Exam Notes
Philosophy
Definition of philosophy:
“thinking about thinking”
Philosophy: Greek origins. Philein - to love. Sophia - wisdom.
Lover of wisdom/Search of wisdom
Rational attempt to look at the world as a whole
Attempts to answer the “big questions” which don’t fall under other disciplines
Wisdom is the ability to think and act using knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense and insight (good judgement)
Branches of Philosophy and their focus:
Metaphysics: the study of the nature of reality
Examines the nature of existence and reality
Tries to understand what is real and how to determine what really exists
Ontology: the study of being or existence
Philosophical Cosmology: The study of the physical universe, its nature, and its origin
Natural Theology: The study of God and creation
Philosophical Anthropology: The study of human nature and the human existence
Epistemology: The study of knowledge
Deals with the definition of “knowledge”
Looks at things like: knowledge, truth, reason, faith
Explains how we think and led to the scientific method
Aleithology: The study of the nature of truth
Formal Epistemology: The use of logic and probability
Meta-Epistemology: The study of the methods and aim of epistemology
Social Epistemology: The study of social dimensions of knowledge
Logic: The science of evaluating arguments
Reason
Attempts to distinguish good reason from bad reasoning
Evaluates arguments
Helps us to avoid assumptions without real logical proof
Informal: analyzes the arguments that occur in everyday language
Formal: analyzes the properties of propositions and not their forms
Symbolic: represents logical principles using symbols
Mathematical: The mathematical study of logic and applying logic in math
Ethics: The study of moral principles
Study of good and evil, right and wrong, rules and virtues, happiness and success
Helps us decide what actions we should take
Helps us categorize our values so that we can pursue them
Meta-Ethics: Studies the foundation of moral values
Normative Ethics: Examines what actions are right and wrong
Politics: The study of civil society
How the world organizes itself
Studies questions about the state, government, politics, liberty, justice, and the enforcement of laws
Uses ethics applies to a group of people and discusses how a society should be set up
Aesthetics: The study of the nature and value of art
The study of art, beauty, and ugliness
Debates what constitutes art
Examines the purpose of art
Examines why art has always existed
Evaluates art and whether it meets its purpose
Other Branches:
Philosophy of Language: Studies the origins, nature and usage of language. Studies how language relates to the truth in the world and how it affects our thoughts
Philosophy of Education: The study of education and how it can be improved. Explains the nature and need of education
Philosophy of Religion: Rational thought about religious issues and concerns. Examines the nature of religion and religious beliefs.
Logic
What is logic?
The process of coming to a conclusion about an argument by using inferencing and correct reasoning
Reason = rational thought
Inference = a conclusion that is based on evidence and reason
Argument = a series of statements consisting of premises and a conclusion
Premise: statement given in support of an argument
Conclusion = statement which follows a set of premises
Propositions = statements that are either true or false; NOT commands nor questions
What is the structure of a logical argument?
They have one or more premises and a conclusions (they are organized so that the premises support the conclusions)
What is Formal Logic?
Aristotle examined the reasoning process (how we reason)
He identified general principles of reasoning and began the study of Formal Logic
They determine if deductive arguments are valid and if there is fault
All Formal Logic based on 3 Laws
What is the Law of Identity?
States that A is A
Something can only be that which it is
Things cannot have more than 1 identity, otherwise the argument changes
A cat is a cat
What is the Law of Non-Contradiction
A proposition cannot be true AND false at the same time and in the same respect
Application: Without this law, ANY proposition could be proven true by substituting in something that is false
Ex. a sign that says “No left turns” and “left turns only”
The Law of the Excluded Middle
A proposition is either true OR false, there is no middle ground.
Enables us to assign a truth-value to a proposition
Ex. it is snowing
Explain the Principle of Sufficient Reason
States that everything must have a reason or cause (there MUST be a reason WHY a proposition is true)
Ex. For every event E, if E occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation for why E occurs
Explain how Occam’s Razor works
The idea that, in trying to understand something, getting unnecessary information out of the way is the fastest way to the truth or best possible explanation
The simplest explanation is the one that makes the fewest assumptions
Types of Reasoning: Inductive and Deductive
Logic is essentially thinking your way to understanding by:
A) Eliminating all other possibilities = Deductive Reasoning
B) Making a generalization based on other similarities = Inductive Reasoning
C) Making a best guess = Abductive Reasoning
Deduction goes from a General (big) picture to the particular (little) picture
Induction goes from the Particular (little) picture to the general (big) picture
Deductive Reasoning
We can draw a conclusion based on at least two true statements (premises)
Because the statements are true, we know that the conclusion we make based on those two statements is also true
Example:
All cats are mammals (premise)
My pet is a cat (premise)
Therefore, my pet is a mammal (conclusion)
Inductive Reasoning
Drawing a conclusion that is probably true based on the evidence presented
It looks at a specific scenario and draws a general conclusion
Certainty is not possible
Arguments are either reliable or weak — the strength of the argument lies in how confident we are in the conclusion
Observation > Pattern > Tentative Hypothesis > Theory
Ex. Almost all basketball players you have observed are tall. Jim is a basketball player. Jim is tall.
Abductive Arguments
the conclusion is a “best guess” — the most plausible explanation, given that the premises are true
Ex. If it was raining last night, then the street will be wet. The street is wet. Therefore, it was raining last night.
How can you tell if an argument is valid or invalid?
Deductive arguments assure that a conclusion is true provided the premises are also true
Deductive arguments can be valid or invalid
A deductive argument is valid if, and only if, there is no logically possible situation in which the conclusion is false despite each premise being true
How can you tell if an argument is sound or unsound?
To know whether a deductive argument is actually true, we have to figure out its soundness
Soundness is created by two things; its validity and whether all premises are true
With a sound argument, there will be a truthful conclusion
Ex 1) Sound
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is a mortal.
Ex 2) Unsound — premise 1 is false
All men are brave. Socrates is a man. Socrates is brave
Ex 3) Unsound — invalid
Some men are tall. Socrates’ name begins with the letter S. Socrates is tall and his name beings with the letter S.
Logical Fallacies
What is a fallacy?
When an error occurs in the reasoning of an argument we say that the argument is a logical fallacy (aka. Bad Argument)
Fallacy = based on a false notion, based on error, misleading, false
Fallacies try to persuade without giving legitimate grounds for accepting the conclusion
People commit fallacies accidentally or deliberately to manipulate others
What are Informal Fallacies? Where do we encounter them? How can we identify them?
Informal Logic
Focuses on everyday arguments and conversations
Arguments must be cogent/sound
Meanings of terms are clear/appropriate
Premises are accepted as true
Premises are judged as giving strong support for the conclusion
Most everyday context arguments are not deductive … so we need to gauge the cogency
Dissecting an Argument
Informal logic involves 2 steps:
1) identifying premises and conclusions in the reconstruction of arguments
2) using a fallacy toolkit to examine and check the argument’s cogency
Informal Fallacies can be divided into 3 Categories: A, B, C
Informal Logical Fallacies A: arguments attempt to discredit an individual or a group rather than focus on the issue at hand
Ad Hominem (Attack on the Person): Attacking the arguer and not their argument
Appeal to Tradition: Premise must be true because people have always believed or done it
Attack on the Motive: Attacking the credibility of a person on the grounds that they have bias/motive influencing their view
Bandwagon: Appealing to popularity or fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation; majority of people believe an argument so it must be true
Straw Man: Misinterpreting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack
Informal Logical Fallacies B: Focuses on the structure of an argument and the way terms are used
Appeal to Ignorance: Lack of evidence used in 2 forms:
1) There is no evidence, so it can’t be true
2) There is no evidence for it being false, so it must be true
Begging the Question: A circular argument in which the conclusion is included in the premise
Equivocation: An argument that uses one word to mean two different things
Loaded Term: Using words/terms with strongly positive or negative connotations
Slippery Slope: Asserting that if we allow A to happen, then Z will happen subsequently too, therefore A should not happen
Informal Logical Fallacies C: Deal with specific-general and part-whole relationships
Accident: Exceptional (or accidental) factors are overlooked while arguing that a general rule should be applied. Applying a general rule to all situations
Hasty Generalization: Using an unrepresentative sample to conclude a general statement
Composition: Assuming that what’s true about one part of something has to be applied to all. Part to Whole
Decomposition: Assuming a feature/property of the whole has to be applied to each part. Whole to Part.
Pre-Socratics & Sophists
Why were they revolutionary for their time?
What impact did they have?
Pre-Socratics
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are the most famous Greek philosophers, but they were not the first
Usually we count Thales as being the first true philosopher, who lived around 600BC and started the trend of western philosophical thinking
Their aim was to find natural, rather than supernatural explanations for the world around them — rejected Greek Mythology
They began a process of asking questions, defining problems and identifying paradoxes
They were primarily concerned with METAPHYSICS and COSMOLOGY — they asked “What is the nature of reality?” and “What is the nature and origin of the universe?”
They claimed that matter made everything that exists = Materialists
Thales
Considered to be the first philosopher
Believed everything in the material world was made from some form of water
Believed the earth floated on water
Anaximander
First Greek to make geographical and astronomical charts
Believed the universe was formed by OPPOSITES ie. Hot/Cold
Disagreed with Thales — Water is NOT the fundamental basis of reality
Believed the earth is the flat top on a cylinder of water
Anaximenes
Believed AIR was the basis of reality
Air becomes different things — ex. It was the source of water, earth, and fire
How? through a process of compression and transformation
Pythagoras
Believed the cosmos was infinite and didn’t end
Argues that the soul was immortal
Believed numbers were divine and used mathematics and mathematical reasoning to explain the world
NUMBERS were the building blocks of everything
His combination of philosophy and math led to the idea of metaphysics
Heraclitus
Said CHANGE is the fundamental feature of reality — everything is in flux
“You cannot step into the same river twice”
Parmenides
Argued that PERMANENCE is the fundamental character of reality
“Change is a mere illusion.. to the senses. The Truth is unchanging and is known by reason”
Everything that exists, has always existed. There is no beginning in space or time
Anaxagoras
Proposed that everything in nature was built of an infinite number of invisible particles
Said the mind is separate from the physical world
Empedocles
Believed everything in nature was a combination of all four elements (earth, air, water, fire)
All changes in nature come from the mixing or separation of these 4 elements
BUT, the 4 elements themselves DO NOT CHANGE
Democritus
Believed the world is made up of atoms which move in empty space (void)
Atoms are infinite and indivisible; they interact via collisions
Plato and Aristotle produced their philosophy in reaction to, and developing from that of, the Pre-Socratics
The Sophists
During the 5th and 6th centuries BCE
Sophist means “a wise and informed person”
They asked questions about everything
They turned philosophy “away from philosophizing about the physical universe and toward the study of human beings and their moral, social, and political life”
This is in contrast to the philosophy established by the “Natural Philosophers”
were MORAL RELATIVISTS. Argues that all moral and political principles are relative to the group which believes them. None is absolutely true
The Athenians believed that their traditional morals, laws and democracy expressed absolute truths
The Sophists made a living travelling all over and teaching. They taught RHETORIC — the formal art or science of making convincing public speeches
In their travels they saw that different cities had different local laws and customs. This caused them to ask “What was natural and what was socially induced?”
In Epistemology they argued that since reason produced such conflicting claims [about nature] as those of Heraclitus and Parmenides, one must doubt the power of reason to lead to truth
Because of their doubts they were the first exponents of Skepticism — the philosophic position of doubting the possibility of any true knowledge
Younger generation wanted to revolt against tradition
People wanted questions answered
Politically ambitious admired their skills
Wanted to learn how to argue and WIN
How to fight with conviction
Persuading the audience of the truth of your argument became the most important thing
The truth itself could be hidden
The Sophists’ philosophy created tension in Athens
They suggested there were no absolute norms for right or wrong
The distinction between good and evil was no longer clear
This caused problems in society
He who could argue best wins
Not always the person in the right
Socrates and Plato were strongly opposed to this Sophist Philosophy
Intro to Socrates
What is the purpose of life?
What did he mean by “an unexamined life is not worth living?”
Explain Socrates’ view on truth, knowledge and virtue
What was the nature of evil for Socrates
What is the Socratic method? Why does Socrates think it is a crucial technique in understanding the truth and acquiring knowledge?
What is Socrates’ view of morality and right behaviour
The Philosophy of Socrates
Socrates was concerned with the question of ETHICS (moral behaviour)
Unlike the Sophists, he believed that there was definite right and wrong
He believed that people could accept it and apply it into their daily lives
Dedicated his life to searching for standards by which people could live a virtuous/good life
The Soul and the Pursuit of its Development
Socrates felt that the state of our inner being (our soul) determines the quality of our life
So, we should devote a lot of energy to the development of our soul
Said that gaining knowledge, rather than wealth or high status, is the ultimate goal in life
The Path of Self Knowledge
Socrates thought that one needs to obtain what is good and what is evil
To accomplish this one learns what is good and then purges the soul of what is evil
Thought people were unhappy because if we have mistaken conception of what is good we will spend our lives frantically chasing after things that will not make us happy (ie. money, fame, power)
If a person devoted themselves to self-knowledge and inquiry then one would develop a more appropriate view of the good
According to Socrates, there is one supreme good that will give us happiness
Virtue (The Ultimate Good)
Virtue = moral excellence
In ancient Greece common accepted virtues were: courage, justice, prudence, and temperance
Socrates believed these virtues were absolute and not relative
Socrates thought that: KNOWLEDGE = VIRTUE = HAPPINESS
Nature of Evil
Socrates thought that evil is the result of ignorance
Thought that most people are ignorant of what they are doing
He believed that all evil acts are committed involuntarily
Believed that “An individual who commits an evil act is one who is ignorant that virtue is one true good”
Socrates thought that “when we commit an injustice we are harming our soul (our true self)”
The Execution of Socrates
Socrates was executed in 399 B.C.
Saw Athens was in danger of destruction
Became critical of the government
He was a social and moral critic
He attempted to improve the Athenians’ sense of justice
His pursuit of virtue and his strict adherence to truth clashed with Athenian society
He claimed he was the wiser one since he was the only person aware of his own ignorance
Put on trial and found guilty
Heresy (didn’t believe in all of the Greek Gods)
Corrupting the minds of the youth (encouraged them to rebel against authority; didn’t believe in Democracy)
Socrates was forced to drink a lethal poison
He was given the opportunity to escape
However, he chose not to escape, drank the poison and died
The Life Which is Not Unexamined is Not Worth Living
“the life which is unexamined is not worth living”
A process of questioning the meaning of essential concepts that we use everyday but have never really thought about
Good life: a result of doing the right thing, rather than blindly following rules
Rejected the notion that virtue was relative
Evil was done because of lack of wisdom and knowledge — ignorance
Morality — knowledge, and we must continually examine our lives
Care of the Soul
Gain of knowledge is the ultimate goal of life
Unexamined life = confused soul
Wise soul = stable
Dialectical method
Dialogue between teacher and student
Took the standpoint of someone who new nothing and asked questions, exposing contradictions in arguments and gaps in knowledge
His mission was to explore the ideas that people had
Chart
The only life worth living is a good life
I can only live a good life if I really know what “good” and “evil” are
“Good” and “evil” are not relative; they are absolutes that can be found by a process of questioning and reasoning
In this way, morality and knowledge are bound together
An unquestioning life is one of ignorance, without morality
The life which is unexamined is not worth living
Plato
Plato’s allegory of the cave
In The Republic, Plato explains the route to knowledge and the responsibilities of philosophers through an allegory about prisoners in a cave
Imagine a cave in which prisoners are chained and seated so that they all face one way, toward a wall — they cannot turn their heads
The prisoners have been there all their lives and know nothing of the outside world
All that the prisoners see are the shadows cast on the wall before them
Behind the prisoners is a fire, which they cannot see, that casts the shadows on the wall before them
Between the fire and the prisoners is a parapet, or walkway, where people are crossing back and forth with strange objects held above their heads
Everything the prisoners see or hear is bounced off the wall. They therefore think of that as the true reality. They believed that the shadows are “real”
Now, suppose one of the prisoners is unshackled and led away, up out of the cave and into the world outside
The prisoner will probably object and when outside, will be blinded by the light
He does not believe the world outside of the cave can be real
But in time the released prisoner will realize that it is the world outside that is real and the world in the cave only one of illusion
He sees the sun as the source of life and goes on an intellectual journey where he discovers beauty and meaning
The prisoner returns to the cave to inform the other prisoners of his findings
The other prisoners do not believe him and mock him thinking him a fool who has had their eyesight ruined. They would object to anyone else being led away
Symbolism in the Allegory of the Cave
The Cave = Represent people who believe that knowledge comes from what we learn through our senses (empirical evidence). Plato believes they are trapped by misunderstanding
The Prisoners chained up in the cave = Represent the ordinary person who regards the material world as real and important
The Shadows = represents material objects and what we learn through our senses. If you believe that what you see is the the truth, then you are only seeing a shadow of the truth
The Escape = represents the philosophers who is in the process of regaining knowledge and insight (the philosopher’s journey) outside of the senses (NB: philosophers are rare — most men cannot handle the truth)
Objects Outside of the Cave = represent different types of forms
Physical objects = represent the Forms of physical objects
The Objects in the Night Sky (moon, stars) = represent the Forms of abstraction (ie. Numbers, logic, beauty, justice)
The Sun = Represents the Form of the Good, which is the highest of all Forms (= philosophical truth and knowledge)
Fire = the power of the sun = philosophical truth and knowledge
Philosopher’s Journey
Plato believed that the prisoner who is released and attains a full understanding of what is real (the philosopher), has a responsibility to return to the cave and instruct others in what is real, so that they too may escape into the world of truth
For Plato, the philosopher has a duty to enlighten the uneducated
Why does Plato write the allegory?
He is trying to explain the existence of permanence (things that are eternal/stay the same) and change (nature is constantly changing, growing, decaying)
He is trying to demonstrate Socrates’ idea that there is a difference between Opinion and Knowledge
He wants to show us that our ideas constrain us, while our perceptions deceive us
Everything that belongs to the material world can erode and change, but everything is made after a timeless “form”/”mold” that is timeless and unchanging (= world of ideas)
Plato’s Metaphysics
He proposed that reality was made of two different paths
1) The Physical/Material World
The reality of objects in space and time as we know them through the senses
They can change, decay, age
There must be a reality behind the material world; everything is made after a timeless mold or form that is eternal and immutable
2) The World of Forms or Ideas
This is where the reality of concepts, ideas or essences exist
It contains the eternal and immutable patterns — they are unchanging and universally true
The perfect “triangle”, “dog”, “bed”, etc. exist here
These are objects of thought and reason
Humans cannot perceive this place through the senses — it is only understood through the use of reason
The World of Ideas or Forms
For Plato, the world of ideas IS reality
The world we experience through our senses is an illusion/bad copy of the real world
Think back to the Allegory of the Cave — Plato argues that everything our senses perceive is like the images on the cave wall — they are just shadows of reality
Forms or Ideas bring order to the world
For Plato the greatest of forms is the form of the good
Innate Knowledge
Plato argues that the Ideal Forms are innate, and they are in our minds (our immortal souls) from a previous existence
We are born with this knowledge
Accessing this knowledge is a matter of using reason to recall what we previously knew in another life
Grasping the world of forms is achieving supreme wisdom and also acquiring the highest virtues
Only the serious searcher of knowledge will reach this understanding
He believes that human beings are divided into two parts: the body and the soul
Our bodies possess the senses, through which we are able to perceive the material world
Plato concludes that our soul, which is immortal and eternal, must have memories of these Ideas requires reason — an attribute of the soul
For Plato, the philosopher’s job is to use reason to discover the Ideal Forms or Ideas
Plato’s Divide Line of Knowledge
Metaphysics
Intelligible world of Knowledge: Uses rational thought; always true
the Good > Forms > mathematical Objects
World of Appearances: visible world through senses; more reliable than belief or imagining
The sun/Visible Things > Images
Epistemology
Knowledge: always true; result of instruction
Intelligence/Knowledge (reasoning acquired by socratic method) > Thinking (mathematics)
Opinion: changeable; true or false
Belief (assumptions) > Imagining
Plato’s Justified True Belief
In order to claim to have knowledge, 4 conditions needed to be met: truth, belief, justification, verifiable justification
Truth:
a) truth is the same for everyone
b) truth is independent of anyone’s belief
Truth is eternal
If a statement isn’t objectively true then it can’t be certain knowledge
Belief:
You need to believe in the statement if you call it true
Justification
You must have good reasons for believing a statement to be true
Logic, empirical evidence, memory, authority
Ideas vs Phenomena
Ideas = ultimate reality
Phenomena = appearances
reasoned that if truths = objective they must be about REAL THINGS, but senses perceive things differently therefore our sensory properties are not reliable indicators of real things
Virtue Ethics — What kind of person should I be?
Virtue ethics states that what makes a good person is based on their qualities or virtues
Virtue = a habit and tendency to do the good. A person who not only does good acts, but also gives the best of themselves
Right and wrong are characterized in terms of acting in accordance with the virtues
3 Key Ideas of Virtue Ethics
1) An action is right if it is what a virtuous person would do in the circumstance
2) A virtuous person is one who exercises the virtues
3) A virtue is a character trait a human being needs to flourish or live well
Plato’s Moral Philosophy
Plato maintains a virtue-based conception of ethics
He argued that human well-being (eudaimonia) is the highest aim of moral thought and conduct, and the virtues are the essential skills and dispositions needed to attain it
Attainment of Virtues Via the Soul
Plato’s ideas about the soul are based on the experience of internal conflict that all humans have
Believed that the body was inanimate without a soul — meaning that when a human body moves it is because the soul is causing it to happen
The soul is immortal and have prior existence and knowledge of the Forms before entering the body (this explains why he believed we have innate knowledge)
Parts of the Soul
Has three parts: 1) reason 2) spirit 3) appetite
These three parts can be divided into 2 groups:
Irrational parts: seek pleasure and glory
Spirit = competitive
Appetite = desires pleasure for the body
Rational part: Seeks the true good of human life
Reason: Pursues truth; must reign in the spirit and appetite to find balance
How to Live a Virtuous and Moral Life
The individual must cultivate balance in their soul
Thus, people rules by appetite or spirit are out of balance
Evil
Causes of evil: Forgetfulness and ignorance
Forgetfulness: The soul forgets absolute truths when it enters the body
Ignorance = False knowledge
Evil = The imbalance of the soul which prevents it from functioning properly. This imbalance is caused by false knowledge and ignorance (we made immoral decisions because we don’t know any better)
The lack of the virtues of Wisdom and Knowledge allows the appetite and spirit to take command over reason
Rediscovering innate knowledge locked in the soul through the Socratic Method will eliminate evil
Morality
Definition: knowledge is virtue, therefore, knowledge is morality
The soul will always choose to do good IF it knows what good is
There are two steps in moving from False knowledge to True Knowledge
1) Process of Recollection = Begins when the mind experiences difficulties with the contradictions of sense experience; the knowledge is already in our mind, we just need to re-discover it
2) The Effective Teacher = brings others out of the shadows and into the real world; finds true knowledge, morality, and eternal truths
Moral development parallels one’s intellectual ascent — as the mind moves from lower to higher levels of knowledge, it recalls more of what it once knew
The Virtues
There are 4 Cardinal Virtues
Courage, Wisdom, Temperance, Justice
Only knowledge can produce virtue because it is ignorant of false knowledge that produces evil
If the 3 parts of the soul fulfill their function, then 3 corresponding virtues will be achieved (Courage, Wisdom, Temperance), which will then lead to the 4th virtue of justice
The Good Life
He was focused on the “good life” — a life of inner harmony and happiness
Harmony = when all three parts of the soul are doing what they are supposed to do (this is a teleogical conception of morality)
Unhappiness and disorder of the soul happens when one’s passions override reason
A Virtuous Person According to Plato
Rules by reason and highly self-disciplined
Guided by a proper understanding of truth, honor, justice, beauty, etc.
Concerned about the development of the character
Conscientious and avoids claiming to know things that have not been properly examined and demonstrated to be so
Not swayed by popular opinion or emotional rhetoric
Not concerned about seeking comfort or illusions of happiness
Aristotle
Intro to Aristotle
Knowledge comes from experience
Aristotle
384 -322 BCE
Son of a prominent physician
Aristotle was likely trained in medicine
Plato’s Student
At age 17, Aristotle was sent to study with Plato at the Academy
He become Plato’s most important student, remaining at the Academy 20 years, until Plato’s death
The Lyceum
In 335 BCE, Aristotle returned to Athens and established his own school in competition with the Academy
The foundation of western philosophy — and science
Aristotle’s works — more than Plato’s — laid the groundwork for the systematic development of philosophy and the basic framework for the understanding of nature
Logic
Aristotle was the founding father of logic
He developed laws of thought for logical thinking
developed the formalized system of reason better known as syllogisms
He developed rules of deductive reasoning that are still an important influence for modern logicians
The Birth of Empiricism
Aristotle disagreed with some of Plato’s teachings
He did not believe in the separation between the essence (or form) of an object and the object itself
Aristotle grounds all knowledge on experience
He argued that direct observation leads to the accumulation of experience
This accumulation of experience (sense perception) causes the mind to work to arrive at generalizations (knowledge)
Aristotle, the biologist
Students at the Lyceum collected specimens, dissected and classified them
Analysis of life forms arose from examination of many real examples
Aristotle’s work
Aristotle did various hands-on studies of the natural world — analyzing plants, animals, celestial objects and even the weather
He also speculated more generally about the different forces and underlying structure of nature
His book, Physics, changed philosophy and science forever
Physics had little to do with what we know as “physics” and is more properly characterized as natural science
The books centered around answering questions of nature, existence, objects and coming into being and other topics
Teleology
Most important aspect of Aristotle’s philosophy of nature is the notion of purpose (aka. Teleology)
For Aristotle, every natural object and event has a built in purpose — a goal, an aim, a function — and any examination that we make of natural things needs to take that into account
Contrasting World Views
A basic division in how the world is understood:
Plato — (pointing up) true knowledge comes from contemplating the abstract ideas
Aristotle — (pointing down) true knowledge comes from close examination of the world around
The second feature of his philosophy of nature is the distinction between natural and artificial objects
Natural objects are things that exist by nature, such as a tree, and have an innate tendency to change in some ways, and stay the same in others
The ideal form, for an example:
For Plato, a geometric object, e.g. a triangle, circle, cube, etc. The true object exists only in the mind. Actual representations are only approximate.
For Aristotle, an animal or plant species, e.g. roses, trout, human beings, etc. The species is what all the instances of it have in common
The Four Causes
He identified four causes as the explanation for anything (or event) that is
How and why something came to be is understood by examining its four cases
A cause for Aristotle is a factor that partly determines a result
The causes are:
The Material Cause — basically the stuff out of which anything is made
The Formal Cause — the form, size, and shape of the thing
The Efficient Cause — what put the material into the form it is in
The Final Cause — the purpose of the thing
Ex. a knife:
Material: the metal, ex. iron, steel
Formal: The shape of a knife — sharp edge, long shaft, pointed edge, etc.
Efficient: The tool maker that made it
Final: To cut or to slice
Man-made things are easy enough to classify, but natural objects become more difficult
What is the efficient cause of a tree?
For Aristotle, the most important cause was the final cause, that for which the thing exists. Anything is explained only by understanding its purpose
Aristotle’s Metaphysics
The World of Substance
Aristotle disagreed with Plato’s world of Forms
He argues that there is only one world — the world of substance
Substance = a fundamental entity — it results from the union of matter and form
Matter and Form
Matter:
Is the physical stuff (aka. Material) that something is made of
Example: a marble statue’s matter = Marble
Form:
Is the shape of something
Example: A marble statue’s form = the shape and appearance of the statue
Matter and form are distinct but indivisible
Neither pure form nor pure matter exists
They exist only united to one another in particular substances
E.g. ‘tableness’ does NOT exist apart from particular tables in some fantastic World of Being. Tableness exists only in actual tables
Substance Theory
Substance Theory is the belief that “substances” (master + form) make up the universe
He divides the world into Substances and Accidents
Substances: Considers them more fundamental because they exist before accidents
Accidents: Modifications that occur to substances. They are qualities or properties that belong to a substance.
Ex. John is 6 feet tall. Substance = John. Accident = 6 feet tall
Nine types of accidents:
Quantity, Quality, Relation, Place, Time, Being in Position, Having or State, Doing or Action, Being Affected
Accidents can change within a particular thing, but that doesn’t change what the substance is
Ex. Painting a brown wood table red
The accident changed — it has gone from brown to red
The substance is still a table (it has the same matter [wood] and form [shape of the table])
It is also possible for a substance to change
Ex. Dismantling a table and using the wood to make a chair
The matter is the same (wood)
The form has changed (table into chair)
Therefore, a new substance has been created
Potentiality and Actuality
Potentiality = what a thing can become (aka. Possibility)
Example: A kitten has the potentiality to be a cat
Actuality = the fulfillment of potentiality through motion, change or activity
Example: The kitten grows into a cat
Everything has a natural potentiality and actuality
Example: Potentiality is the piece of clay. Actuality is the sculpture.
Why does Aristotle make these arguments?
Substance, Matter, Form, Potentiality, and Actuality were created by Aristotle in an attempt to explain why change happens
Aristotle’s Prime Mover
Aristotle believed that all movement depends on there being a mover.
Recognized that everything in the world is in a state of flux
Behind every movement there must be a chain of events that brought about the movement that we see taking place
This chain of events must lead back to something which moves but is itself unmoved = the Prime Mover
The Prime Mover is the first of all substances, the necessary first sources of movement which is itself unmoved
It is a being with everlasting life, and in Metaphysics Aristotle also calls this being God
Aristotle: Virtue Ethics/Nicomachean Ethics:
The function of humans is to use reason in pursuit of the good life by living a life of virtue
Happiness (Edaimonia)
Not a subjective state of pleasure or contentment; we must live up to our function/purpose and achieve the highest good
Our function is to live according to reason and become a highly rational and virtuous person (= Happiness)
A happy life is directed toward worthwhile goals
To live this way, you need moral and intellectual virtues
Virtues
virtue = a disposition to behave in line with a standard of excellence (= excellence of character)
A virtue is the midpoint between the extremes of excess and deficit
The extremes = Vices
Cowardice — Courage — Recklessness
Having a virtue affects one’s actions, thinking, desires and emotions
Therefore, doing something virtuous is not the same as having a virtue
The Golden Mean
The morally good persons live a life of moderation, the “mean” between two extreme types of actions
The life of moderation is one that:
Avoids the excesses and the deficiencies of behaviour
Is governed by reason
Is not directed by uncontrollable desires and passion
Types of Virtues
Intellectual Virtues: The contemplation of truth
Moral Virtues: rational control of irrational desires of the soul
Developed by practice until they become a habit
Prudence, wisdom, temperance, self-control, justice
Conclusion
For Aristotle, the goal in life is happiness
The care of the soul is how one achieved moral excellence and therefore, happiness
Metaphysics
Introduction to Metaphysics
What is Metaphysics About?
It’s the branch of philosophy which is concerned with the nature of reality
Its most basic questions are: “What is there? What is real? What is reality? What is it like?”
metaphysical thought is developed through reasoning and not empirical thought
Common Metaphysical Theories
1) Idealism
2) Materialism
3) Monism
4) Dualism
Idealism
George Berkley (18th century)
Reality is in the mind
Denied the existence of material things, saying that reality ultimately consists of ideas and the minds that house them
What people see as objects are just ideas that were placed in their mind by God
Materialism
First proposed by the pre-Socratics
Everything is physical and reality consists of matter
Matter is particles (atoms) in motions
What about thoughts, feelings and consciousness?
These are just complex material phenomena that can be explained in terms of matter
Monism
Reality is an all-encompassing thing (matter or mind)
All particular things are manifestations or expressions of this one thing
Materialists consider this thing to be material, and idealists consider this thing to be mental
Dualism
Reality consists of mind and matter and they are different but interact with each other — Descartes supported this view
Why Metaphysics Matters
Does a supreme being exist?
What is a person?
Christian Thinkers
The Ontological Argument — Anselm
Defines GOD as the greatest conceivable being
A being that exists in one’s mind and in reality is GREATER than one that exists in one’s mind
Therefor, God must exist in reality
St Augustine — Faith and Reason
Faith and Reason
Believed that faith and reason worked together to help us understand God and others
Faith: knowledge that comes from accepting the authority of another
Reason: knowledge we acquire from “seeing” it ourselves
We have to BEGIN with faith then use REASON to understand our belief
Truth and Certainty
at the time many philosophers felt that the ultimate truth could not be known (skepticism)
Augustine argued that “If I am mistaken then I exist” — we know that we exist
We also know our physical sense experiences
Beyond this, how can we know more complex eternal truths?
Augustine proposes the idea of Divine Illumination — “The mind needs to be enlightended by God so that it can participate in truth”
So, first we develop our beliefs on our own, and then God illuminates our minds so that we can see if they are true or false
Five Proofs for the Existence of God — St. Thomas Aquinas
Different Kinds of Truths
Scientific truth: known by experimentation and observation
Rational truth: known by using reason and logic
Theological truth: known only through faith
PROOF 1 — First Mover:
What is moved must be moved by something else — first mover
PROOF 2 — First Cause:
What is caused must be caused by something else — first cause
PROOF 3 — Necessary Being:
Many things in the universe may exist or not. Nothing can come of nothing — there must have been one thing from which all others have occurred
PROOF 4 — Degree:
Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great gets its greatness from that which is the greatest — God
PROOF 5 — Intelligent Design:
Everything serves a purpose
Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end — so the world must have an intelligent designer that directs them to do so
St Thomas Aquinas — Faith and Reason
Wanted to prove that science and faith could co-exist
Brought together “Aristotelian philosophy and Church Doctrine” — “Reason and Faith”
Faith and Reason
Saw specific differences between philosophy and theology
philosophy: begins with sense experiences and REASONS upward to general concepts
theology: begins with FAITH in God
Saw reason and faith as two ways of knowing
REASON: covers what we can known by experience and logic
FAITH: covers what we can know by God’s special revelation to us
builds on reason
Faith and reason should go hand in hand because one is the light of God and the other is the light given to a creature by god
Aquinas’ Moral Philosophy
Argued that the universe operated through 2 laws:
Natural law (secular)
Eternal law ( religious)
Natural Law
The world follows natural laws - one doesn’t have to believe in God to see these
There are certain “rules” within nature that are observable
Right actions are those that conform to moral standards observed in nature through human reason
The basic precepts of natural law are “do good and avoid evil”
Humans achieve their highest goal when they follow their true natural inclinations leading to these goals or ends
Argued that the most useful knowledge can be found by atheists and secular people through natural law
God is the author of natural law — he gave humans the gift of reason to discern the law for themselves and live accordingly (God is the law)
Eternal Law
God’s plan for the universe, unchanging
Morality
Aquinas’ first principle of morality: Good should be done, and evil avoided
What is Really Good?
For Aquinas, what is “really good” is fulfilling the potential of our common human nature
Those actions which help us to become MORE FULLY HUMAN are good
Those actions which lead us to be LESS THAN FULLY HUMAN are morally wrong
Aquinas defined what it is to be human in terms of purpose
The general purpose of being human is to: Live, work, reproduce, educate children, have an ordered society, worship god
Moral Acts and Intents
A person must foresee and intend the evil consequences of his act to be held responsible for them
The moral content of every human act resides in the intention of the person
If that intention includes harmful consequences to victims of his act, those consequences contribute to the extent of his guilt
Some acts are intrinsically “evil” (ex. murder)
The rightness of particular actions is determined by how those actions further good
Prudence (practical wisdow) is required to determine if a given act is flawed or not
The Good Life
He equated God with the highest good
The full good life only comes in the resurrection as God’s pure gift
People can live the good life by using their intelligence and other capabilities such as their senses
Believed successful people have four virtues
1) prudence (know how to reason well in moral decision making)
2) temperance (remain moderate in the exercise of emotions)
3) fortitude (how to be courageous in the face of life’s difficulties)
4) justice (how to act well in relation to others)
Double Effect
Is the cornerstone of Roman Catholic ethics
A) Performing a bad action for good effects is WRONG
B) Performing a good action even if it produces bad is RIGHT as long as the bad was UNINTENDED but foreseen
Rationalism and Empiricism
Rationalism
The first rationalists in Western Philosophy were Socrates and Plato
Modern Rationalism is usually associated with the mathematical methods of Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza
A priori knowledge
Knowledge does not come from the senses
knowledge comes from reason, or from intuition, or that we possess it innately (from birth)
tend to think that some ideas, ex. God, are innate
stress deduction which involves inferring from first principles
Make conclusions based on info we already have
Moves from specific to general
Empiricism
Early Greek Empiricists include the Pre-Socratics and Aristotle
Modern Empiricism is usually associated with the methodology of scientific inquiry, which became known as the scientific method
The modern thinkers connected to Empiricism are Bacon, Locke, Hume and Hobbes
A posteriori knowledge
knowledge comes primarily or solely from the senses
experience leads to the growth of knowledge
hold that all ideas come from experience
stress induction which involves generalizing from observables
make conclusions based on observations
moves from general to specific
Descartes (rationalist)
I think, therefore I am
All truths are based on mental perception
In order to build a philosophy based on absolute certitude, Descartes had to doubt all he was able to doubt until he was to arrive at one truth that he could not doubt
Wanted to prove God exists
Method of doubt: believed there was a demon tricking his senses
Doubted everything but could not doubt that he doubts — therefore he exists
Argument:
A being that doubts is an imperfect being — I doubt therefore I am imperfect
I know I am imperfect because I have the concept of perfection
Only God is perfect, so I got my concept of perfection from him
Therefore, God exists
Is it successful?
Descartes proved “I” — as a thinking thing
He hasn’t proven the existence of his body
Locke (empiricist)
Theory of Knowledge
Believed we gain knowledge by experience
The only way we learn is by tasting, smelling, touching and hearing the external world
Argues that at birth the mind is like a blank slate, or “tabula rasa” waiting to be written on by the world of experience
Two Sources of Knowledge: Sensation & Reflection
Sensation: Sense experience from our 5 senses
Reflection: The mind’s process of thinking, comparing, and combining different ideas in a number of ways to produce knowledge
All ideas originate with either:
Sensation: The perception of stimuli through the senses
Reflection: The mind’s experience of thinking about what you experienced (processing the information)
Simple ideas: most basic of knowledge, presented to us via sensation and reflection
Complex ideas: a grouping of simple ideas grouped together to form a complex idea
All material things have primary and secondary qualities
Primary: inseparable from the thing that is perceived — size, shape, motion, rest, height and weight
Secondary: come from the act of perception and may vary under observation: color, temperature, smell, taste and sound
Kant
Kant’s Transcendental Idealism
Believed that knowledge was achieved through experience and reason
Innate ideas along are not knowledge and neither are experiences
He says our mind shapes how we understand our experiences
Two Worlds: Noumenal and Phenomenal
Noumenal: reality as it exists independently of our mind
Phenomenal: Appearances — reality as our mind makes sense of it
Therefore, since our mind filters knowledge of the external world, we can’t truly know reality (noumena)
Structures of the mind
The mind processes sensory data through a matrix and categorizes the information
This creates our version of reality
Our knowledge of the world is based on HOW our mind process our sense data
Implication = everyone sees reality differently because of our brain’s unique matrix
How the Mind Makes Sense of the World
a) Sensory Experience
Our senses experience the world and send information to the mind
b) Innate Ideas
The mind uses innate ideas to organize/structure experiences for us to acquire knowledge
c) Space and Time
Everything we perceive/experience is first filtered through the lens of ‘space’ and ‘time’
These concepts are innate
d) Categories of Understanding
Then the matrix of the mind uses 12 concepts/categories to further process the sensory information we receive — these concepts are also innate
These categories are grouped into 4 divisions: Quantity, Quality, Relation, Modality
Kant’s Ethics — Deontology
Kant proposed a view of morality that was based on duty (deontology)
A duty is something one is require to do = an obligation and responsibility
Kant’s ethics are based on the individual freedom of rational human beings — not God or religion
What makes an action right or wrong?
Right actions = consistent with universal moral rules that are derived from reason (not religion)
The motivation of the person who carries it out is what really matters — NOT the consequences of the action
People should be motivated by duty and respect for moral law
Actions have moral worth ONLY if we do them out of duty (obligation)
Kant’s Moral Law
Imperatives
An imperative is a command to act. According to Kant, there are two kinds of imperatives that influence our behaviour: Hypothetical and Categorical
Hypothetical Imperatives
Are commands to do something if we want to achieve a particular aim (not absolute)
If you want Y, you ought to do X (goal, means)
Categorical Imperatives
Are absolute, unchangeable, universal moral commands that are dictated by reason. These are the basis of Kant’s Moral Law
You ought to to X (goal-in-itself)
Main Ideas of the Categorical Imperative
1) The Principle of Autonomy
Treat people with respect — treat people as an end-in-itself and not as a means-to-an-end
2) The Principle of Universality
If an action is morally right or wrong, it is true for everyone
3) Rights and Duties
If I have a right, others have the duty to respect that right
If I have a right by virtue of my autonomy, then others have the same right as well, and I have a duty to respect those rights
If we have a duty to protect or rights, we have a duty to protect the rights of others as well
Acting for the sake of duty = Acting without self-interest and without concern for the consequences
According to Kant, our duties include:
1) Preserving reason
2) Preserving truth (don’t lie)
3) Preserving life (don’t kill, torture, harm, abuse, use people, commit suicide)
Utilitarianism
Basic Insights of Utilitarianism
The purpose of morality is to make the world a better place
Morality is about producing good consequences, not having good intentions
We should do whatever will bring the most benefit (i.e., intrinsic value) to all of humanity
The Purpose of Morality
The utilitarian has a very simple answer to the question of why morality exists at all:
The purpose of morality is to guide people’s actions in such a way as to produce a better world
The Emphasis on the Overall Good
“utilitarian” solutions asks us to put aside self-interest for the sake of the hole
Utilitarianism is a morally demanding position for two reasons:
It always asks us to do the most, to maximize utility, not to do the minimum
It asks us to set aside personal interest
Utility
Utility = what is accepted as valuable
What has been considered valuable according to the theory? Pleasure, happiness, ideals/interests, preferences/desires
Act and Rule Utilitarianism
Act Utilitarianism: Looks at the consequences of each individual act and calculate the utility each time the act is performed
Rule Utilitarianism: Looks at the consequences of having everyone follow a particular rule and calculates the overall utility of accepting or rejecting the rule
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
Bentham believed that we should try to increase the overall amount of pleasure in the world
Pleasure = the enjoyable feeling we experience when a state of deprivation is replaced by fulfillment
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
Believed that happiness should be the standard of utility and the determinant of right or wrong action
Happiness = pleasure and absence of pain
Ideal Values
G.E. Moore suggested that we should strive to maximize ideal values such as freedom, knowledge, justice, and beauty
The world may not be a better place with more pleasure in it, but it certainly will be a better place with more freedom, more knowledge, more justice, and more beauty
Criticisms of Utilitarianism
1) Responsibility
Utilitarianism suggests that we are responsible for all the consequences of our choices
The problem is that sometimes we can foresee consequences of other people’s actions that are taken in response to our own acts. Are we responsible for those actions, even though we don’t choose them or approve of them?
2) Integrity
Utilitarianism often demands that we put aside self-interest
Sometimes this means putting aside our own moral convictions
3) Intentions
Utilitarianism is concerned almost exclusively about consequences, not intentions
4) Anything Goes
Came to be known as “the pig’s philosophy”
Ignores higher values
Could justify living only for pleasure
Concluding Assessment
Utilitarianism is most appropriate for policy decisions, as long as a strong notion of fundamental human rights guarantees that it will not violate rights of small minorities
Existentialism
Existentialism
The belief that there is no objective or absolute meaning in life
The meaning of a person’s life must be invented or chosen by that person
Emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual in an indifferent universe
Rise of Existentialism
It was during WWII, when Europe found itself in a crisis faced with death and destruction, that the existential movement began to flourish, popularize in France in the 1940s…
Type of Existentialist #1: Godly
Kierkegaard
Believe God exists, but people are alienated from Him
Man is alienated from his God-like self, and the problem of his life is trying to close that gap
Freedom involves accepting the responsibility for choice and committing to the choice
Type of Existentialist #2: Ungodly
Santre, Camus, Nietzsche
Do not believe God exists
“Because there is no God to give purpose to the universe, each man must accept individual responsibility for his own becoming”
In choosing for himself, he chooses for all men “the image of man as he ought to be”
He has to make good choices that others could follow
Main Ideas of Existentialism
Existence Precedes Essence
What is Essence?
The thing that defines you (whether it is by nature or God)
Having awareness of yourself and things around you
It therefore sets ground rules for the actions and/or purpose that an object can or can’t do
Most philosophers believe that essence precedes existence—except many existentialists
What Does Existence Precedes Essence Mean?
1) We have no predetermined nature or essence that controls what we are, what we do, or what is valuable for us
2) We are radically free to act independently of determination by outside influences
3) We create our own human nature through these free choices
4) We also create our values through these choices
Absurdism
The belief that nothing can explain or rationalize human existence
There is no answer to “Why am I?”
Humans exist in a meaningless, irrational universe and any search for order will bring them into direct conflict with this universe
Alienation or Estrangement
Humans are alienated from:
All other humans
human institutions
the past
the future
We only exist right now, right here…
Existentialists are concerned how technology shuts man out of nature and from each other
crowding of people into cities
subdivision of labor
government control
growth of advertising, propaganda and the mass media of entertainment
Nothingness and Death
If man is alienated from nature, God, neighbors, and self — what is left?
Death hangs over all of us. Our awareness of it can bring freedom or anguish
Freedom (Choice and Commitment)
Humans have freedom to choose
Each individual makes choices that create their own nature
Because we choose, we must accept risk and responsibility for wherever our commitments take us
Dread and Anxiety
Anxiety stems from our understanding and recognition of the total freedom of choice that confronts us every moment, and the individual’s confrontation with nothingness
Because we have freedom, we are filled with angst over our choices
Dread is a feeling of general apprehension to make a commitment to a personally valid way of life