|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
Business & Finance Resource Center The Radical Academy Blogs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
INDEX:
Posted December 1, 2007 The following item was submitted by E. L. of Iasi, Romania: I am a Byzantine Greek Philologist. I would like to ask about a philosophical term "Hypostasis." What were the exact connotations of the concept in ancient Greek Philosophy. Could you give me exact references where I can find ancient texts exposing the concept. Dr. Dolhenty responds: While I cannot provide exact references for this concept because it would involve a great deal of research for which I don't have the time, I can provide the following information. (1) In The Radical Academy's Glossary of Philosophical Terms, we define the term "hypostasis" this way: "Hypostasis (Suppositum). A complete and individual substance which has subsistence, i.e., a substance which is self-contained and autonomous (sui juris) in its operations." (2) According to one of my dictionaries of philosophy: "Literally the Greek word [hypostasis] signifies that which stands under and serves as a support. In philosophy it means a singular substance, also called a supposite, suppositum, by the Scholastics, especially if the substance is a completely subsisting one, whether non-living or living, irrational or rational. However, a rational hypostasis has the same meaning as the term, person." -- Dictionary of Philosophy, Dagobert D. Runes (ed.), Littlefield, Adams & Co., Ames, Iowa, 1959. (3) The term also has relevance in theology. Leon O. Hynson, M.Div., Th.M, Ph.D., a professor of historical theology at the Evangelical School of Theology, explains it this way in my copy of the Beacon Dictionary of Theology: "The Greek word hypostasis may be translated by the words "nature," substance," or "essence." It describes those characteristics which make something what it is, or its essence, as distinct from its existence, or that it is. "A way to understand the concept is by distinguishing between "appearance" and "reality." Hypostasis (from the Greek word hyphistasthai -- to stand under) describes that which stands under the appearance, i.e., the reality. In Heb. 1:3 it is declared that Christ is the image of the Father's hypostasis (hupostaseos). In other words, Christ clearly shares in the divine substance. The Greek words in Heb. 1:3 state that Christ is the "charakter of his hypostasis." Charakter here means that Jesus "bears the very stamp of his nature" (RSV). The substance of God is not an appearance but is really in Christ. This is what Jesus was teaching when He declared: "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9, RSV). "In Christian theology the path to full clarification of hypostasis is quite ambiguous. The Chalcedonian Creed described the Trinity by the terms "one essence [ousia] in three hypostases [hypostaseis]." In the Nicene Creed (A.D. 325) these two terms were used synonymously, meaning "being" or "nature" The work of the Capadocian Fathers was important in giving the two terms somewhat distinct meanings. With Basil of Caesarea ousia indicates the universal and hypostasis the particular. "On essence in three hypostases" when translated into Latin becomes "one substance in three Persons." It is legitimate to translate hypostasis into "persons," but it does not simplify the formula. The formula conveys first the unity of the Godhead. The ousia is identical in each Person, e.g., the goodness of the Son and Spirit is the same as the Father's. When the Father acts, the Son and Spirit are acting jointly. But, second, the formula suggests a distinction, using the term "Persons." In this distinction between the persons the Cappadocians and Chalcedon are biblically sound. It remains necessary to recognize that the distinction does not mean separateness, but the diversity which is in the essential Deity. The "hypostatic union" means that Jesus Christ may be really united to flesh while remaining equal with God." Hope this helps!
Posted May 1, 2007 The following item was submitted by Tim of Arizona, USA: How do Moderate Libertarians view regulatory agencies such as the FDA and the EPA which some argue do a lot of good. Specifically I'm thinking of a situation where the FDA keeps a drug off the market which could be harmful. Dr. Dolhenty responds: I cannot speak, of course, for all moderate libertarians but I can give you my perspective at this time about regulatory agencies in general and the FDA and EPA specifically (I do often describe myself as a "moderate libertarian"). Generally, I am very cautious about government regulatory agencies, even suspicious of them. I ask myself questions such as: Is this agency really necessary? Do the benefits provided by the agency outweigh the potential harm it could do vis-a-vis individual liberties? Can the private sector do a better, more efficient, and less potentially harmful job in providing the same service than the public sector? We live in a very complex society. There are tens of thousands of products available to us, for example, many more than were available to individuals in past history. Just consider the local supermarket. Or the local pharmacy. How can I know whether or not a food is contaminated or that a drug that might keep me healthy will do what it purports to do? If I had to check every food or drug myself, I wouldn't have time for anything else (not to mention I don't have enough time to do so in the first place). In this type of situation, I must depend upon others to help me out here. In some cases regarding some products, private help is available. For example, Underwriter Laboratories is a private firm that checks out electrical products and puts its seal of approval on them after testing them. Good Housekeeping magazine gives its "seal of approval" to many household products after testing them out. The same service is provided by Consumer Reports magazine. There are many products, however, for which a testing service is not available in the private sector. So we end up with some agency in the public sector doing the job. The Food & Drug Administration was created because of problems in the food and drug industry regarding the efficacy of some foods and drugs. Some companies were selling contaminated food and people were becoming ill and even dying. The same thing for drugs. It is rather naive, in my opinion, to suppose that companies will always police themselves. I don't think businesspeople are any more moral than the average person. There were and are many unscrupulous businesses who are more interested in short-term profit than in the health and welfare of the consumer. I don't think this is a huge problem today as it once was, but it still occurs. If there was a private agency to do essentially what the FDA does, I would be all for it. But I don't know of one. And since I don't want to be the regular and continuing test case for potentially contaminated food (or bad drugs), I do support an agency such as the FDA (as long as it doesn't get out of hand). I prefer to say "reasonable" or "justifiable" or "necessary" regulation rather than simply saying that any and all regulation is desirable. I know that many libertarians oppose any government regulatory agency. Their argument generally seems to be: if a company is selling contaminated food (or a bad drug), that company will eventually go out of business once customers realize what its doing. Well, that may be true. But do you want to be among the first to get sick or die before the contamination becomes public knowledge and customers no longer purchase that company's products? Do you want to be the test case? Now, I fully realize that the FDA does not check every food and drug that is placed before the public. This really would be impossible, considering the cost involved and the number of employees it would necessitate. In general, however, it seems that our food supply is pretty good and contaminated food (such as the recent spinach case, for instance) is uncovered in short order and the FDA seeks to find the source. Much of the above applies to the EPA, although I have been very critical of some of its studies and regulations, primarily because of the poor science which underlies some of its conclusions. On the other hand, I want to drink pure water and breathe clean air. Again, if a private agency would do this job, I'd be all for it. Since no such private agency exists (as far as I know), and because of serious problems regarding water and air pollution, the EPA was created to monitor the situation. It has, in my judgment, made many mistakes in the past. But I am informed that our water is much cleaner than previously and that air pollution is slowly becoming a thing of the past. Again, I do not pretend to speak for all Moderate Libertarians. There are many species of libertarians just as there are many species of political liberals and conservatives. In fact, I hesitate to call myself anything in the political sphere because of the confusion over terms and categories and the principles and policies thought to be part of any definitive political program. More on this specific problem is below.
This item was submitted by Vincent of Colorado, USA: The right (conservative) and the left (liberal) - do you believe that Governments are really as foolish as to boil down reality, sociological systems to those two poles? It seems to me to be a natural result of the problem of managing entropy, with these natural bias's of either right (more often right ideologies) or left forming as primitive coping mechanism or almost an anthropomorphism - right or left, bad and good. Surely "our" leaders understand that whole nations or groups of people are not as easily categorized? Dr. Dolhenty responds: Let me begin by saying that the human mind always seems to want to do at least two things when confronting a reality: (1) organize it, and (2) simplify it. And I think this is especially true when it comes to the matter of political discourse. The so-called "right," I might point out, was not always "conservative." Alas, the so-called "left" was not always "liberal." Both the terms "conservative" and "liberal" have undergone many changes over the course of history. And the meanings of those terms vary depending on what country, nation, culture, or sociopolitical group we are talking about. For example: Both the modern conservative and modern liberal ideologies in the United States are based on a "classical" liberalism. So, for that matter, is modern "libertarianism." American political philosophy is, in general, a "liberal" political philosophy in a historic sense. Over time, the classical liberal philosophy began to modify into various divisions -- mostly issue or policy related -- and eventually developed into the categories of conservative, "modern" liberal (or progressive), libertarian, and so forth. (I am obviously oversimplifying here, but space and time are limited). Furthermore, these "general" categories themselves have been broken down into other groups. Thus we have "paleo-conservatives," "neo-conservatives," "social conservatives," and so on and on. The same thing with modern liberals. And libertarians have fared no better: consider Christian-Libertarians (yes, there is such a political group), anarchistic-Libertarians (again, such a group exists), "moderate" Libertarians, and so forth. It is easy to see that this matter is not easy at all. Political labels become mere generalities and are usually devoid of much meaning until one gets to specific issues and policies. And the above labels are just the tip of the iceberg. There are also many varieties of "socialists": the Soviet Union was one familiar brand, but most people don't seem to realize that Hitler and the Nazis were also "socialists" -- just another brand. Same with "monarchists." Some are "constitutional" and some are "absolute." Do I think governments are really as foolish as to boil down reality to the two poles of "left" and "right"? Oh, I think governments know better. I think these terms come in handy, for governments, politicians, and their supporters at least, to use for campaign and propaganda purposes. It is an attempt (and unfortunately all too successful) to oversimplify political realities for ingestion by the public. It is much easier (and efficient?) to categorize someone, label someone, and "call someone names," than it is to get into the complications of a real political discussion. The latter takes genuine thought, willful deliberation, and intellectual intensity. That, I think, is asking a bit much of the general public. (I'm sorry if I sound cynical here!) In regard to your statement: "Surely 'our' leaders understand that whole nations or groups of people are not as easily categorized?" Oh, I suspect that most political leaders know this. But in the world of practical politics, it doesn't matter. In practical politics, matters of "reality" and "truth" are not exactly prized (one may think this is unfortunate, but...). What really matters in modern politics is "perception." To state it bluntly: "In practical politics, truth doesn't matter -- only perception does." Successful politicians have always been "pragmatic realists." This is one reason why, in my opinion, no genuine intellectual "idealist" has been elected to the presidency of the United States in the past sixty years or more. The last president that came closest to being an intellectual "idealist" -- again this is merely my opinion -- was probably Woodrow Wilson, and he didn't fare so well. Now you mention the terms "bias" and "ideologies" in your question regarding the left and the right. Just a quick comment about those terms. There is nothing wrong with having a "bias." In fact, unless you go completely mute or totally brain-dead, you can't avoid being "biased." A "bias" is simply a "point of view." It is not just a "prejudice" as some people are prone to think. A "prejudice" is a "pre-judgment" based on either ignorance or willful neglect of facts. A "bias," while it could be based on a prejudice, is not necessarily a prejudice itself. I consider all the facts I have available on any particular issue; I pass judgment on them; I make a decision to support or not support some policy; I make a statement about it based on my particular "bias" or "viewpoint." All political positions (left, right, conservative, liberal, socialist, etc.) have some sort of ideology, which is simply the sum of "ideas" they support and promote. Strictly speaking, there are probably as many ideologies as there are people (who think, anyway!). Often the term "ideology," like the term "bias," is used as a derogatory term or in a negative manner. This is unfortunate and there is no reason to do so. They are both good, valuable terms to use in political and social discourse. I don't know if I've responded to your question in a satisfying way. If not, I apologize and you can always write me for clarification or elaboration.
The above opinions are those of Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D., and do not necessarily reflect any official opinion or policy of the Center for Applied Philosophy.
|
|||||||
|
Ask the Academy Main Index |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, 2002-03, 2004-05, & 2006-07 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.