The Pearl

Pearls are the product of pain. For some unknown reason, the shell of the oyster gets pierced and an alien substance - a grain of sand - slips inside. On the ingress of that foreign irritant, all the resources within the tiny sensitive oyster rush to the spot and begin to release healing fluids that otherwise would have remained dormant. By and by, the irritant is covered and the wound is healed. A pearl!

No other gem has such a fascinating history. It is the symbol of stress - a healed wound. A precious, tiny jewel conceived through irritation, born of adversity, reversed by adjustments. Had there been no wounding, no irritating interruption, there could have been no pearl.

Some oysters are never wounded, and those who seek for gems toss them aside, fit only for stew.

Ontological Argument of God's Existence

When we think about the world we live in, we rarely have time to think on whether or not there is a God. Science has advanced rapidly since the last century. We have surpassed our ancestors unanswered questions on the laws of nature. Amidst our vast knowledge of the universe, we have trouble providing proof that God exists. The ontological argument argues the existence of God based upon the meaning of the term ‘God’.

Saint Anselm believed that the mere contemplation of God, proved that he existed. By definition, God is something of which nothing greater can be thought, therefore He must exist.
“For something can be thought to exist that cannot be thought not to exist, and this is greater which can be thought not to exist. Hence, if that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought can be thought not to exist, then that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is not the same as that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought, which is absurd.”[1]
Here, the Saint points out that we can think of God as existing or not existing. If God is a being of which nothing greater can be thought, which would be greater - the mere thought of a Supreme Being, or a Supreme Being that actually exists?

Descartes tackled this same argument slightly differently. His argument stated,
“God is God.
If God were not perfect, he would not be God.
Therefore, God is perfect.
If God did not exist, he would be less than perfect than if he existed.
Therefore God is perfect.”[2]
The course manual goes even further to explain that Descartes believed that God possessed a property of existence and without that property, He would not be God. These fundamental characteristics are as fundamental as water being composed of two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule. By definition, water is H2O and if any or these properties change, then it is no longer water. Since God is perfect by definition, he must exist, as existence is crucial to the definition.

Ironically, Saint Thomas Aquinas rejected this proof of God’s existence. However, his fourth proof of God’s existence in The Summa Theologica is closely related. This proof closely relates everything belonging to a universal gradation. He further explains that there must be a maximum to each genus:
“Now the maximum of any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum of heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore, there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfect; and this we call God.” [3]
If we grade all things, there must be a maximum for the genus of ‘all things’, which would be an omnipotent being.

Saint Thomas Aquinas’ argument does not take the same path as Descartes or Anselm because there is no talk about the definition of the term God. However, he does make mention that God exists because he is the maximum genus of all things, making him the most good and perfect being in existence, which intermediately points to the same conclusion.

These arguments are based on the definition of the term ‘God’. The argument is indeed valid, however the premises may not all be true. If the definition that God is something of which nothing greater can be thought, then indeed the conclusion is true. However, if we do not accept the definition of God, the argument would not be sound. Similarly, if one rejects that the maximum gradation of genus of all things must be omnipotent, or that there must a gradation of all things, then the argument holds no water. The ontological argument is a perfect argument for those who already have faith that God exists. A skeptic, on the other hand, will find fault quickly, by rejecting the definition given for the term God.


[1] Saint Anselm, Proslogion 88
[2] Adam Morton Philosophy in Practice: An Introduction to the Main Questions (Cambridge MA: Blackwell, 1996), 54
[3] Saint Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica, 26

Why does Saskatchewan always seem to take the brunt of the Canadian Jokes?

Bubba and Cooter - a couple of Saskatchewan businessmen wannabees were walking along the street in Medicine Hat, Alberta and they saw a sign on a store which read, "Suits $5 each, shirts $2 each, slacks 2.50 per pair."
Bubba said to his pal, "Cooter, Look here! We could buy a whole gob of these, take 'em back to Moose Jaw, sell 'em to our friends, and make a fortune.
Now when we go in there you be quiet, okay? Just let me do the talkin' 'cause if they hear your accent, they might think we're ignorant, and not wanna sell that stuff to us. Now, I'll talk like a person from Alberta so's they don't know."
They went in and Bubba said with his best fake accent, "I'll take 50 of them suits at $5 each, 100 of them there shirts at $2 each,and 50 pairs of them there trousers at $2.50 each. I'll back up my pickup and .
" The owner of the shop interrupted, "You folks are from Saskatchewan, aren't you?"
"Well...yeah," said a surprised Bubba.... "How'd you know that?"
The owner said, "Because this is a dry-cleaners."

Watch your step, there's sarcasm afoot.

Daylight savings time is a very interesting notion. There is lots of talk on the news of the American’s plan to changing daylight savings ahead by two hours. This will give less daylight in the early morning (when people don’t use it) and more daylight in the evening (when people are still awake) and definitively conserve energy. This is going to help the power shortage and help out the global economy.

As a man from Canada, I am very concerned about the American’s power shortage. But as a man from Saskatchewan, I am not concerned in the least about upcoming changes in Daylight Savings time. Mostly the concept of Daylight Savings Time is a foreign notion to me, being born and raised in Saskatchewan. I asked one of my neighbours what he thought about Daylight Savings Time and his response was, “Daylight what? Oh, that’s when all of the TV shows change time right?”

But who wants more daylight? Who wants to be able to play an 18 round of golf after work? Who wants to have daylight at 11:00 at night? I’ll tell you, the kids in Saskatchewan are fortunate to have less daylight during the evenings because it makes for an easier game of hide and go seek when it’s dark at 10:00.

At times other people from Saskatchewan find themselves defending their province with the most intellectual defences possible. My most favourite: “The dairy cows are incapable of being switching their routine. The milk curdles if they have to produce it at an earlier or later time of the day.” This is a fantastic argument. The COWS are keeping us from having extra sunlight because they cannot change their routines. Obviously there is no solution to this problem, which is why it makes for such an impenetrable defence.

Then there is the standard argument. We have never had daylight savings time and there is nothing wrong with the system now, so why change it? Yet again, an outstanding defence. We Saskatchewan folks are natural debaters.

There are definite problems with the current system. We have had daylight savings time in the past, and it created problems. But instead of fixing the problem, we got rid of DST all together! What happens if you live on the Manitoba / Saskatchewan border, there is a time change for half of the year that makes life difficult. If you live in Alberta, there is a time change for one half of the year that yet again makes life more difficult at the same time. If I want to go over the border to visit family for a 5:00 dinner date, we’d have to leave at 3:00 just to be there in time to eat. But at 10:00, we leave and get back at 10:00. Is this not a problem with the current system?

And, by the way, how do the manitobian cows get through the time change? I wonder how it is possible that the Manitoba Dairies could change but the Saskatchewan Dairies can’t. My uncle has a Manitoba Dairy farm, I wonder if his cows are just that much more intelligent!

I asked my uncle if what I had heard about Dairy cows was true, that the milk will curdle if you alter the time frame for milking. He assured me that it was true, that if you change the cows schedule over by an hour, it will affect their production. (although the milk does not curdle, it does affect the amount of milk that the cows can produce). However, to solve this problem, simply wake up an hour earlier or later to accommodate the cows! Or, change the cows schedule by 15 minutes for 2 days at a time until they are back on the proper schedule. Wow, it seems that it is not the Manitoba cows that are more intelligent, but the Manitoba farmers!

Stupidity drives me nuts.

The main argument that is rarely spoken about is the same argument for Bush’s push to change Daylight Savings Time in the US. SaskPower is a crown corporation owned by the province of Saskatchewan, and if Saskatchewan went on Daylight savings time, we would have more daylight, with would facilitate less of a need for power, which would reduce the annual earnings of SaskPower. While the American’s are trying to mend the energy crisis, Saskatchewan Parliament is doing the opposite for monetary reasons.

Determinism vs. Libertarianism

Baron D’Holbach wrote: “In man, free agency is nothing more than necessity contained within himself.”[1] Free agency of the individual is the major building block of Libertarianism, which is the ideology that states that free will exists. Libertarians believe that along with every action, there is a choice and that the opportunity to choose between acts is equal. Contrastingly, determinism is the ideology that the past dictates the future. Specifically, nature can be explained by an infinitely complicated algorithm and therefore the future is determined by what has occurred in the past. The consequences of this ideology are that if the future is established by the past, individuals could not be held accountable for their actions. This ideology contrasts libertarianism because determinists believe that no choice exists. Determinists state that anyone who was born by the same parents, at the same moment in time, would make the same predetermined choice and therefore freedom of choice does not exist.
Determinists believe that from the very beginning of life, there are no real choices in life. Yet, libertarians believe that after birth, freewill exists. Holbach comments on libertarianism:
He is born without his one consent;’ his organization does in nowise depend upon himself’; his ideas come to him involuntarily’ his habits are in the power of those who cause him to contract them; he is he is unceasingly modified by causes, whether visible or concealed, over which he has no control, which necessarily regulate his mode of existence, give the hue to his way of thinking, and determined his manner of acting […] Nevertheless, in despite of the shackles by which he is bound, it is pretended he is a free agent, or that independent of the causes by which he is moved, he determines his own will, and regulates his own condition. (Holbach, 88)

Holbach comments that the situations presented to individuals in life are beyond their control, and libertarians pretend that the reactions to these situations are within our control. No individual is a free agent because the situations the individual encounters cannot be controlled. No individual has the choice of whose family he will be born into, nor does he have the choice as to when he will be born. If the individual has the ability to choose his time of birth and the parents he’s born of, then and only then he would have free will.
Libertarianism accepts that many incidences are beyond human control, but argues that people do have some choice in life. Regarding the constraints of birth, Campell writes:
No man has a voice in determining the raw material of impulses and capacities that constitute his hereditary endowment, and no man has more than a very partial control of the material and social environment in which he is destined to live his life. Yet it would be manifestly absurd to deny that these two factors do constantly and profoundly affect the nature of a man’s choice.[2]

He further notes that although there is no choice in genetic makeup (neither social status nor cultural upbringing of an individual), he must be held accountable at some point for his actions. He has to make decisions that are solely his own choice with no external factors being involved. Determinists do not believe that this point exists, because every experience that the individual experiences shape the choice the individual will make.
Determinism’s view is based on an unknown algorithm that explains the laws that govern nature, including human reaction. There is evidence of this in the similarities between individuals. David Hume wrote: “So readily and universally do we acknowledge uniformity in human motives and actions as well as in the operations of the body.”[3] Hume believed that individuals exude similarities that allow explanations to explain behaviour. He believed that these similarities are constants found among the human race. Libertarianism does not make allowances for constants between human thought patterns because, as the theory states, individuals always have a choice as to how they are going to react to different stimuli. However, if these constants did not exist, proven scientific processes, such as psychoanalysis, would not be valid treatments for analysing and treating the mentally ill.
Libertarianism allows for these similarities in human reaction. Constants in human behaviour are evident, and without these constants, man would not be a natural being. Holbach believed that if these constants did not exist, as libertarianism suggests, man would not have the ability to sense pain or pleasure, to know the difference between good and evil, or to know how to love because he would have a choice whether or not to tend to his wellbeing. He suggests that man naturally acts with self-serving interests and towards man’s own well being (Holbach, 89-90). Self-destructive acts go against human nature, and determinists suggest that they are extreme and complex reactions to an extreme and complex stimulus. If libertarianism is true, man would have a choice between acting in a “pro-self” manner or against the self, and to act in a self-destructive manner is completely against human nature.
Despite the argument that extreme and complex reactions follow extreme and complex stimuli, the major argument against determinism is that upon cursory analysis it appears as though there is no moral responsibility for those reactions. If the actions of individuals are predetermined by an unknown formula, then we cannot hold the individual accountable for any actions made, heroic or evil. The problem is how to justify punishment to evil doers. The determinist argument would ostensibly be that anyone who had been born of the same family at that moment of time, and that particular place would have done the exact same evil deed. On cursory analysis, there is an assumption that within deterministic thought there is no accountability for wrongdoing. However, the answer lies in the word punishment. Punishment is a negative stimuli used as a deterrent from committing a crime. It has been proven that people with an anti-social personality disorder are virtually born without a conscience and have no ability to reform. Therefore, no negative stimuli can be used as a successful deterrent against wrongdoings. Perhaps we should not punish the individual for wrongdoings, but we should protect society from the individual who has been shaped into an evildoer. For instance, the locking up a mass murderer is not punishment to the mass murderer; it is offering society protection from the mass murderer.
Society depends on moral responsibility to reward and punish individuals. The libertarianism theorists believe that there is moral responsibility coexisting with free will. Campbell wrote:
The proposition which we must be able to affirm if moral praise to blame of X is to be justified is the categorical proposition that X could have acted otherwise because – not if – he could have chosen otherwise; or, since it is essentially the inner side of the act that matters, the proposition simply that X could have chosen otherwise. (Campbell, 164)

Campbell is explaining that moral responsibility comes with the choice between two or more actions. He also notes that it is not conditional, (“X could have acted otherwise because – not if – he could have chosen otherwise”). He is saying that the choice does, in fact, exist and the individual is the sole author of the decision (Campbell, 168 – 170). In direct response to Campbell, Paul Edwards writes, “The reflective person, I should prefer to express it, requires not only that the agent was not coerced; he also requires that the agent originally chooses his own character…”[4] Edwards shows that the individual is not the sole author because he had no choice to choose his own predetermined character. The predetermined character and temperament of an individual will curb the decisions he makes. If free will is the complete freedom to choose one act over another, then it does not exist because of predetermined character and temperament of an individual will unfairly weigh the decision.
Determinism works in theory, but people do not think in deterministic terms. Individuals feel morally responsible for actions that things that they have chosen to do. Campbell writes:
Theoretically he many be completely convinced by Determinist arguments, but when actually confronted with a personal situation f conflict between duty and desire he is quite certain that it lies with him here and now whether or not he will rise to duty (Campbell, 170).

He further states that determinism is solely theoretical because the ideology is simply impractical. However, determinism agrees that there can be agony in decision making. It is a natural experience. The human mind will examine a situation, and compare it with all knowledge and experiences that it has acquired and predict the possible outcomes, and after weighing the possible outcomes, make its choice of action. The information available, the character of the individual, and the individual’s environment are some of the factors that will determine the decision made. It may not be the best decision, but after the decision has been made and carried through, the experience is added to the character of the individual and will help in the decision-making process in future.
Pro-libertarianism arguments of moral responsibility all point to the existence of choice. Contrary to popular belief, determinism does not necessarily contradict the existence of choice. Determinists believe that the choice is already predetermined by the character, which has been shaped by the individual’s environment. As stated earlier from Campbell, “he could have chosen otherwise” is a reoccurring theme in Libertarianism. Campbell’s use of the word “could” indicates probability. Since probability is mathematical, we could rewrite the argument as such:
Let X = the choice of action taken.
Let Y = the choice of action not taken.
Px = 1
Py = 0

Thus, if the probability of choosing the action that is not taken is zero, then the probability of the action taken is 100% certain. Determinists say that the choice is predetermined and therefore choice does not exist. There is no way to prove that the individual would choose another action, other than the X, because he in fact chooses X and always does choose X. To argue that he could have chosen Y is simply irrational because it has 0 probability of being chosen. The libertarians believe that there is free choice if there is an equal chance of choosing an option other than the action taken. Determinists say that the other action is never taken and there is no proof to say that he could have because the ability to manipulate time is beyond human ability.
Libertarians suggest that there are no constants in human life, (i.e., there are no predetermined personality temperaments). Yet there are psychologists (such as Carl Jung) who suggest that there are personality temperaments that explain certain behaviour. Even the process of psychoanalysis explains general personality disorders, neuroses and psychoses that explain abnormal personality behaviour. These the study of these disciplines leads to treatments of the mentally disturbed. If free will exists and there are no constants in life, only choices, then these widely accepted psychological theories cannot be true. If the theories are not true, even those who are mentally unstable would be held completely accountable (morally) for their actions.
The deterministic view is that there is a complicated algorithm that can explain all natural laws. This formula suggests that all individuals are a product of their environment. Although we hold people morally responsible for their actions, it does not mean that they could have chosen differently. The constants in life (family, birth and temperament) are beyond our control and choice of action is predetermined by the past. The problem of moral responsibility is the major attack on determinism; however, if one thinks in terms of protection from evildoers instead of punishment, the problem is solved. Without determinism, there would be no scientific explanation of the constants of human behaviour and the many psychoanalytic theories to explain human behaviour we use today would be null and void.


[1] Baron Holbach, The System of Nature, 103. This book will hereafter be referred to as Holbach, and all references to it will appear in the text.
[2] C.A. Campbell, On Selfhood and Godhood, 161. This book will hereafter be referred to as Campbell and all references to it will appear in the text.
[3] David Hume, An enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 383. This book will hereafter be referred to as Hume and all references will appear in the text.
[4] Paul Edwards, Determinism and Freedom in the Age of Modern Science, 370.