Jimmy’s Perspective in His Own Words

“I’m a pessimist about these questions. Meaning, I think analytic philosophers falsely assume there’s some transcultural, abstract answer that will magically avoid the need for further analysis and synthesis. I reject that as nonsense across the board; there are no such definitions—full stop. If that’s the question’s aim, it’s malformed.”

“If we’re just looking for a semantically adequate definition, then the language we already use even at a street level seems to capture the most important philosophical content and no extra flamboyant analytical dance was needed. We know what one means—it means countably one—and we know what many means—it means countably many. That’s it. There’s no special ‘magic’ beyond that.”

“Put another way, it’s unhelpful to squint at ‘the one and the many’ instead of just accepting its transparent use in ordinary dialogue. Frankly, it’s obvious what it means. It only becomes unclear when you flap your hands and require of language what it doesn’t offer in the first place.”

“If one did not understand the concept, one would not have any concepts or knowledge ipso facto. To ask the question what that locution means presupposes a person already has some one and many concept. They just may lack the self-consciousness and philosophical experience necessary to articulate what’s going on.”

“What I take Van Til and Vantilians to be doing when we say ‘one and many are equally ultimate’ is to say that these realities (oneness, manyness) are held in paradox. One requires the other, even though neither can explain the other or be reduced to each other, and neither is there some tertium quid that unifies the two which does not already carry them as the same explanandum.”

“We’re referring to God, that what individuates and classifies Him is the same reality. The object of thought, God, individuates and classifies the object of thought, God. No other object of thought does or can do this. All other objects of thought are extrinsically classified and individuated.”

“If I want to know, experience, think about—whatever, a flower, I need a thousand concepts, experiences, items of knowledge, about things other than flowers. The flower, in a sense, derives its existence from everything else and cannot exist of itself. That’s true of everything with one exception: God.”

The Fallacy of Transcultural Definitions

In contemporary philosophical discourse, the debate surrounding “the one and the many” often hinges on finding a transcultural, abstract answer that supposedly provides a final resolution. Jimmy Stephens, a skeptic of such an endeavor, offers a critical perspective on these questions, challenging the assumption that there is a magical, all-encompassing definition that avoids the need for continuous analysis and synthesis.

Jimmy posits that the quest for a transcultural, abstract answer is fundamentally flawed. He argues that such definitions do not exist and dismisses the notion as nonsense. According to Jimmy, if a question aims to uncover this type of definitive answer, it is malformed from the outset.

“I’m a pessimist about these questions. Meaning, I think analytic philosophers falsely assume there’s some transcultural, abstract answer that will magically avoid the need for further analysis and synthesis. I reject that as nonsense across the board; there are no such definitions—full stop. If that’s the question’s aim, it’s malformed.”

Instead, Jimmy advocates for a simpler, more grounded approach. If we are seeking a semantically adequate definition, the language we already use—even at a street level—captures the essential philosophical content. In his view, the terms “one” and “many” are sufficiently defined within everyday language. “One” means countably one, and “many” means countably many. There is no need for additional complexity or an elaborate analytical process.

The Profundity of Basic Concepts

Jimmy contends that the mistake lies in assuming that more intricate explanations are necessary. This assumption overlooks the profound challenge inherent in reconciling the basic concepts of “one” and “many.” According to him, these two concepts are already profoundly difficult to reconcile in themselves, and attempting to introduce additional complexity only serves to obscure their clarity.

“If we’re just looking for a semantically adequate definition, then the language we already use even at a street level seems to capture the most important philosophical content and no extra flamboyant analytical dance was needed. We know what one means—it means countably one—and we know what many means—it means countably many. That’s it. There’s no special ‘magic’ beyond that.”

He argues that it is unhelpful to scrutinize the concept of “the one and the many” beyond its transparent use in ordinary dialogue. The meaning of these terms is apparent and becomes unclear only when we impose unnecessary complications on them.

Jimmy further elaborates:

“Put another way, it’s unhelpful to squint at ‘the one and the many’ instead of just accepting its transparent use in ordinary dialogue. Frankly, it’s obvious what it means. It only becomes unclear when you flap your hands and require of language what it doesn’t offer in the first place.”

Fundamental Understanding and Knowledge

Jimmy further explains that understanding the concepts of “one” and “many” is fundamental to possessing any concepts or knowledge at all. To question the meaning of these terms already presupposes an understanding of them. The issue is not a lack of understanding but rather a lack of self-consciousness and philosophical experience needed to articulate this understanding fully.

“If one did not understand the concept, one would not have any concepts or knowledge ipso facto. To ask the question what that locution means presupposes a person already has some one and many concept. They just may lack the self-consciousness and philosophical experience necessary to articulate what’s going on.”

Theological Insights: Van Til and the Paradox of Ultimacy

In the realm of theology, Jimmy interprets the work of Cornelius Van Til and his followers, who claim that “one and many are equally ultimate.” Jimmy understands this assertion to mean that the realities of oneness and manyness exist in paradox. One requires the other, yet neither can explain or be reduced to the other. There is no third entity that unifies them without already encompassing both as the same explanandum.

“What I take Van Til and Vantilians to be doing when we say ‘one and many are equally ultimate’ is to say that these realities (oneness, manyness) are held in paradox. One requires the other, even though neither can explain the other or be reduced to each other, and neither is there some tertium quid that unifies the two which does not already carry them as the same explanandum.”

God’s Self-Knowledge and Classification

When discussing God’s self-knowledge, Jimmy offers a theological perspective that sets God apart from all other objects of thought. He argues that God classifies and individuates Himself. Unlike other objects of thought, which are classified and individuated by external properties, God inherently possesses these qualities.

Jimmy explains:

“We’re referring to God, that what individuates and classifies Him is the same reality. The object of thought, God, individuates and classifies the object of thought, God. No other object of thought does or can do this. All other objects of thought are extrinsically classified and individuated.”

All other objects of thought derive their existence from other things and cannot exist independently—a notion that aligns somewhat with Buddhist thinking. For example, to fully understand a flower, one needs a myriad of concepts, experiences, and knowledge about things other than the flower itself. The flower’s existence is interdependent on everything else. In contrast, God is the exception to this dependency. He alone exists of Himself and does not derive His existence from anything else.

Jimmy further elaborates:

“If I want to know, experience, think about—whatever, a flower, I need a thousand concepts, experiences, items of knowledge, about things other than flowers. The flower, in a sense, derives its existence from everything else and cannot exist of itself. That’s true of everything with one exception: God.”

In the former case, God’s self-knowledge is constitutional. He knows who He is because of who He is, and He is who He is because He knows. God is intrinsically self-aware. There is a tricky line here, however. “Highest Being”—what does that mean? Prior to or outside of creation, this is true in one sense and false in another. It is false in the sense that God is not the highest being to any measure or in comparison to anything or anyone else because nothing beside God exists. God’s goodness, knowledge, and power—His perfection is irrelative.

However, He is the highest being in the looser sense that His character is such that if He creates (and we know He has), everything will be subject to and beneath Him. As to God knowing the conditions and criteria for human life, He knows they are “correct” (or whatever) because He made them. They are what they are because He made them what they are. “Correctness” itself, as we understand it, is something God created. He has Creator-knowledge of these things