Editing Mortimer J. Adler (section)

== Philosophy ==
Adler referred to [[Aristotle]]'s ''[[Nicomachean Ethics]]'' as the "ethics of [[common sense]]" and also as "the only moral philosophy that is sound, practical, and undogmatic."<ref>Adler, Mortimer ''Ten Philosophical Mistakes: Basic Errors in Modern Thought: How They Came About, Their Consequences, and How to Avoid Them.''(1985) {{ISBN|0-02-500330-5}}, p. 196</ref> Thus, it is the only ethical doctrine that answers all the questions that moral philosophy should and can attempt to answer, neither more nor less, and that has answers that are true by the standard of truth that is appropriate and applicable to [[Norm (philosophy)|normative]] judgments. In contrast, Adler believed that other theories or doctrines try to answer more questions than they can or fewer than they should, and their answers are mixtures of truth and error, particularly the moral philosophy of [[Immanuel Kant]].

Adler was a self-proclaimed "moderate [[Mind–body dualism|dualist]]" and viewed the positions of [[Psychophysics|psychophysical]] [[Property dualism|dualism]] and [[Materialism|materialistic]] [[monism]] to be opposite sides of two extremes. Regarding dualism, he dismissed the extreme form of [[Dualism (philosophy of mind)|dualism]] that stemmed from such philosophers as [[Plato]] ([[Physical object|body]] and [[soul]]) and [[Descartes]] ([[Mind–body problem|mind and matter]]), as well as the theory of extreme [[monism]] and the [[mind–brain identity theory]]. After eliminating the extremes, Adler subscribed to a more moderate form of dualism. He believed that the brain is only a [[necessary and sufficient condition|necessary]], but not a [[sufficient]], condition for conceptual thought; that an "immaterial intellect" is also requisite as a condition;<ref>{{Citation | title = Mortimer J. Adler on the Immaterial Intellect | publisher = Book of Job | url = http://www.bookofjob.org/aonimmaterialintell.htm | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20040922115147/http://bookofjob.org/aonimmaterialintell.htm | url-status = dead | archive-date = September 22, 2004 }}.</ref> and that the difference between human and animal behavior is a radical difference in kind. Adler defended this position against many challenges to dualistic theories.

===Freedom and free will===
The meanings of "[[freedom]]" and "[[free will]]" have been and are under debate, and the debate is confused because there is no generally accepted definition of either term.<ref>{{Citation | editor-first = Robert | editor-last = Kane | title = The Oxford Handbook of Free Will | page = 10}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation | first1 = John Martin | last1 = Fischer | first2 = Robert | last2 = Kane | first3 = Derk | last3 = Pereboom | first4 = Manuel | last4 = Vargas | title = Four Views on Free Will | publisher = Blackwell | year = 2007 | page = 128}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|first=R Eric |last=Barnes |url=http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/ebarnes/101/101-freedom-topic.htm |publisher=Mtholyoke |title=Freedom |access-date=October 19, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050216033737/http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/ebarnes/101/101-freedom-topic.htm |archive-date=February 16, 2005 }}.</ref> Adler's "Institute for Philosophical Research" spent ten years studying the "idea of freedom" as the word was used by hundreds of authors who have discussed and disputed freedom.{{Sfn | Adler | 1995 | p = 137 | ps = , Liberty.}} The study was published in 1958 as Volume One of ''The Idea of Freedom'', subtitled ''A Dialectical Examination of the Idea of Freedom'' with subsequent comments in ''Adler's Philosophical Dictionary''. Adler's study concluded that a delineation of three kinds of freedom – circumstantial, natural, and acquired – is necessary for clarity on the subject.{{Sfn | Adler | 1958 | pp = 127, 135, 149}}{{Sfn | Adler | 1995 | pp = 137–138 | ps = , Liberty.}}
# "Circumstantial freedom" denotes "freedom from coercion or restraint."
# "Natural freedom" denotes "freedom of a free will" or "free choice." It is the freedom to determine one's own decisions or plans. This freedom exists in everyone inherently, regardless of circumstances or state of mind.
# "Acquired freedom" is the freedom "to will as we ought to will" and, thus, "to live as [one] ought to live." This freedom is not inherent: it must be acquired by a change whereby a person gains qualities as "good, wise, virtuous, etc."{{Sfn | Adler | 1958 | pp = 127, 135, 149}}

===Religion===
As Adler's interest in religion and theology increased, he made references to the Bible and the need to test articles of faith for compatibility with the conclusions of the science of nature and of philosophers.<ref>{{Citation | first = Mortimer J | last = Adler | title = 'Truth in Religion: The Plurality of Religions and the Unity of Truth | orig-year = Macmillan, 1990 | publisher = Touchstone | type = reprint | year = 1992 | pages = 29–30}}.</ref> In his 1981 book ''How to Think About God'', Adler attempts to demonstrate God as the [[ex nihilo|exnihilator]] (the creator of something from nothing).<ref name=word-gems/> Adler stressed that even with this conclusion, [[God's existence]] cannot be proven or demonstrated, but only established as true [[Reasonable doubt|beyond a reasonable doubt]]. However, in a recent re-review of the argument, John Cramer concluded that recent developments in [[cosmology]] appear to converge with and support Adler's argument, and that in light of such theories as the [[multiverse]], the argument is no worse for wear and may, indeed, now be judged somewhat more probable than it was originally.<ref>John Cramer. [http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1995/PSCF3-95Cramer.html "Adler's Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God"]. ''[[Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith]]'', March 1995, pp. 32–42.<!-- paper says 1985 but ASA's PSCF index and link both say 1995 --></ref>

Adler believed that, if theology and religion are living things, there is nothing intrinsically wrong about efforts to modernize them. They must be open to change and growth like everything else. Furthermore, there is no reason to be surprised when discussions such as those about the "death of God" – a concept drawn from [[Friedrich Nietzsche]] – stir popular excitement as they did in the recent past and could do so again today. According to Adler, of all the great ideas, the idea of God has always been and continues to be the one that evokes the greatest concern among the widest group of men and women. However, he was opposed to the idea of converting [[atheism]] into a new form of religion or theology.