Category: Actual philosophical discussion!

In various discussions on this page, the claim that “the self is relational” has come up. What do you suppose this means? Usually, when there is a relation, there are things being related (“relata”). So what are the relata that go into the composition of the self?

I guess a tough materialist could say, “Ultimately, the relata are atoms (or quarks, or whatever). Those are the ultimate building blocks, and sometimes their complex organizations result in there being a conscious self.” But I think this probably misses what people want to say when they say the self is relational.

Could it be that the self is a relation of other selves, which are relations of other selves, …, ad infinitum? I don’t know. Leibniz for one thought the buck has to stop somewhere; there must be true individuals, which he called “monads.” But these he thought were selves (or at least some of them were).

Maybe selves are relations among social institutions, cultures, histories,…? But are any of these things supposed to be more real than individual selves? I would think they are produced by the relations and interactions among selves, rather than vice-versa.

This somewhat silly but intriguing question comes from an essay in the most recent Journal of the History of Philosophy by Rondo Keele. Take any painting by Picasso — let’s say Guernica. Could God have created that painting, without using Picasso himself as an intermediate cause?

Some would say yes, since Guernica is just a creature, and an omnipotent being can create any creature, it seems.

But some would say no, since part of Guernica‘s identity is tied to the fact that Picasso painted it. Look at it this way: suppose a stroke-for-stroke duplicate of Guernica is created ex nihilo. Is it Guernica? No, at most it can only be a wonderful forgery of Guernica, because it didn’t come from Picasso.

So really the question is: can God make Guernica, or at most only a forgery of Guernica?

(This debate, by the way, originates from a dispute between the medieval philosophers William Ockham and Walter Chatton.)

There’s an provocative essay on this UCSD-affiliated blog about the rather extreme and violent examples used frequently in ethics classes, and whether they might be doing more harm than good. The discussion following the essay is very good and interesting.

To find out, try taking this test. I haven’t tried it myself, since I’m not a theist. Any impressions about it? (I’m not expecting it to run very deep; but is it any fun?)

Speaking of the wonder of illusory meaning, check this cartoon out.