I tried to tackle the problem of free will; it seems like a lifetime ago.  I concluded that there is no free will, but fate.  I just re-read some comments someone had.  The commenter obviously did not truly read the text.  This was evidenced by cross outs of whole paragraphs as I read the paper to an audience.   What was left of the notes exposed the fundamental conflict to me, the conflict of the enlightenment: how can we resolve reason with morality or our own experience.  I must admit currently I feel quite the non-cognitivist (one who feels that morals simply show up in the mind without reflection).  The distinctions my paper tried to draw as (1) that the old “classical” fate of no one being able to do anything about anything that befalls them is wrong (or in more clear words we are not puppets of Zeus); (2) It is not determinism that determines us it is fate.  Determinism is a thesis about all physical events.  That all is determined as soon as the Universe began.  Fate or “renaissance” fate says that we are determined only by ourselves.  Fate is a purely human creation.  It is created by who you are.  One cannot escape who they are; therefore one is bound to their fate.  Included below is the aforementioned paper.

Abstract: This paper draws a distinction between “renaissance” fatalism and “classical” fatalism.

It develops in some detail the “renaissance” fatalism perspective and relates that perspective to

contemporary developments in philosophy. It also reveals the strength of renaissance fatalism

against the classical criticisms of fatalism.

Fate has fallen on hard times. Rather than a pertinent topic for debate or critical

reflection, fate has become a literary device used to set up plot lines or advance fantasy

adventures. It appears that our materialistic culture has cast off this ancient concept in

favor of a more scientific-sounding causal route to hard determinism or perfect freedom.

It is brash to dismiss this concept that is as old as human civilization and has permeated

all levels of human expression. One wonders whether the idea of fate has any

significance in the modern world. Perhaps the answer lies in a shift away from defining

fate as supernatural"neither witches with all-seeing eyes nor a malevolent puppeteer that

pulls strings to determine one’s actions. There is an alternative to the “classical” idea of

fate found in such works as Oedipus Rex and The Appointment in Samarra. This

alternative conception can be found in Heraclitus’ assessment of fate: “Character is

fate.”1 Using this simple but compelling representation, we can look to literary works

such as Shakespeare’s Macbeth and Lorenzo Di Valla’s Dialogue on Free Will to

demonstrate the usefulness of Heraclitus’ characterization of fate. This idea of fate will

show that its perpetrator is not the occult but instead merely an agent’s character.

“Classical” Fate

The “classical” and still evocative conception of fate is that an agent can do

nothing about anything that befalls him. This conception of fate is illustrated by the

2

ancient Greek work of Sophocles, Oedipus Rex, and the Islamic parable of The

Appointment in Samarra as retold by W. Somerset Maugham. In the tragedy of Oedipus

Rex, Oedipus’ fate was sealed; he was certainly doomed to murder his father despite his

labors to keep from doing so. Similarly, The Appointment in Samarra expresses how

death would come for the servant regardless of his efforts.

The classic Greek tragedy Oedipus Rex recounts the tale of star-crossed Oedipus,

who was fated to murder his father and marry his mother. In an attempt to thwart

prophecy, Oedipus’ father sends him to be murdered. However, the shepherd asked to

carry out this gruesome task feels mercy and takes infant Oedipus to Corinth, far away

from his father in Thebes. Alas, in the “classical” conception, fate cannot be fooled.

Years later, Oedipus flees from Corinth after he is told that he is not his adopted father’s

son. He happens upon a chariot, which forces him off the road. Already emotionally

turbulent from the recent revelation, Oedipus has a fit of rage and kills every man who

was with the chariot. Of course, one of the men was the King of Thebes, Oedipus’

biological father. Upon reaching Thebes, Oedipus encounters a Sphinx blocking the

gates. Oedipus frees the Thebians from the terror of the Sphinx by solving its riddle. As

a reward for saving the city, Oedipus is crowned king and unknowingly marries his

mother, Queen of Thebes. Shortly thereafter, a terrible plague descends upon the city.

According to the oracle, Thebes could only be saved by exiling the one who murdered the

previous king. Oedipus’ investigation leads him to the terrible knowledge of his deeds;

he exclaims, “Apollo. Apollo. Dear Children, the god was Apollo. He brought my sick,

sick fate upon me.”2 Oedipus’ tragedy illustrates the relentless nature of the “classical”

conception of fate, a force that cannot be defied.

3

Likewise, in the ancient Muslim conception of fate, fate will not be stopped. In

the recounting of the Muslim parable, W. Somerset Maugham effectively shows the

inescapable force of the fate of “classical” conception. In The Appointment in Samarra,

Death narrates a tale of her appointment with a servant. A merchant’s servant sees Death

in the market and believes she made a threatening gesture towards him. After fleeing

home, he begs his master for a horse in order to escape to Samarra. The master, irritated,

confronts Death at the market. Death retorts, “That was not a threatening gesture, I said,

it was only a start of surprise. I was astonished to see him in Baghdad, for I had an

appointment with him tonight in Samarra.”3 This eerie reply demonstrates the

quintessential nature of classical fate"an inevitable force.

Surely it must be this sort of fatalism that philosophers ridicule. Daniel Dennet in

Elbow Room does just that. After laying out the “bogeymen” that would be considered

executors of classical fate, he states that “I cannot prove that none of the bogeymen…

really exist anymore than I can prove that the Devil, or Santa Claus, doesn’t exist. But I

am prepared to put on a sober face and assure anyone who needs assuring that there is

absolutely no evidence to suggest that any of these horrible agents exists.”4 Later on in

his essay, Dennet dismisses fatalism as a superstitious, mystical view that need not be

taken seriously.

Fate as Character

Dennet’s sober-faced assurance may be enough to discredit the “classical”

conception of fate, but Heraclitus’ character-based conception is not so easily dismissed.

4

If character is the whole of our being and decision-making, it surely chooses for us.

Thus, we are determined by our intrinsic character.

The conception of fate as character has existed since antiquity as what shapes

one’s ultimate ends. During the Renaissance, conjectures about fate and free will

flourished in many forms. Lorenzo Di Valla’s Dialogue on Free Will demonstrates a

shift from classical fate to fate as character or “renaissance” fate.

The Dialogue follows the discussion of two friends, Antonio and Lorenzo, on the

incommensurability between free will and God. Lorenzo recounts the Greek tale of

Sextus Tarquinius, who visits Apollo in order to learn of his fate. He discovers that he is

destined to be an exiled pauper killed by the angry city. Appalled by this

pronouncement, Sextus protests that he had always been a good citizen and made his

sacrifices to the gods. Apollo proclaims that “…I know the fates, I do not decide them; I

am able to announce fortune not change her…” This announcement echoes the sentim

In order to see some good friends that I haven't seen in a long damn time, I attended the Pittsburgh Comicon, generally not my type of thing; however, it provided some interesting fodder for analysis. For me, mainly in the area of false realities. The overarching philosophic question being "Can we ever really know reality?" This question has been tackled a lot, especially by some of the modernists. I'm inclined to say "No", our version of reality is tainted by cultural expectations, our own ideas, past experiences, and a myriad of other things. I do think that there is some common ground though, a shared set of perceptions that makes up the world we know.

The comicon was most interesting because some people seem to be caught up in a world that few share, a world of superheroes, villans, busty women in spandex, etc. They don the costumes, read the books, own the action figures. But why? Why put that much effort into such a false reality? Today I saw Wolverine, Wonder Woman, Cat Woman, Spiderman, Blade, and a myriad of others most of whom I probably could not name. The irony - pale, sickly, socially awkward were these superheroes. They are socially outcast, and the reality that they cling onto is one where they can imagine that they are the opposite. I tried to imagine the social ramifications that would occur if a comic book reality were real. Crime is nearly out of control, mainly being handled by vigilantes. These vigilantes are huge, all powerful, almost god-like. Everybody is bigger, the women are even more out of reach. This doesn't seem like the ideal place for the average acne ridden, high school outcast. Then I remembered, in classic comic book mythology the heroes are often outcasts, Superman is a mild mannered journalist, Spiderman is a dorky research scientist, all of the X-Men are social outcasts. Not only that, but they are heroes - they save people, they are glorified (usually). This hope of an idealized reality seeps into their reality, and when mixed with a function where they are not only tolerated, but welcomed you get grown men in costumes in the middle of September in the suburbs of Pittsburgh.

I tried all day to understand. I'm a bit socially strange myself, philosophy tends to ruin some social skills one may have had. And so, I too wear a costume. I go out and work my job and wear my man suit. I wear my costume in how I dress (comfortable and normal so as not to stick out, generally dickies and a t-shirt), how I talk (short words and empatheically, "Ohh famous person x died, that's too bad"). We all wear our costumes to fit in with certain groups, to blend into our own version of reality. And that is how I learned to connect with people who paint themselves completely blue and go out in public...

            They drove by the same sign on their commute six days a week for months. It hung above a bus stop across the street from a dignified graveyard in a formerly dignified part of town. Filth paved the streets and decrepit buildings filled with old business signs lined the filth.

            He had been living with her for a year and a half now and why he stayed with her escaped him. He hated everything in the life they had made together. Emotional breakdowns, top 40 radio, and a schedule dominated by this week's TV Guide.

            They were approaching the sign now. He was lost in thought, sustaining that same fake smile that had become permanently embroidered on his face. She was driving, belting out the latest pop hit. Oh, how she prided herself on knowing all the words. They were passing a failed restaurant, it's broken down sign used to say “Thanks for the Memories” but was changed by some youth with a penchant for truth to “thanks for the wories”.

            The car was passing more and more pedestrian traffic as it came closer to the bus stop. Drug addicts, homeless, poor, homeless drug addicts and random people were moving toward their stop. She kept singing.

            His thoughts raced, he didn't know if he could stand another day trapped in the New American Dream.  An attractive woman, a house, a dog, and soon she'd want kids too. It was reality TV night and tomorrow would be medical drama night, and the night after next would be forensic crime drama, followed by reality medical crime drama.  A never ending cycle of insignificant images inundating them both.

            The sign was looming over the bus stop. Its blue background with big yellow letters starting to morph from color patches to characters with a teleology. A huddled mass of homeless and poor stood underneath it at the bus stop. The words of the sign became clear: “Rent 'A' Center,” and below it the tag line: “Worry free living.” Then he wondered what would happen tomorrow on the medical drama. 

The unreflected life is not worth living, but the reflected life may be unlivable.

Kirkegaard

Forward:

This contemplation has developed from a very short conversation with a very stupid person. In spite of the title, I do not plan to offer any explanation for the actual meaning of life, other than one loosely inferred. The purpose of this rant is to explain a very basic concept that I feel people take for granted regarding this mysterious thing called life.

The Conversation:

A warehouse is an interesting place for a philosopher to work, though it is undoubtedly the fate of many a young student of wisdom. Huddled over boxes at the hub of consumer whoredom one meets an interesting segment of society that is often overlooked by the most serious student. A prime example is the 18 year old, attention-craving female. It isn't her lack of formal education, but her deep-seeded stupidity that makes her unappealing in most contexts. Yet, it was in the company of such a succubus that I found myself. In a vain attempt to rouse my attention to her plight she blurted out "Life sucks and then you die, that's what I've figured out to be true." Violent rejection of this statement instantly rose from a deep, dark place inside me, yet I couldn't fully express myself to her, or at least my attempts were futile. This single sentence kept me awake for several nights. During this time I discovered that, while not everybody phrases it with such cliche teen angst, it comes from a very common philosophic view. (Note: "philosophy" in this sense is not meant literally 'love of wisdom', but figuratively in the sense of explaining the essence of things)

Now the Meaning of Life....sort of:

Let us look at the implications of a phrase such as "life sucks". First, this implies that there is a thing called life, seeminly outside of human existence. Second, this thing called life is bad, at worst out to get you, and at best unfulfilling. To me providing an existence to such a thing as life is about as logical as providing existence to God. "This thing called 'life' exists and it's out to get me".  Once again, a distinction should be made about how terms are used. Life in this sense does not mean biological life, but some thing that seems to encompass all physical existence, as well as human experience, and how humans react to these experiences. Well where is life? What is it's motive for making you unhappy? Does life watch you when you pee?

I mentioned how this view of things is widely accepted. "Life is hard" "My life is in a downward spiral", etc etc. It is usually made most apparent when things are going poorly. It seems as though this is a case of widespread absurdity. So what is the root of such a strange view of things? I think on a superficial level people just don't think about what they say. On a deeper level I think it stems from the fact that people don't like to take responsibility for their mistakes or poor choices. My problem isn't that I got knocked up and failed to provide myself with the options to find a better job, I am an innocent victim of this thing called life, which caused all of these problems.

So does this thing called life exist? Yes and no, I think. The universe carries on in the same way that it has for billion of years. Humans of course have a personal experience of this, this experience is painted by their interpretation, and how they are influenced by others around them (This is the effect of culture). Experience leads to choices, not only choices of action, but choices of interpretation. The way that we interpret the whole of human experience and our part in it is completely up to us individually. Basically, life doesn't suck, life doesn't exist, your view of human experience is negative because you have made bad choices that you don't want to take responsiblity for. Your response is to create a godhead, who appearing malevolent, becomes your scapegoat.

I began my studies in religion with the idea of learning about the beliefs of groups of people so that I might take an objective look at them and in some fashion bridge the gaps that often plague people. One such gap exists in the philosophic world, and it is a common gap expressed on this blog. It is the uncommon ground often marked by the existentialist and the determinist or fatalist. Being the existential type I have often said of my counterparts that they hold their beliefs because their lives are in such despair that they cannot bear to take responsibility for the life that they have created. While responsibility is a major point of contention between the two groups I no longer feel that it is the primary point of departure for the two schools.

I realized that the reason people latch on to a philosophy like fatalism is because they wish to see significance in everything. The path to fatalism begins with the belief in a priori significance. They view the existentialist with a look of pity, because in the existential world they can find no significance. I feel that this attitude is a distortion of, primarily, post modern ideas, and secondly, a distortion of existentialist ideas. As I begin graduate school I am tackling the problem of significance in my profession (Archives and Preservation Management). I will show how my model fits professionally momentarily.

Does the existentialist find significance in the world? Yes, however, it is not a priori. The significance of any event that happens in the world is created by the observer. The physical world on its own contains no significance, however, our interaction with that world, and mainly, with each other can have great significance. The piano sits in a room. It is a collection of ivory, wood, steel, and brass. We have defined a set of meaningless things and organized them in a manner that is significant. However, even the piano is only significant to a handful of people, and completely insignificant to another group. This is because they have not learned to play the piano, or they have not learned to appreciate the piano. To them it is a collection of ivory, wood, steel, and brass.

Does the post-modernist find significance in the world? Yes, but only in the real world that we really live in, as opposed to the world of concepts. To a post-modern philosopher there is no significance in philosophy. It is an academic exercise which involves the creation and pondering of unanswerable questions. Philosophy explores esoteric concepts, she tries to understand the world through a series of abstract models that are supposedly representative of the world. The post-modernist realizes that the abstract models are just that, abstract models. This does not rule out the possibility of significance in the world. The things in the world that are significant are those things which abstract models cannot capture. Interactions with peers, friendship, love, and maybe a Beethoven piano sonata play a vital role in our lives, and to try to abstract them is to lose the meaning their significance.

As an archivist I protect the collective memory of society. I do so by maintaining access to documents, letters, pictures, video, sound clips, etc, etc, etc. These things on their own have little or no significance. They become significant in a created context. Letters are meaningless on their own, but when you discover who wrote them, and who received them, and see them within a collection of other letters a glimpse of their importance shines through. Their significance to the originators is different that their significance to the researcher. The content is viewed through a different set of lenses, and a new, perhaps greater significance is created by the new observer, who is seeing the document in a specific, created context.

I have not sought to define significance, it is a unique term, married in a certain way to others like quality, value, and meaning. It exists, and it may even exist as an a priori. If it is an a priori though, it is only in the observer, never in the observed. The fatalist looks at the existentialist with pity. Their search starts at the same place: significance. The paths do indeed diverge slightly, but it seems as though the roads might be closer to one another than we like to admit.

I felt this pertained to the last entry:

You know I'm not dead
Now you know where Ive been
As you sleep
Torn I am
Weighted down
Patiently
Born of love
You know I;m not dead
I;m just living in my head
Forever waiting
On the ways of your desire
You always find a way
And threw it all
Into us all you move
Forgotten touch
Forbidden thought
We can never have enough
You know I'm not dead
Found below
The creatures scream
Stranglehold
A God machine
Begging to
Tear us out
Worn as hope
You know I'm not dead I'm just the tears inside your head
Forever waiting
On the ways of your desire
You always find a way
And threw it all into us all you move
Forgotten touch
Forbidden thought
We can never have enough
You know I'm not dead

We all want to hold in the everlasting gaze
Enchanted in the rapture of his sentimental sway
But underneath the wheels lie the skulls of every cog
The fickle fascination of an everlasting god
You know I'm not dead

I'm just living in my head
Forever waiting
Forever waiting on cruel death
You know I'm not dead
I'm just living for myself
Forever waiting
You know I'm not dead

In his essay "The Poet" (1844), Ralph Waldo Emerson makes frequent and eloquent use of Neoplatonic philosophy. A deeper investigation of Neoplatonic metaphysics, particularly of the philosopher Plotinus, gives insight into some of the ideas the Emerson was trying to convey. The acknowledgment of Emerson´s Neoplatonic influence is widely accepted; however, little work seems to have been done in analysis of this particular essay. For this reason I will draw on more general criticisms of Emerson´s work and relate those ideas to my thesis. Emerson drew on the metaphysical teachings as well as the aesthetic teachings of Neoplatonism for his ideas. He employed great effort to imbue every part of his writing with this philosophy. Emerson's philosophic influence was vital in driving Romanticism in the United States. This influence can still be felt in the arts today.

Neoplatonism is a school of philosophy that is usually attributed to the Greek, Plotinus. The metaphysics of Plotinus focuses on the idea of unity of being. He taught that the primary form was a "self-caused" being called "The One". Other forms were derived from The One by a process of emanation. This unity of being means that everything is an integral part of The One. As The One emanates it loses potency, like light shining into a dark room. The further a thing is from The One, the less properties of The One it has. Generally, this is thought of in a ranking from spirit to material. The One is pure spirit and the further it emanates the more material laden it becomes. Another important aspect of Plotinus´ philosophy is his concept of beauty, which Emerson draws from heavily. Beauty was a primary property of The One; the dividing of The One into the forms dispersed the beauty throughout the forms. Material beauty is the lowest form because the material world is the furthest removed from The One. (Gerson) This is a monistic or pantheistic philosophy and everything that exists is seen as a microcosm of the totality of existence. Augustine, the Christian philosopher, as well as a secret sect of Christians called the Gnostics drew heavily on Neoplatonic philosophy. As I will demonstrate, Emerson draws on some Gnostic ideas in his essay in addition to the more traditional Greek version of the teaching.(Kung 137)

Ralph Waldo Emerson employs several versions of what Plotinus would call The One. Emerson refers to the unity of being as The Beauty, Nature, the divine, Unity, and The Deity, to name a few. The varieties of names all refer to the concept that the Neoplatonic philosophers used to describe the Unity of Being. He is insistent that the poet is able to experience this Unity and that is his inspiration for poetry. He quotes the Neoplatonic philosopher Jamblichus who says "Things more excellent than every image are expressed through images." (Emerson 554) This means that everything contains a greater intrinsic value than what is seen externally. This is Emerson´s defense for the commonality of items used in what we would now call Romantic Poetry. The poets of earlier times did not recognize the value of ordinary objects because they failed to realize that all objects are united in existence and each is representative of that unity. Poetry has a special significance in its ability to express this divinity to others. A. Bronson Alcott made this point when he said "...belonging as they (eloquent words) do to the essence of man´s personality, and partaking of the qualities of the Creator, they are of spiritual significance." (14) Even the words describing the world contain the divinity implied by Neoplatonism.

Emerson makes references implying that The One is poetry in itself. The poet's job is to hear the original poetry and copy it accurately.

"For poetry was all written before time was, and whenever we are so finely organized that we can penetrate into that region wehre the air is music, we hear those primal warblins, and attempt to write them down, but we lose ever and anon a word, or a verse, and substitute something of our own, and thus miswrite the poem." (Emerson 552)

Emerson equates poetry with beauty, a primary property of The One. Any natrual beauty is symbolic of the divinity of The One. This point is made in several passages from a large section about symbols. First he says, "Nature offers all her creatures to him as a picture-language." (Emerson 554) Language is symbolic of the real world, not descriptive of the real world. Emerson is stating that the language of nature is one that is seen rather than heard. Emerson also reveals that, "It is nature the symbol, nature certifying the supernatural, body overflowed by life, which he (the poet) worships, with coarse, but sincere rites." (555) Nature is something more than just what we see, nature is supernatural and divine. The poet worships this divinity with his poetry.

Most of the time Emerson clearly explains what he is saying; however, sometimes he seems to take for granted what his audience may or may not know about this philosophy. Emerson makes a few references to Neoplatonism that are not fully developed and whose meanings may be lost to the reader. Emerson claims that "science always goes abreast with the just elevation of the man, keeping step with religion and metaphysics; or, the state of science is an index of our self-knowledge." ( 554) Pantheist philosophers such as Baruch Spinoza believed that if God was the only substance and everything was part of God, then science was a matter studying the self. (Sprigge 889) Emerson also seems to feel that the advancements of our science are a product of self knowledge. The self is representative of the totality of the Universe, to know the self would be to know of everything. Another quote that stands out is "We are...children of the fire, made of it, and only the same divinity transmuted, and at two or three removes, when we know least about it." (Emerson 551) This is a reference to the Gnostic interpretation of the Neoplatonic creation story. The Gnostics believed that the further The One emanated the less perfect the being became. The material world is the furthest thing from The One. It is so far away that humans often do not see the connection. (Kung 140)

Creation references are throughout the essay. Emerson places the poet in a divine role, he is creating poetry which is symbolic of The Beauty. For Emerson the poetic process is no less divine than the creation of the universe. This idea is expressed when he says, "The thought and form are equal in the order of time, but in the order of genesis the thought is prior to the form." (Emerson 553) The first part of the quote is part of a basic theory of epistemology, that we perceive forms and think of those forms simultaneously. The second part refers to the creation or "genesis" of forms. The One is pure spirit, or pure thought that became form by process of emanation. This process was not accidental, so in a sense The One thought of something and then created that form. The poet takes part in this creation process by creating poetry from his thoughts of a form, just as God created the universe from His thoughts of forms. Another creation reference is made with the statement, "Being passes into Appearance, and Unity into Variety." (Emerson 554) Emerson is referring to the transition from spirit or thought into form, and from the singularity of The One to the variety of all the things we see on earth. Emerson refers to creation and Plotinian aesthetics when he states, "God has not made some beautiful things, but Beauty is the creator of the universe." (552) Here he is referring to God as Beauty. God has not made some things that are beautiful and other things that are not; but, Beauty, who is God, has made everything and is everything. This is another defense of the Romantic Ideal. Everything is beautiful; therefore, everything is worthy of becoming poetry. A. Bronson Alcott says of Emerson that he is "a true believer in the world, dealing with men and matters as if they were divine in idea and real in fact."(19)

"Emerson attempted to get his whole philosophy into every essay, and even into single sentences." ( Franklin, Gura, Krupat, Klinkowitz, Levine, Loeffelholz, Reesman, Wallace 492) Emerson was highly influenced by the Neoplatonists and this is evident in his work. At times Emerson is more subtle with his reference to Greek thought. Jay Bregman feels that Emerson has contributed to an aesthetic that is unique to the United States. The transcendentalists and their interest in "Hellenic Neoplatonism as such has formed a backdrop to elements in American thought and art."(Bregman 185) A basic understanding of this style of Greek thought goes a long way in deciphering some of the hidden meaning implanted in Emerson's work and understanding the work of the transcendentalists. The work of these early Americans has affected art and literature in all spheres. Emerson wished to inspire the poets of the United States to sing the "songs unsung", those things that were unique to this part of the world. His work has succeeded in doing so by inspiring artists in all mediums to do so for the next 250 years.

Alcott, A.Bronson. Ralph Waldo Emerson: an Estimate of his Character and Genius. (1882). Appears at The American Verse Project. Available online at Accessed 6/2008. University of Michigan Humanities T ext Initiative. Ann Arbor, MI.

Bregman, Jay. Neoplatonism and American Aesthetics. Appears in Neoplatonism and Western Aesthetics by Alexandrakis, Aphrodite (ed). (2002). State University of New York Press. New York, NY

Emerson, Ralph Waldo. The Poet. (1844). Appears in The Norton Anthology of American Literature, Seventh Edition by Franklin, Gura, Krupat, Klinkowitz, Levine, Loeffelholz, Reesman, Wallace. (2002). W.W. Norton & Company. New York, NY

Franklin, Gura, Krupat, Klinkowitz, Levine, Loeffelholz, Reesman, Wallace.The Norton Anthology of American Literature, Seventh Edition. (2008). W.W. Norton & Company. New York, NY

Gerson, Lloyd. Plotinus. Appears in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available online at (2003). Accessed 6/2008. Stanford University Press. Stanford,CA

Kung, Hans. Christianity:Essence, History, and Future. (1995). Continuum Press. New York, NY

Sprigge, T.L.S. Baruch Spinoza. (2005). Appears in The Oxford Guide to Philosophy. Oxford University Press. Oxford, England