distinguished Homer -- a poet, who liked these 'mythoi' -- and the
philosophers proper (starting with Thales, who did not.
Yet, Plato used somewhat absurd myths only as elucidatory tools in his
writings.
What Tertullian is referring to is a claim, "p", which, on the face of it,
sounds _absurd_ -- where the etymology is of interest, and how this very
fact constitutes, in Craig's words, a 'good reason' to believe "p".
I agree with P. Enns that W. O.'s move -- "you cannot be believing that p
if you can't show, alla Habermas's virtuous epistemology -- that you have a
good reason for it".
With Grice I would not use 'good reason' (his example: "the fact that the
suspensions were made of cellophane was a reason why the bridge collapsed"
sounds ok, but adding 'good' there is otiose and terribly bad grammar) but
'adequate evidence', as in the 'maxim': "Do not say (and thus believe) what
you lack adequate evidence for", but the Grice is mocking Gettier!
Cheers,
Speranza
In a message dated 12/1/2013 6:24:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx writes:
Please enlighten. What else did he say?
John
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
What would count as being a rational person with no reason to believe?
All sorts of otherwise sensible seeming folk believe as a matter of
religious faith, while others deny that they have any reason to believe.
Who was it who wrote something along the lines of, ''I believe because
it is absurd''?
Credo quia absurdum. Tertullian. But he didn't just say that.
Robert Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.wordworks.jp/
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
