Cosmological argument

There has existed from eternity someone unchangeable and independent being. 

Cosmological argument consists in that everything must have a cause.
But then we have a problem -
of infinite regress (circular logic).

The argument begins with the premise that everything has a cause, but this is then contradicted by the claim that God does not have a cause. If we must posit a God as the cause of the universe, then it seems we must also posit a second God as the cause of the first, and a third God as the cause of the second and so on ad infinitum. So we shall have to accept that there are an infinite number of Gods. Either that or we must stop with a cause that itself has no independent cause. But if we must stop somewhere, why not stop with the Big Bang itself? What reason is there to introduce even one God? Of course, some might be willing to accept an infinite chain of Gods. But such a chain still wouldn't remove the mystery with which we began. For then the question would arise: Why is there such an infinite chain of Gods, rather than no chain?


Either there has always existed one unchangeable and independent Being, from which all other beings that are or ever were in the universe, have received their original; or else there has been an infinite succession of changeable and dependent beings, produced one from another in an endless progression, without any original cause at all. 

The whole series of beings can have no cause from without, of its existence, because in it are supposed to be included all things that are or ever were in the universe, and this plan can have no reason within itself, of its existence; because no one being in this infinite succession is supposed to be self-existent or necessary (which is the only ground of reason of existence of anything, that can be imagined within the thing itself, as will presently more fully appear).

So there is a Prime Mover - uncaused cause.
The question why God has no cause is unanswerable.

The Buddhist attitude towards life is pessimistic

To live means to suffer. All life involves suffering. Suffering is caused by the clinging of the mind. 
Life as a whole is imperfect and incomplete, because our world is subject to impermanence. 

The Four Noble Truths

1. Life means suffering.

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

Ignorance is the lack of understanding of how our mind is attached to impermanent things. The reasons for suffering is raving and clinging. Suffering can be ended by attaining dispassion. 


Attaining and perfecting dispassion is a process of many levels that ultimately results in the state of Nirvana. Nirvana means freedom from all worries, troubles, complexes, fabrications and ideas. Nirvana is not comprehensible for those who have not attained it.


Buddhism teaches us how to get rid of this unhappiness. Buddhism offers every human being the hope of attaining his salvation one day. 

Buddhism encourages us to be realistic: we must learn to see things as they truly are. It is a realistic religion, it is just diversified, like everything in a human being.

Nibbana is an unattainable goal for most Buddhists

Buddha says: "If I stood still, I sank; if I struggled, I was carried away. Thus by neither standing still nor struggling, I crossed the flood."

The flood refers to the painful stream of birth and death. This is Nirvana, the "blowing out" of the passions and frustrations of existence. The Buddha asserted that to speculate about the frame of mind of one thus awakened and liberated is to invite confusion and madness.

It is irrational to cling even to the profitable states of mind created by morality and meditation, still less to unprofitable states of mind. One should neither look forward to coming experiences, nor clutch at present ones, but let them all slip easily through one's fingers.

What happens to an enlightened person at death is one of the questions, like that of the beginning and end of the world, which the Buddha said cannot be answered. Nirvana is a state beyond human thought, beyond life and death and reincarnation.

We don't have to worry whether it is unattainable or not, because the journey is the goal.

"Climb Mont Fuji, holy snail, but slowly, slowly!"

Meditation is the essential basis of the Buddhist way of life

Meditation in Buddhism involves the body and the mind as a single entity. It takes control of the mind so that becomes peaceful and focused. The aim of meditation is to still the mind.

Part of meditation is allied with morality: the attempt to restrain one's senses from what is immoral and to create good, wholesome, and skillful frames of mind within which to work. The basic skill is concentration, coupled with equanimity, and this meditative control is then the basis of insight meditation. Insight meditation, however, is not practiced only by sitting in quiet solitude. For it demands a general attitude on self-recollection, of clear consciousness, of awareness of one's surroundings, one's experience, and one's actions and their consequences moment by moment, day by day.

A new attitude, a new habit of mind grows out of the equanimity of meditation. One can now stand aloof from experience. One can see the dangers in it and turn away. One can observe, yet not pursue, even fleeting pleasures and aspirations as they flicker before the mind's eye. Perhaps the most compact statement of this sensibility is found in the stock prescription that the monk should "not cling to the here and now, not grasp after situations, relinquish easily".

"The monk neither constructs in his mind, nor wills in order to produce, any state of mind or body, or the destruction of any such state. By not so willing anything in the world, he grasps after nothing; by not grasping, he is not anxious; he is therefore fully calmed within."

The lay community is more important than the monastic community in Buddhism today

The monastic community in Buddhism is getting smaller, as opposed to the lay community which nowadays extends around the world. It is significant to understand how that is taking place. 

Lay persons form the vast majority of the Buddhism culture. In all traditions the lay community is considered essential in that it gives material support to temples and by its daily work provides the economic foundation for the teaching and practice of Buddhism. Lay people also participate in such activities as festivals, ceremonies and pilgrimage.

The core pursuit of the Buddhist monastic community is to preserve and practise the teaching of the Buddha. They can use their learning and wisdom to help society as a whole.

Although the monks and nuns have renounced the worldly life, they still have an essential contribution to make to the welfare of the society. Because of their non-attachment to the worldly conditions such as happiness and pain, gain and loss, they are objective and farsighted in their outlook.

Although the lay community is getting bigger and it is more meaningful, the monks and nuns are still revered and cannot be replaced, because their wisdom and understanding of the life as a whole is unique. They devote their Atman (individual soul) for Brahmar (world soul). Separateness is just an illusion.

Julia's problem

Chris has learned from Julia how to be a lawyer, under a very generous arrangement whereby he doesn’t need to pay anything for his tuition until and unless he wins his first court case. Rather to Julia's annoyance, however, after giving up hours of her time training Chris, the pupil decides to become a musician and never takes any court cases.

Julia demands that Chris pay her for her trouble and, when the musician refuses, decides to sue him in court. Julia reasons that if Chris loses the case, he, Julia, will have won, in which case she will get her money back, and furthermore, that even if she loses, Chris will then have won a case, despite his protestations about being a musician now, and will therefore still have to pay up.

Chris reasons a little differently however. If I lose, he thinks, then I will have lost my first court case, in which event, the original agreement releases me from having to pay any tuition fees. And, even if he wins, Julia will still have lost the right to enforce the contract, so he will not need to pay anything.

They can’t both be right. So who’s making the mistake?


The paradox arises from the fact that the provisions of the agreement and the court are in every case contrary. The resolution of this situation depends on what is considered to be more important - judgement of the court or a civil contract. Julia and Chris, they both commit the same mistake - an error of inconsistency. Their position can be summarized : "If the sentence of the court is beneficial for me I will respect it, otherwise I will refer to the contract."


Paradox of the Court

A Farmer – let’s call him "Farmer Andy from Germany" is concerned about his prize cow, Julia. He is worried – the good times may be over.
He is so concerned that when his dairyman tells him that Julia is in the field, happily grazing, he says he needs to know for certain. He doesn't want just to have a 99 per cent idea that Julia is safe, he wants to be able to say that he knows Julia is okay.
Farmer Andy goes out to the field and standing by the gate sees in the distance, behind some trees, a white and black shape that he recognises as his favourite cow. He goes back to the dairy and tells his friend that he knows Julia is in the field.

At this point, does Farmer Andy really know it?

The dairyman says he will check too, and goes to the field. There he finds Julia, having a nap in a hollow, behind a bush, well out of sight of the gate. He also spots a large piece of black and white paper that has got caught in a tree.
Julia is in the field, as Farmer Andy thought.

But was he right to say that he knew she was?

In this case the farmer believed the cow was safe. He had an evidence that this was so (his belief was justified) and it was true that his cow was safe.

However, we might still feel that the farmer did not really know it; his justified true belief was actually operating independent of the truth. Herein lies the core of the problem of 'knowledge as justified true belief'.

The King and the Poison

In a far away land, it was known that if you drank poison, the only way to save yourself is to drink a stronger poison, which neutralizes the weaker poison. The king that ruled the land wanted to make sure that he possessed the strongest poison in the kingdom, in order to ensure his survival, in any situation. So the king called the kingdom's pharmacist and the kingdom's treasurer, he gave each a week to make the strongest poison. Then, each would drink the other one's poison, then his own, and the one that will survive, will be the one that had the stronger poison.
The pharmacist went straight to work, but the treasurer knew he had no chance, for the pharmacist was much more experienced in this field, so instead, he made up a plan to survive and make sure the pharmacist dies. On the last day the pharmacist suddenly realized that the treasurer would know he had no chance, so he must have a plan. After a little thought, the pharmacist realized what the treasurer's plan must be, and he concocted a counter plan, to make sure he survives and the treasurer dies. When the time came, the king summoned both of them. They drank the poisons as planned, and the treasurer died, the pharmacist survived, and the king didn't get what he wanted.
What exactly happened there?

The treasurer drank some weaker poison before the meeting. Then he brought water instead of poison. He would then drink the pharmacist's poison, which would be stronger (than the one he drank before he went). When the pharmacist realized his plan, he decided to bring water as well. The treasure drank pharmacist's water (so it had no effect) and died. The king didn't get any poison, because both the pharmacist and the treasurer brought water.

The Value of Philosophy

Philosophy is valuable for being a source of knowledge and understanding. It proves that a deeper reality exists. We run through the time, our life is shut up within the circle of the privacy. But in fact life streams around reason and thought.


The value of philosophy is its uncertainty, unascertainable knowledge. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the cooperation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world seems to be definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected.


Philosophy enlarges our conception of what is possible, understanding of the world, expands our intellectual horizons; it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect and develops our perspectives. Philosophy can not give us any definite answers, because such answers can not be known to be true, but it is valuable because of the questions. Life is focused on self-reflection and ethical issues. For a philosophic man the world is open, infinite, strange, and the life inclusive, free and calm.


"The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."  Bertrand Russel

Pojman L. 2004: Introduction to Philosophy, Oxford University Press

The Role of Reason in Philosophy

Philosophy is the art of rational thinking. It is the contemplation or study of the most important questions in existence, with the end of promoting illumination and understanding, a vision of the whole. It uses reason, sense, perception, the imagination, and intuitions in its activities of clarifying concepts and analyzing and constructing arguments and theories as possible answers to these perennial questions.

Though theologies and religions typically do not claim to be irrational, there is often a perceived conflict or tension between faith on the one hand, and reason on the other, as potentially competing sources of wisdom, law and truth.

Reason itself is not enough to make understand the origins of the universe and so it should be complemented by other sources of knowledge. Reason is the method of thinking in an organized, clear way to achieve knowledge and understanding.  

Pojman L. 2004: Introduction to Philosophy, Oxford University Press

Alfred Tarski - a man who defined truth

One of the greatest logicians of all time. Born at the beginning of the twentieth century, studied mathematics and philosophy at the University of Warsaw. He got a doctoral degree and taught mathematics.  

His work on the concepts of truth and logical consequence is the foundation of all rational thought - modern logic, influencing developments in mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, and computer science. His most important achievement in logic is his formulation of the semantic method. Semantics is the study of the relations between terms (words or sentences) and their objects. Pursuing his researches in semantics, Tarski furnished significant definitions not only of the term "logical consequence" but even of the term "definability." His paper "The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics" (1944), had considerable impact on epistemology outside mathematics and logic, and is regarded as one of the major versions of the correspondence theory of truth.

His books included Introduction to Logic (English version, 1941), Undecidable Theories (with others, 1953), Ordinal Algebras (1956), The Theory of Modules (editor, with others, 1965), and Cylindric Algebras (with others, 1971). He contributed more than 100 articles on logic and mathematics to professional journals during his career. 

"It is evident that all these results only receive a clear content and can only then be exactly proved, if a concrete and precisely formulated definition of [true] sentence is accepted as a basis for the investigation."

"Snow is white" is true if and only if snow is white

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy