×

We use cookies to help make LingQ better. By visiting the site, you agree to our cookie policy.

image

Crash Course 2: Philosophy., 15a. Indiana Jones & Pascal's Wager. Part 1/2.

15a. Indiana Jones & Pascal's Wager. Part 1/2.

Crash Course Philosophy is brought to you by Squarespace. quarespace: share your passion with the world.

Remember when you were little and your mom told you to eat your spinach so you'd grow up big and strong? Or in college, when you set your clock ten minutes ahead, to fool yourself into getting to class on time?

We all engage in useful fictions – things that we choose to believe, because, they just make life easier. And when we do this, we are being pragmatists. Pragmatism is based on the theory that finding true beliefs is less important than finding beliefs that work, practically, in the living of your life.

In this view, it doesn't really matter whether spinach actually helps muscle growth; if eating spinach will improve your life, and believing that it'll make you strong convinces you to eat it – then it's a useful belief, which is all that matters. Pragmatism is relatively recent as philosophical movements go. But some of the most well-known American pragmatists – like William James, and, I would argue, Indiana Jones – have an ideological ancestor in 17th century mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal.

You can be a pragmatist about basically anything – knowledge, spinach, metaphysics, ethics, or whether it's actually 11:30 right now or 11:40. But Pascal took a pragmatic approach to one of the biggest issues in philosophy: God's existence. [Theme Music]

Pascal was a theist, which, given his place in history may not be all that surprising. But what is weird is that Pascal's argument for God's existence had very little to do with whether God was actually real. Instead, it had everything to do with with whether belief in his existence was practical. This reasoning became known as Pascal's Wager, and it's really a gambler's argument for religious belief. Pascal's thinking went like this: Either God exists or he doesn't, and reason will never give us an answer. So you must choose blindly to believe or not to believe in God – you can't abstain from choosing If you choose to believe in God and he exists, you get an infinite reward – heaven. If you choose to believe in God and he doesn't exist, you're not really out much. If you choose not to believe in God and he doesn't exist, you also don't gain much. If you choose not to believe in God and he does exist, you get infinite punishment – hell. Therefore, the smart bet is to put your chips on God existing, every time.

Pascal argued that, if there is the slightest chance that God exists – even if that chance is low – only a fool would bet against his existence, given that the stakes are so high. In the face of incomplete information, Pascal decided, we should play the odds, and believe whatever offers us the greatest benefit. It's kind of brilliant, right? But there are a couple of ways you could argue against this. You might say Pascal's done the math wrong – that choosing to walk the straight and narrow in the service of an imaginary deity actually does cost you something. Like, you might miss out on stuff that you would otherwise want to do – like, sleeping in on Sunday mornings, or living a heavy-metal-rock-star lifestyle, or, I dunno, coveting stuff. By this logic, you'd lose out if you abstained from all of that in the name of something that ended up not being real. But Pascal, like William James, disagreed with this line of reasoning, because he saw great personal benefit in being a believer. He thought theists have better lives, not because God is blessing them as some kind of reward, but because belief simply has inherent benefits – like the security of feeling that the world is ordered and meaningful… That someone is always looking out for you… That death isn't the end. Now, even if you agree that religious belief is comforting, you might still question Pascal's motives. Does believing in something because it's the safest bet really win you a ticket to heaven? Doesn't God want you to be less self-interested when it comes to believing in him? Well, not according to Pascal.

He thought how and why you choose to believe doesn't really matter, because the fact is, God doesn't care how he gets you, as long as he gets you. OK, so how do you will yourself into believing in something, just because it's where the smart money is? Easy! Pascal said you essentially brainwash yourself into true belief, so that what starts out as self-interest can eventually grow into an honest conviction. And you do this, basically, by walking the walk and talking the talk. Start going to church. Start praying. Hang out with other believers.

At first it might seem weird and disingenuous, but over time, it'll become an ingrained part of your belief system. You know what it's kind of like? Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. It's probably pop-culture's finest allegory of pragmatic belief in action. Throughout the whole Indiana Jones trilogy – I'm just gonna pretend the fourth one was never made – Indy is painted as a pretty agnostic character. He hunts religious relics for a living, but the powers that those relics are said to possess are just “hocus pocus” to him. So, at the end of The Last Crusade, (spoilers) Indy manages to find the Holy Grail, in an ancient temple, after getting through a bunch of booby traps. And each trap is kind of a test of faith.

He has to know where to kneel, and how to spell the name of God, and he has to jump into an abyss with the hope that he will somehow survive. Indy ends up passing all of these tests. But not because he suddenly stops being agnostic and starts believing in God – at least not that we know of. Instead, he just does what he has to do. He's literally going through the motions. There's something about that, that would make Pascal proud. Because, to him, it would probably look like Indy was on the path to eventually, truly believing.

Learn languages from TV shows, movies, news, articles and more! Try LingQ for FREE

15a. Indiana Jones & Pascal's Wager. Part 1/2. 15a. Indiana Jones und die Pascalsche Wette. Teil 1/2. 15a. Indiana Jones y la apuesta de Pascal. Parte 1/2. 15a.インディ・ジョーンズとパスカルの賭けパート1/2。 15a. Indiana Jones & de weddenschap van Pascal. Deel 1/2. 15a. Indiana Jones i zakład Pascala. Część 1/2. 15a. Indiana Jones e a Aposta de Pascal. Parte 1/2. 15a. Индиана Джонс и пари Паскаля. Часть 1/2. 15a. Індіана Джонс і парі Паскаля. Частина 1/2. 15a.印第安纳-琼斯与帕斯卡尔的赌注。第 1/2 部分。

Crash Course Philosophy is brought to you by Squarespace. Crash Course Philosophy jest dostarczany przez Squarespace. quarespace: share your passion with the world. quarespace: podziel się swoją pasją ze światem.

Remember when you were little and your mom told you to eat your spinach so you'd grow up big and strong? Or in college, when you set your clock ten minutes ahead, to fool yourself into getting to class on time? 又或者在大学时,你把钟往前拨十分钟,忽悠自己准时上课?

We all engage in useful fictions – things that we choose to believe, because, they just make life easier. 我们都在从事有用的虚构 - 选择相信的事情,因为这些事情让生活更容易。 And when we do this, we are being pragmatists. 当我们这样做时,我们是实用主义者。 Pragmatism is based on the theory that finding true beliefs is less important than finding beliefs that work, practically, in the living of your life. 实用主义是基于这样一个理论:找到真实信仰不如找到在生活中实际起作用的信仰重要。

In this view, it doesn't really matter whether spinach actually helps muscle growth; if eating spinach will improve your life, and believing that it'll make you strong convinces you to eat it – then it's a useful belief, which is all that matters. 在这种观点中,事实上是否菠菜确实有助于肌肉生长并不重要;如果吃菠菜会改善你的生活,相信它会让你变强而让你吃下这些菠菜-那么这是一个有用的信念,这才是最重要的。 Pragmatism is relatively recent as philosophical movements go. 实用主义是哲学运动中比较新的运动。 But some of the most well-known American pragmatists – like William James, and, I would argue, Indiana Jones – have an ideological ancestor in 17th century mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal. 但是一些最著名的美国实用主义者,比如威廉·詹姆斯,以及我认为的印第安纳琼斯,他们的思想祖先是17世纪的数学家和哲学家布莱兹·帕斯卡。

You can be a pragmatist about basically anything – knowledge, spinach, metaphysics, ethics, or whether it's actually 11:30 right now or 11:40. 你可以对基本上任何事情持务实态度 - 知识、菠菜、形而上学、伦理学,或者现在是否实际是11:30还是11:40。 But Pascal took a pragmatic approach to one of the biggest issues in philosophy: God's existence. 但帕斯卡对哲学中一个最重要的问题采取了实用主义的态度:上帝的存在。 [Theme Music]

Pascal was a theist, which, given his place in history may not be all that surprising. Pascal era teísta, lo que, teniendo en cuenta su lugar en la historia, puede no ser tan sorprendente. But what is weird is that Pascal's argument for God's existence had very little to do with whether God was actually real. 但奇怪的是,帕斯卡对上帝存在的论证与上帝是否真的存在关系甚微。 Instead, it had everything to do with with whether belief in his existence was practical. En cambio, tenía todo que ver con si la creencia en su existencia era práctica. 相反,这一论证与人们是否相信上帝的存在是实际的有关。 This reasoning became known as Pascal's Wager, and it's really a gambler's argument for religious belief. 这种推理被称为帕斯卡的赌注,实际上是一种对宗教信仰的赌徒式论证。 Pascal's thinking went like this: Either God exists or he doesn't, and reason will never give us an answer. So you must choose blindly to believe or not to believe in God – you can't abstain from choosing If you choose to believe in God and he exists, you get an infinite reward – heaven. If you choose to believe in God and he doesn't exist, you're not really out much. Si eliges creer en Dios y no existe, en realidad no pierdes mucho. Als je ervoor kiest om in God te geloven en hij bestaat niet, dan ben je niet echt veel kwijt. If you choose not to believe in God and he doesn't exist, you also don't gain much. If you choose not to believe in God and he does exist, you get infinite punishment – hell. Therefore, the smart bet is to put your chips on God existing, every time.

Pascal argued that, if there is the slightest chance that God exists – even if that chance is low – only a fool would bet against his existence, given that the stakes are so high. In the face of incomplete information, Pascal decided, we should play the odds, and believe whatever offers us the greatest benefit. It's kind of brilliant, right? But there are a couple of ways you could argue against this. You might say Pascal's done the math wrong – that choosing to walk the straight and narrow in the service of an imaginary deity actually does cost you something. Like, you might miss out on stuff that you would otherwise want to do – like, sleeping in on Sunday mornings, or living a heavy-metal-rock-star lifestyle, or, I dunno, coveting stuff. By this logic, you'd lose out if you abstained from all of that in the name of something that ended up not being real. But Pascal, like William James, disagreed with this line of reasoning, because he saw great personal benefit in being a believer. He thought theists have better lives, not because God is blessing them as some kind of reward, but because belief simply has inherent benefits – like the security of feeling that the world is ordered and meaningful… That someone is always looking out for you… That death isn't the end. Now, even if you agree that religious belief is comforting, you might still question Pascal's motives. Does believing in something because it's the safest bet really win you a ticket to heaven? Doesn't God want you to be less self-interested when it comes to believing in him? Well, not according to Pascal.

He thought how and why you choose to believe doesn't really matter, because the fact is, God doesn't care how he gets you, as long as he gets you. He thought how and why you choose to believe doesn't really matter, because the fact is, God doesn't care how he gets you, as long as he gets you. 他认为,你如何以及为何选择相信并不重要,因为事实是,上帝并不关心他如何得到你,只要他得到你就可以了。 OK, so how do you will yourself into believing in something, just because it's where the smart money is? Easy! Pascal said you essentially brainwash yourself into true belief, so that what starts out as self-interest can eventually grow into an honest conviction. 帕斯卡说,你本质上是对你自己进行洗脑,使自己获得真正的信仰,这样最初的个人利益最终可以发展成为诚实的信念。 And you do this, basically, by walking the walk and talking the talk. Start going to church. Start praying. Hang out with other believers.

At first it might seem weird and disingenuous, but over time, it'll become an ingrained part of your belief system. You know what it's kind of like? Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. It's probably pop-culture's finest allegory of pragmatic belief in action. Throughout the whole Indiana Jones trilogy – I'm just gonna pretend the fourth one was never made – Indy is painted as a pretty agnostic character. He hunts religious relics for a living, but the powers that those relics are said to possess are just “hocus pocus” to him. So, at the end of The Last Crusade, (spoilers) Indy manages to find the Holy Grail, in an ancient temple, after getting through a bunch of booby traps. And each trap is kind of a test of faith.

He has to know where to kneel, and how to spell the name of God, and he has to jump into an abyss with the hope that he will somehow survive. Indy ends up passing all of these tests. But not because he suddenly stops being agnostic and starts believing in God – at least not that we know of. Pero no porque de repente deje de ser agnóstico y empiece a creer en Dios, al menos que sepamos. Instead, he just does what he has to do. He's literally going through the motions. There's something about that, that would make Pascal proud. Because, to him, it would probably look like Indy was on the path to eventually, truly believing.