I have received some comments from a friend or two about my posts on the Argument for Dependency and I will puzzle over them a little before trying to address them and continuing my argument.
I also have exams this week and next week so I might not get around to this for a few days.
I’m sure I’ll think of other fascinating things to say in the meantime.
I guess the first thing I should do is to establish what exactly is meant by `dependency’. If X is dependent on Y then Y is a cause of X’s existence. If X is dependent only on Y then Y is the cause of X’s existence, otherwise the cause of X’s existence is the sum of all the things on which it’s existence depends. I think it is clear that a depended upon thing must exist prior to that which depends upon it and this rules out the option of a thing depending upon only itself for its existence. This leaves only two valid options, if something exists then either it is dependent on something apart from itself for it’s existence or else it is dependent on nothing for it’s existence.
This, I think, establishes the first premise.
I’ve been doing a bit of thinking recently about one of my favourite arguments in favour of the existence of God. It’s called the Argument from Dependency. In a certain sense it’s a refinement of the often cited Argument from Causality (sometimes called the Kalem Argument). The Argument from Dependency may be stated as follows:
I’ll leave it at that for the time being. I’ll discuss the argument over the next few days, try and justify the premises and my conclusion and, more importantly, talk about the nature of this ‘independent thing’.
I wrote a short story recently. It is the first short story I have written since I finished school (so, first short story in about 4 years). Partially as an experiment to see if a certain somebody ever reads the blog and partially because I’ve gone momentarily cuckoo I’m going to post a link to the thing here.
So, here it is in PS format and here it is in PDF format
It’s crap. It doesn’t really count as a story seeing as nothing really happens. It doesn’t make an awful lot of sense. It’s just crap. But, I reckon if you’re actually reading this blog you probably have time to spare.
On the plus side, it is very short.
And so passes another year.
2003 has been generally good to me. I have no personal complaints I would care to mention.
Having thought about it for a scant few seconds the overriding issue that comes to my mind concerning the past year is of course that of the war in Iraq and it’s consequences for the future. The startlingly ludicrous tenet of the ‘preemptive strike’, the perhaps crippling blow an imperialist US has dealt the institutions of international law and order, the potentiality of a complete destabilisation of international politics (as if they weren’t unstable enough already) ; these are all issues the import of which will become clear in 2004 and the years to come. The foreign policy of the United States in 2003 has had a lasting and possibly devastating effect on the world for the foreseeable future.
Tradition dictates that at this point in my diatribe I begin to make fun of George W. Bush. Needless to say my opinion of the man is not very high, or rather my opinions on most of the decisions he has made while in power are not too favourable, but as I look at 2004 as a year that holds a US presidential election in store I can’t profess to much optimism. I don’t particularly want to see George Bush remain in power but I don’t see how the election of a Democrat will improve things very much. I suppose it could lessen the influence of neoconvervatives in the highest echelons of the US government but I think imperialist neoconcervative ideals have become entrenched in the thinking of the US ruling class in general. I don’t dare to hope that a Democrat as president of the US will enable those of us outside of the US to sleep better at night. The thought of Hillary Clinton in power seems to me to be not better than the thought of George Bush in power.
Of course, all this being said, there’s a very likely chance that George Bush Jr. will be reelected and all of his neoconservative buddies will get to impose their will upon the rest of the world for another four years, international law be damned. Oh, and if you think perhaps I’m a little paranoid about this so-called American imperialist attitude, have a browse around the website of the Project for a New American Century. If you’re short on time just have a look over their statement of principles (pay particular attention to the signatories at the bottom of the page). You’ll have trouble sleeping after that one.
Still, may my pessimism for the future of international affair prove to be unfounded and may 2004 be a good year for all concerned. One can only hope and pray.