MIDTERM

STUDENT INFORMATION:

1. NAME: Benedectus Juwono

2. USERNAME: einztein_o07

3. EMAIL ADDRESS: einztein__o07@juno.com

4. Offer number of posts completed and "exact dates" for each one.
have completed a total of 21 posts, listed chronologically:
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 03:42:28
Subject: post 1: on happiness
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 04:26:59
Subject: discussion, rather? -- please read
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 14:52:07
Subject: post 2: epicurus vs epictetus
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 15:33:02
Subject: Re: discussion, rather? -- please read
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 21:19:40 
Subject: Re: Very Important!!
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 03:35:10
Subject: Re: post 1: on happiness
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 00:34:05
Subject: post 3: existentialism
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 16:45:53
Subject: post 4: augustine vs aquinas
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 23:30:18
Subject: post 5: spinoza
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:38:05
Subject: field trip: museum of tolerance visit
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:02:01
Subject: Re: Question About my Blogger Site
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:32:34
Subject: Re: Just wondering
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 21:07:44
Subject: Re: So...house everyone's "Saturday"  nite????
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:47:50
Subject: Re: [ethicssummer04] Re: I don't think I can handle
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 02:04:44
Subject: on 300 words/essay
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 03:30:27
Subject: POST 6: HUME VS KANT AND MY MORAL SYSTEM
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 03:33:29
Subject: Re: [ethicssummer04] Re: on 300 words/essay
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 04:03:12
Subject: post 7: marx vs hobbes vs mill
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 04:03:28
Subject: post 8: nietzsche
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 05:57:49
Subject: post 9: nietzsche passages
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 06:00:02
Subject: Re: einztein_o07 
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 08:16:54
Subject: Re: einztein_o07

 
5. Did you complete the first field trip report? YES When? july 11th

6. What reading/chapters did you complete thus far in the course? be specific. Is there material/chapters that you did not read? be specific. read assigned chapter from the great traditions (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 22), the internet article on paine, and the entire nietzsche's part of the handout.

7. Did you complete any extra credit so far? be specific. NO. with the amount of readings from this class and philosophy 5, i have no time to do the extra credit questions.

********************************************

ANSWERS TO MIDTERM (also available in individual pages, link on the side under MIDTERM section):

1. This first question is a very important one: the topic is Nietzsche. Offer a detailed description of Nietzsche's ethical views. Since we spent a little more time on this philospher I will weigh it a bit more than the other questions. When giving his overall ethical stance make sure that you explain what is his opposition to Christian morality. What does he mean by "transvaluation of values?" Why does he love Jesus but hate Paul (this last part is found specifically in the Nietzcshe packet)? Why does Christian morality offend him? What does he envision for the height of humanity? etc... Now you may not agree with Nietzsche but my concern here is whether you understood his ideas. Try to "objectively" describe his views. (Utilize both the material in Great Traditions and the reading in the Nietzsche packet).

simply put, the doctrine of nietzsche is that of a harsh, aggresive doctrine. he does not ---sorry--- give a damn on christianity doctrine and outright claims it to be wrong. for nietzsche, who regards highly the theory of evolution, what human beings have to strive for is the "will to power." nietzsche claims that human beings should dominate and be a master of their environment. for nietzsche, evolution means becoming a person who can surpass humanity and master nature. nietzsche's conception of good and evil relates to nature; whatever conforms to nature is good, and whatever contrary is bad, but nietzsche's nature is that of darwin's definition: the survival of the fittest, and nietzsche seems to be taking it literally. he thinks that in nature only the strongest can survive and therefore everyone must strive to be stronger.

now, nietzsche is not a big fan of the christian doctrine; in fact, he condemns it to death. nietzsche claims that christianity reverses the true values of human beings. he finds the doctrine of christianity undermining nature, for christianity claims that one must love one's enemy while nature claims for one to hate one's enemies. nietzsche thinks these values that christianity maintain should only be true for the old jewish community, and the existence of christianity these days have been destructive to nature, since he claims that christianity preserves what supposed to be eliminated in nature.

nietzsche is, however, a fan of jesus. not because of the theological concepts that then becomes christianity, but because of his way of living. nietzsche finds that what should be taken from jesus is not the doctrine of christianity, but the way of life that jesus lead. nietzsche claims that everyone should live the way jesus lives. now, paul is the one that nietzsche seems to hate with passion. although both jesus and paul are spreading the doctrine of christianity, nietzsche thinks paul is using christianity to gain power, to have influence on people, which is exactly nietzsche's "will to power." paul only talks about faith, believing in a higher being and mentions nothing about the way jesus lives. nietzsche cannot accept the fact that paul finds things to teach the society about in jesus' DEATH and not in jesus' EXISTENCE.

2. Explain the ethical system of Epictetus and then of Spinoza. Next compare and contrast their ethical theories. Offer specifics detailing how they are similar and how they are different. (I recommend writing this in three sections: Epictetus; Spinoza; Comparision.)

the main idea of epictetus' ethical theory is that of rationality and discipline. he claims that the reason for unhappiness is the inability of human beings to let things go. epictetus is a believer of god, and his believe of divine supremacy influences his ethical theory, as well as his practice of stoicism. according to epictetus, since god is a divine being, all powerful and benevolent, all events that occur in this world are essentially good; this is what epictetus argues that people do not understand. if people can understand that all events are essentially good, then there will be no unhappiness. epictetus claims that human beings have to realize that there are two categories of things in this world: one is things that human beings have control over, and two is things the human beings have NO control over; events and occurence are examples of the latter. emotions and attitudes are, however, considered the former. epictetus says that since emotions and attitudes are things that are within one's control, one should learn to discipline oneself by using rationality. ultimately, human beings will be able to obtain true happiness if they can have indifferent attitudes toward good and bad fortunes, because ability to have such attitude indicates one's complete understanding that events are outside one's power and there is nothing one can do to prevent the bad ones from happening or to make the good ones happen. in epictetus' ethical theory, the key to happiness is practicing self-restraint.

spinoza is also a believer of god, only in a different way: spinoza's god is nature. the reason why spinoza sees god in nature is probably because in nature everything is good and perfect. it's like seeing sunset from yosemite standing next to a waterfall; it will be hard for one not to admit the outstanding beauty that nature possess. spinoza's ethical theory is influenced by this god, nature. the main idea is that he believes that human beings strive for self-preservation and self-perfection. therefore, one's actions will always be directed toward the goals to preserve oneself and move oneself closer to perfection. spinoza believes that rationality is essential for one to fulfill these goals; without rationality, one will not be preserved, nor will one get any closer to happiness. the striving to reach these goals, spinoza claims, will lead one to happiness, for the process to reach perfection involves virtue and in virtue there is happiness. spinoza highly regards the concept of rationality, for he believes that the concept of free will does not mean that one is free to do anything one wants, but free to be able to REASON one's actions. again, in rationality, one also finds happiness that brings one closer to perfection and preservation.

the ethical theory of spinoza and epictetus are quite alike. both believe in the existence of god, and both highly incorporate rationality into their ethical theory. basically the basis of their ethical theories are alike, it's the implementation of the basis to the theory itself that distinguishes these two philosophers. spinoza's god is nature, and in that spinoza sees perfection, which then leads him to conclude that people strive for perfection because god ---nature--- is perfect. epictetus's god is this omnibenevolent, omnipotent divine being, and in that epictetus sees good; this leads him to conclude that good or bad fortunes are essentially good, because they come from god. the use of reasoning in their theories are also different: spinoza claims that since human seeks perfection, they have to REASON their actions to get to perfection. for epictetus, however, since all events are in the hands of god, one must USE reason to discipline one's mind into being able to accept the fact that events, whether they are good or bad, are essentially good. both philosophers think that the use of reason in the way they suggest will eventually lead one into happiness.

3. What does Marx mean when he says "morally is essentially ideology?" Furthermore, what is his criticism of Bentham's and Mill's utilitarianism (explain what this is)? Next compare Marx to Hobbes. What is Marx's view of human nature and an ideal society and compare this to Hobbes's view of human nature and an ideal society. Who do you agree with and why? (again, it may be helpful to write this in sections so that each philosopher is given his due.)

the question asks what marx means by "morally is essentially ideology." now, i will take that as a typo and assume that it's "morality" instead of "morally." for marx, every human situations have economic basis in it. whether one realizes it or not, economics principles underlie and become the motives to one's actions. marx thinks it is foolish for people who are not willing to admit to this. morality principles that have been formulated by philosophers for ages, then, are simply "ideology." though they are considered the product of pure reasons, they have also been influenced by these economics principles in the process of formulation.

mill's and bentham's utalitarianism is based on the maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain. to mill, what defines good is pleasure, and evil is pain. so in order for one to reach true happiness, pain has to nullified and pleasure has to me maximized. for mill, it is important that the maximization of pleasure is for the majority, or the most, of the society. for marx, this idea of utalitarianism is just another form of labor exploitation. one would always wants to maximize one's pleasure, and since the nature of human is influenced by economics principles, the idea of maximization of pleasure promotes capitalism, and in capitalism, labor exploitation.

hobbes' ethical theory is essentially claiming that nothing is intrinsically good. people call good the things they desire and bad the things they do not desire. for hobbes, morality is relative for individuals, as in good and bad; what is good for one person is not necessarily good for another. marx would entirely agree with this idea since he himself proposes in his ethical theory that what is good for one society does not necessarily imply good for another society, even though their situations are alike. for both hobbes and marx, morality IS simply ideology; concepts of morality that philosophers have been proposing are not a depiction of what the real life actually is.

i would have to agree with marx's and hobbes' theory. one must realize that no matter what ethical principle one holds, it is only true for oneself. any ethical principle is relative, not universal like what kant maintains. although i don't quite agree about economics principle influencing everyone's actions, marx and hobbes are correct in saying that what is true for one is not true for everyone else. the way i see it, economic principle is one that influences human nature, but not the ONLY one. there are many other factors that influence human nature as well.

4. Aquinas is said to be a Christian with an Aristotlian bent. Explain how he is similar to Aristotle and how he is very different. Explain each philosopher and then compare/contrast them (write in three sections).

the main idea of aristotle's ethical theory is that of ends, that all actions are geared toward the realization of one final end. aristotle claims that this final end has to be something that everyone desires; that is, has to be self-sufficient, final, and attainable. being self-sufficient means that in it alone, it is desirable. being final means that it is not used to achieve something else. being attainable means, well, attainable; can be obtained with one's power. after all, if something is not attainable, how can everyone desire it? aristotle then comes to a conclusion that the only thing that fits in all three categories is happiness itself. that is, happiness is self-sufficient, final, and attainable. but how does one go about obtaining happiness? this is where the concept that most if not all philosophers incorporate in their theories comes in play: rationality. incorporating this idea on rationality, aristotle concludes that happiness can be obtained from the realization of rationality.

aquinas, who is a believer of god, incorporates aristotle's ethical theory into his own theory, but with a theological twist to it. for aquinas, while it is true that human beings desire happiness, and that happiness is the FINAL end ---meaning fulfilling the three categories aristotle has proposed--- but true happiness is a higher level happiness that cannot be obtained without knowledge of god. in other words, the happiness that aristotle defines as being desired by everyone, is not YET the highest level of happiness, and therefore is not YET the final end. the concept of rationality is also incorporated by aquinas to his theory. aquinas argues that one must use rationality to help oneself in realizing that there are two kinds of happiness in this world: one that can be obtained with human power and another one that cannot be obtained without the understanding of god.

in comparison, aquinas is not that much different from aristotle. all aquinas does is basically taking aristotle's ethical theory and incorporating the concept of god in it. of course, aristotle's ethical theory goes deep into explaining what virtue is since he claims that happiness has to be "in accordance with virtue," while aquinas barely touches the idea of virtue. also, aquinas goes deep into explaining will, an important concept in determining what choice one makes, which is something that aristotle barely touches. these two philosophers have differing idea on what concept should be emphasized, but even so, they both agree that human beings desire happiness and rationality must be incorporated in order to obtain true happiness. the definition of true happiness, however, differ slightly for these two philosophers, as well as the implementation of rationality. aquinas and aristotle essentially agree on what true happiness should be like, but aquinas adds the concept of god in it; that true happiness can only be found in god, since god is a higher being than humans and therefore happiness in god should also be higher than happiness in humans. with regards to incorporating rationality, aristotle claims that rationality must be applied when one makes choices since only rational actions can lead to happiness, while aquinas claims that rationality should be used to distinguish the kind of happiness one can receive from the world and the kind of happiness one can receive only in god.

5. Augustine and Sartre may seem like radically different philosophers. Highlight these differences (explain the main ideas of each separately and them contrast them) but also point out in what way they might be similar. What would Sarte find disgusting about Augustine's philosophy and what might he find acceptable, if any.

augustine's philosophy stems from his belief on god. he claims that for one who seeks truth, the concept of god must be incorporated, for only in god can one find the truth. however, in seeking truth, one must also have faith, for without faith, one cannot obtain the true knowledge. augustine claims that human beings are predetermined to go into salvation or damnation, and since the first man, adam, chose evil, we are all bound to damnation. however, this is before jesus sacrifices himself for the forgiveness of that sin. since then, one can escape damnation if one has faith and follows the examples of jesus. the wisdom of god, augustine claims, is beyond human reasoning, and thus, human beings cannot rely on worldly knowledge only, to understand god. this idea is similar to what dante tries to express in his divine comedy; that unexpected people show up in inferno and in paradiso also gives a clear indication that wisdom of god cannot be understood with only human reasoning.

for sartre, who does not believe in the existence of a divine being, his ethical theory stems from the concept of existentialism. he claims that in reality, imposing rational categories does not help one better understand humanity. the main idea of sartre's ethical theory is that one has to bear the responsibility and consequences of one's action. this is why sartre finds it difficult to accept religion, because sartre thinks that in religion, people look for excuses to justify their actions and find escapes from being held responsible for their actions.

the most obvious difference between these two philosophers is their understanding on the concept of god. while augustine maintains that god is the only way to the truth, sartre sees god as an excuse for one's action. now, augustine never mentions directly that one does not have to be responsible for the action one commits because there is god, but nevertheless the claim that faith is required to understand the wisdom of god leads existentialist like sartre to think that faith is nothing but a sorry excuse. there is a similarity between these two, however. both sartre and augustine ADMIT to the existence of free will, only the defintion differs. augustine sees free will as a gift from god; free will lets human beings choose between good and evil. sartre on the other hand, sees free will as a CONDITION of human existence, not a characteristic, for he claims that if free will were to be a characteristic, then human beings are not exactly free because they cannot choose to NOT be free, which is a contradiction. since every aspect of augustine's theory is based on god, i doubt there is any part of his theory that is acceptable to sartre, since sartre maintains that god is merely an excuse used by people who do not want to be responsible for their actions.

6. In what ways is Kant similiar to Kierkegaard? And, more importantly, in what ways is he different? Why does Kierkegaard critique Kant's duty based morality. Make sure you explain each philospher's view of ethics in depth here (separate sections) and offer specifics like Kant's categorical imperative and Kierkegaard three stages, etc.

kant's ethical theory stems from going against the idea of skepticism. he claims that everyone is obliged to some duty, and only in carrying out the duty can a person be moral. kant's theory also relies highly on reasoning, for he claims that in reasoning can be found the grounds to certainty. these reasonings, kant said, have to be a priori, that is, does not require experience to prove true. using reasoning, kant develops the categorical imperative, that is, categories that one can use to test one's action to determine whether it is moral or not. in general, kant's categorical imperative says that an action is only moral and should be done if one can apply the moral principle behind such action to be true for everyone else. principles that "survive" this test are the ones that form a person's duty, to which that person is obliged.

kierkegaard's ethical theory is basically the reverse of descarte's "i think therefore i am." being an existentialist, kierkegaard highly regards the concept of existence and puts it before anything else in his theory. kierkegaard claims that there is three different kinds of existence, in hierarchical order: the aesthetic, ethical, and religious mode of life. the lowest of all is the aesthetic, in which one pursues pleasure and pleasure only. kierkegaard highly regards choice, and for kierkegaard, the aesthetic mode does not regard choice. the ethical mode is the mode that one reaches after one is able to change one's attitude towards making a choice. like many other philosophers, kierkegaard also claims that the choices made must be rational. however, morality is not complete before one can reach the highest mode of all, the religious. being a believer of god, kierkegaard claims that reason cannot provide moral truth, but faith can.

kierkegaard's theory does not seem similar to kant's at all, even though it is derived from kant's and uses kant's categorical imperative. essentially they ARE similar, but kierkegaard's incorporation of religious concept in his theory provides a radical extension to kant's idea. the most obvious differences between the two philosopher is, like many others, their different understanding of god. while kant mentions nothing about god in his theory, kierkegaard incorporates such concept entirely to his theory. kierkegaard's ethical mode is like kant's ethical theory in which one uses the categorical imperative to test whether one's actions are moral or not. but for kierkegaard, this is not enough. to be truly moral, one has to surpass that level and get to the religious level, for only with faith can one find moral truth. by incorporating religious aspects in his theory, derived from kant, kierkegaard brings kant's theory to a whole new level of understanding.

7. Discuss the philosophy of Mill's utilitarianism (define) and compare/contrast it with Epicurus' hedonism (define). While they both speak of pursuing pleasure explain how each one means it. Compare and contrast their views.

mill's ethical theory is utalitarianism, which is based on the maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain. to mill, what defines good is pleasure, and evil is pain. so in order for one to reach true happiness, pain has to nullified and pleasure has to me maximized. mill's utalitarianism is in a way not any different than hedonism, but mill goes on a little further to claim that morality means promoting the greatest happiness to the most of society. for mill, happiness for oneself is not yet the final happiness that everyone seeks, but happiness for the whole entire society. what is important to mill's utalitarianism is not only the quantitative aspects of the pleasure ---like that of bentham's--- but also the qualitative aspects. mill's utalitarianism also introduces the idea of sanction, which is an incentive for individuals to focus not only on happiness for their individual self, but also for the benefit of the whole society.

epicurus' hedonism, is quite similar to mill's utalitarianism, only it's focused more on individuals rather than the entire society. for epicurus, pain and pleasure are the only intrinsic evil and good. so in order for one to achieve happiness, pleasure must be maximized and pain minimized. epicurus, however, claims that duration of the pleasure is much more important than intensity, and from this idea, he maintains that mental pleasure is therefore valued higher than physical pleasure. epicurus argues that peace of mind lasts longer than, say, sexual intercourse, because peace of mind is mental while sexual intercourse is physical. epicurus also pursues the idea of passive pleasure over active. such a thing as the absence of pain (passive) for epicurus is superior in pleasure than fulfilment of momentary desires (active), because the former lasts longer compared to the latter, which is, of course, momentary.

for both mill and epicurus, pleasure means the same thing: good. epicurus, however, focuses his ethical theory more on an individual while mill focuses his utalitarianism on a wider scope, that is the entire society. epicurus' hedonism, is more strictly focused on the absolute absence of pain; he maintains that such a thing results in the greatest happiness. for epicurus, as long as there is no pain whatsoever, getting no pleasure or much pleasure makes no difference. this idea differs from that of mill's utalitarianism. mill considers that the absence of pain does not mean the greatest happiness; one must also pursue to maximize happiness. so for mill, if one manages to nullify pain but cannot achieve happiness at the same time, then that means nothing. mill argues that one does not need to completely NULLIFY pain like epicurus' hedonism suggests, but as long as one can manage to obtain more pleasure than pain, one can be in the state of greatest happiness. so in epicurus' hedonistic term, mill is more of an active pleasure seeker, while epicurus maintains his passiveness.

8. Offer a summary of Hume's ethical theory...give details. Now what would Kant say to Hume about his ethical theory?
hume's ethical theory is based on moral assertions that is innate in human nature. for hume, what determines morality is one's approval or disapproval on certain events. hume highly regards individual feelings because he believes that in them is asserted moral principles by default. these moral principles are a product of human nature, that is innate in every human beings. human nature is good, and therefore what comes from human nature is also good. hume argues that these moral principles are innately good because they are product of human nature. thus, he concludes that one's feeling of approval or disapproval is enough to determine whether an action is moral or immoral, for in society, approved actions are the ones that are socially useful and disapproved ones are mostly socially detrimental. morality, then, can be achieved by obeying this sense of approval, which in society is piled up into rules of justice.

kant's theory is centered around his categorical imperative, so my take is that kant would be a proponent to hume's theory. kant's categorical imperative says that an action should be done only if the moral principle behind it is true for everyone else. this is in a way no different than hume's theory, since hume's theory claims that right actions are the ones which the society approve, and wrong actions are the ones which the society disapprove. both regards highly the majority's opinion in deciding what is right or wrong.

9. Can an atheist be moral? Is a theist notion of ethics superior to an atheist notion of ethics? Explain either way. Support your position with "material from the reading" (see Pain internet article hyperlinked on syllabus; Sartre, Kierkegaard and many other philosophers can fit here).

i personally think there is no logical impossibility in saying that an atheist can be moral. i mean, everyone can be moral, and for the most part of it, religion almost has nothing to do with morality. with this in mind, i say that a theist notion of ethics is no more superior or inferior than an that of an atheist. despite being a religious person, i make the claim that being moral does not mean being religious, nor being religion means being moral. in fact, there are plenty religious characters out there who are not moral, and non-religious characters out there who are moral.

being moral to me, is not something the involves religion. of course, religion promotes being moral, but religion is not the only one promoting that; society itself promotes being moral. if one goes around killing and raping people, it doesn't require a theist to say that such action is immoral. even an atheist can say the same thing. what eventually leads one to choose being moral, as opposed to being immoral, is not religion, but society. in most if not all society, immoral behavior is never accepted. this is what then promotes morality; one wants to be accepted in the society, one does not want to be outcasted. immoral behavior generally causes one to be outcasted from the society, and as social beings, one needs to be in a society. with this logic, one would choose being moral over being immoral. also, everyone's desire for a peaceful environment also drives one to choose being moral, since immoral behavior often leads to unpeacefulness.

if so, then why do people have religion? if being a theist is not any different morally than being an atheist, then why would one want to be theist? well, religion has another incentive for one to be moral, that is the kingdom of heaven. in general, those who are morally good will go to heaven and have eternal life, and those who are morally evil will go to hell and have eternal death. this becomes another incentive for one to be moral, as opposed to atheists, who have no notion of heaven versus hell and thus have no sense of reward or punishment from being moral or immoral.

the required reading, the article by thomas paine, is a bit hard to accept for me, even after putting aside all of my religious sense. it seems, to me at least, that paine is not a big fan of peace. he claims that "there is no end to retaliation," yet he argues that it is "morally and physically impossible" to retaliate evil with good. now, violence is inarguably the nature of human. if one keeps retaliating violence with violence ---as the old saying goes, "an eye for an eye,"--- when will the violence end? when will be able to live in peace? even without the doctrine of christianity, i still claim one should not continue the act of revenge, because if one does, then this world will have no more people left on it since people will just keep killing each other out of vengeance.

paine also claims that to love voluntarily without a motive is morally and physically impossible. now, what is the motive for atheist like paine to love? in christianity, the motive is clear: it's the doctrine. but for non believers like paine, what is the motive to love voluntarily? apparently paine forgot to mention about what his motive is in his essay. putting aside religion, i still claim that nothing can be build from involuntary love. if one keeps expecting something in return, in the end it will be like a trade, ruled with specific laws, not love.

10. Altogether we have studied 14 ethical theorists thus far. Who is your favorite ethical theorist among the 14? Explain in depth why. APPLY their ideas to the modern world and/or your own personal life. Explain in depth.

many of the ethical theorist actually have acceptable ethical views. by acceptable, i mean they agree with my ethical views, but if i have to pick ONE favorite, i'd have to choose st. augustine. maybe the choice is biased, since i am a catholic, and by being so, of course i would have the same ethical view as augustine, but my ethical view did not come from reading augustine; it was purely developed from my own contemplation of things as i grow up. the reason augustine becomes a favorite among these philosophers is that i was astonished how my view can be so similar with his.

being a catholic, i believe strongly in the power of faith, that without faith, there is no way one can understand humanity. the problem of evil has always been a major talk between philosophers, yet until now, no one is able to give a rational answer that everyone can accept. well, i've contemplated about it alot and i came to a conclusion that maybe there is no such thing as a rational answer when one breaches the boundary of things that involve divinity. there are many different religions in this world, but all of them, including pagan, believe in the existence of a divine being (or beings). now, the doctrines may differ, but in essence all of them makes basically the same remark about what is right and what is wrong. so from there i conclude that there exists a divine being, no matter what is the form or the doctrine. now, on the problem of evil, since even the greatest minds could not provide an acceptable rational answer, maybe there is no rational answer. why do bad things happen to good people? why do good things happen to bad people? augustine is right, divine justice and wisdom is beyond our knowledge, and human rationality cannot be used to understand that.

i've read dante's divine comedy (inferno, purgatorio, paradiso) and that also emphasizes this idea. some figures who commit grave sins when they're on earth end up in paradise, but some figures who commit not-too-grave sins end up in inferno. this seems to be injustice, but dante shows that it's god's justice, and god has reasons that cannot be justified by human reasonings.