HZT4U1 Exam Review - Giordano - PDF

HZT4U1: Exam Review (Giordano) Exam Format: 15% of Final Mark Part Type Number of Questions Marks 1 Multiple Choice 30 (1 mark each)...

HZT4U1: Exam Review (Giordano) Exam Format: 15% of Final Mark Part Type Number of Questions Marks 1 Multiple Choice 30 (1 mark each) 30 2 Quote Analysis Answer 2 out of 5 choices (5 marks each) 10 2 Short Answer Answer 3 out of 6 choices (6 marks each) 18 4 Essay Answer 1 out of 2 choices 40 Total 98 Unit 1: Intro to Philosophy Terms: Philosophy the study of fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, and value. Lesson # Review the following Concepts: 1.2 Plato’s Allegory of the Cave * The prisoners in the cave can only see shadows of real objects. Therefore, the prisoners’ reality consists of nothing but shadows. -​ One prisoner is freed, but the process is a painful one. The glare of the fire can blind him because he is unaccustomed to it. -​ What would the freed prisoner think if someone explained that everything he had seen before was an illusion and that his  2 vision is clearer now? Would he accept it or reject it at this point? -​ The prisoner might believe that the shadows are more real than the objects that cast them. -​ If he were released from the cave he would suffer greatly. As he approaches the light his eyes would be dazzled and he won’t be able to see any of the world that those outside the cave call reality. -​ He will have to adjust to the light of the bright sun slowly. The process would be slow. He might begin with the shadows on the ground, maybe next reflections of people and objects in the water then maybe the objects themselves. -​ Eventually, he would begin to understand that the sun produces the seasons and the years and that it controls everything that he and his fellow prisoners used to see. -​ His mind would return to the other prisoners in the cave. He’d be happy for himself but not for the other prisoners. He would realize that although some prisoners might have been praised for their quickness of wit, that they were not truly wise. He would rather endure anything rather than thinking and living as he once did. -​ Going back to the cave would mean returning to darkness. He would have to compete in discerning shadows with the prisoners who had not been released and whose eyes were still dim. They would think that his ascension was ridiculous and not worthwhile for all it resulted in was ruined eyesight. They might feel that it is better not to ascend. -​ The prisoners might be very resistant to gaining new knowledge; they might even go so far as to kill those trying to free them.  3 -​ Plato concludes by saying that the cave is a symbol for the world that we perceive with our own eyes, our senses. The climb upward out of the cave into the upper world is the ascent of mind into the domain of true knowledge or wisdom. 1.3 Maslow’s Hierarchy -​ Five tier model of human needs, which he later revised to an eight tier model.  4 -​ He grouped these needs into two categories: deficiency needs (maintenance) which compromise the first four levels, and the second set as growth needs (self-actualization needs). -​ The most basic need is the need for physical survival and this will be the first thing that motivates our behaviour. -​ Maslow argued that when a deficit or basic need has more or less been satisfied, it will go away and we will focus on the next set of needs. However, growth needs continue to be felt and may even become stronger once they have been engaged. -​ Once these growth needs have been reasonably satisfied one may be able to reach the highest level called self-actualization. -​ Progress is often disrupted by a failure to meet lower level needs, life experiences may cause people to fluctuate between levels. -​ Once that level is fulfilled the next level up is what motivates our behaviour.  5 1.​ Physiological Needs: air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex, sleep, etc. 2.​ Safety Needs: protection from elements, security, order, law, stability. 3.​ Love and Belonging Needs: friendship, intimacy, trust, acceptance, receiving and giving love, being part of a group (family, friends, work, etc). 4.​ Esteem Needs: which include esteem of oneself (dignity, achievement, mastery, acceptance) and esteem from others (respect from others, reputation, status).  6 5.​ Cognitive Needs: knowledge understanding, curiosity, exploration, need for meaning and predictability. 6.​ Aesthetic Needs: appreciation and search for beauty, balance, form. 7.​ Self-Actualization Needs: realizing personal potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal growth and peak experiences. 8.​ Transcendence Needs: a person is motivated by values which transcend beyond the personal self (mystical experiences, certain experiences with nature, aesthetic experiences, sexual experiences, service to others, the pursuit of science, religious faith, etc.) Connection to Philosophy -​ In Plato’s allegory of the cave, after seeing the light of true knowledge, the prisoner returns to the cave to share his newly acquired wisdom with others. He returns to help others even though he is in great danger himself. -​ Plato is telling us that the philosopher, like the freed prisoner, has an obligation to help others by sharing his knowledge. -​ If Plato and Maslow are correct, philosophy is ideally suited to serve the needs of the self-actualized. -​ Philosophy has a highly practical side; the ability to analyze and assess both sides of an argument is valuable in all areas of life. Review the themes each of the The Missing Piece following: -​ Raises a number of questions about happiness, independence, 1.1 ​ The Missing Piece and the value of the journey over the destination. 1.3 c ​ The Disciple -​ The search for completion is often flawed. We don’t know what 1.6 ​ Tolstoy is best for us. We need to discover that satisfaction in ourselves and in what we love, not through other people. The Disciple …  7 Tolstoy -​ The search for meaning in life and the conflict between faith and reason. -​ True fulfillment comes not from wealth, fame, or intellectual pursuits but from embracing faith, humility, and a life of purpose aligned with spiritual values. 1.7 c Fides et Ratio Unit 2: Human Nature Terms: good If it contributes to the happiness and well-being of some or many people in society, without inflicting pain or suffering upon any of them. evil The absence of good. essentialism Essence precedes existence. existentialism Existence precedes essence. Feminism altruism Selfless acts, you act but there is no self benefit to it. egoism -​ Selfish acts, self-centered acts. We may appear to do good but actually we want something in return. The reason for our action is self-motivation. -​ Acting in ways that promote one’s self interest.  8 Lesson # Review the following Concepts: 2.2 Theories of Human Nature Theory 1 - Humans are Naturally Good Socrates -​ Socrates believed that “to know the good is to do the good”. He influenced the thinking of Plato and Aristotle, who all agreed that people, by nature, are capable of being good, wise and virtuous. -​ For someone to know to be “good” means they need to be wise and virtuous (showing high moral standards). Joseph Butler -​ Joseph Butler believed that people are born naturally good. He was an Anglican cleric. His view is the Christian view. -​ Conscience is the key to moral choices and making moral choices is integral to our human nature, though he believed that evil results when people violate their nature when they carry out selfish acts. -​ It is in the conscience where God can direct us to do good. -​ If people act in evil ways it means they are not using their conscience. Not praying or reflecting. -​ When people act evil they are going against their human nature. Catholic View -​ Catholicism has suggested that humans have fallen from a state of grace (pure innocence and goodness). -​ Also inherited the ability to sin, which comes from the actions of Adam and Eve who learned they could disobey their nature Mengzi (Mencius) -​ Mengzi (Mencius) wrote that human nature is naturally good,  9 and that humans have an innate sense of right and wrong. -​ He observed that humans were naturally sympathetic to people in distress or pain and that we are naturally disposed to following rules and expectations of society. -​ He believed that evil exists because some people do not cultivate their innate goodness through education. If goodness is not nourished it decays. “Use it or lose it.” -​ Chinese culture in this time was about balance and order, you had a place or “role” in your life that was decided by society. Women’s roles were to get married, the eldest son had certain expectations, etc. -​ The reason we are born good is because we are born with the natural desire to do what is right and good. In this case, this means following the order that is set up by society. -​ If you did not have education, were not raised in a proper way, then you were brought to evil action. Lack of education leads to evil action. Theory 2: Humans are Naturally Evil Xun-Zi (Hsun Tzu) -​ Xun-Zi (Hsun Tzu) agreed with Mengzi that education is important but his reasons for believing so were different. -​ He believed that humans are born with feelings of envy and hate. The true purpose of education is to control the dark side of human nature. He believed that Mengzi was wrong when he failed to distinguish between human nature (what is given by heaven) and what is learned. -​ He denied the possibility that the desire to do good can motivate people. He believed that humans desire what they do not possess. This sparks jealousy and envy which leads to evil deeds.  10 -​ We are born evil, we need education to control that, and so we can be in society without acting evil. Thomas Hobbes -​ In his work, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes states that: “In a state of human nature, every man wants to preserve his own liberty and to dominate others, both these impulses are the result of a natural desire for self-preservation.” -​ This desire, left unchecked, would result in conflict which will be brutal, cruel and selfish. To Hobbes, the only thing that motivates people to do anything is greed, created by the desire to survive. -​ In a state of nature, there is no justice, injustice, property, there is only war. -​ To protect your own things, we need the government to step in to make sure everyone is respecting each other’s things. -​ If we did not have this government control, we would be in fear constantly (of losing our lives) as we are naturally disposed (inclined) to war. -​ The most powerful individual is the most adept to survive, humans are naturally inclined to have malicious intentions inherited from an uncountable generation of stealing and killing in order to acquire the upper-hand in life. -​ In order to prevent natural chaos from destroying us, we give up our natural freedoms to participate in society out of the instinct to survive, which Hobbes called “the social contract”. This involves heavy state control and absolute power over society (government). Theory 3: Humans are Born Neither Good nor Evil John Locke -​ John Locke in his essay “Concerning Human Understanding” stated the importance of the experience of the senses and sets  11 out the case that the human mind at birth is complete, but receptive, blank slate (scraped tablet or tabula rasa) upon which experience imprints knowledge. -​ Therefore, we can conclude that humans inherit neither a good nor evil nature at birth. -​ Nature versus nurture debate, which states that we are formed either by something we inherit through DNA (personality), the way we are raised, or a combination of both. -​ An ongoing thing. Every time you write on the chalkboard it changes. Old writing may shine through, etc. Theory 4: Humans are Born Equally Good and Evil -​ The idea of harmony and balance. -​ The concept of Yin Yang is that human beings are born with both good and evil within them. Even when something appears to be completely good, there may be a little evil within them. This keeps a constant balance. -​ Sometimes at weddings, people cry. Joy and sadness, this is a balance. At funerals sometimes people smile, another balance of joy and sadness. -​ Some societies see evil as a necessary and inevitable complement to good. This is exemplified in the Chinese belief of Yin and Yang which represents the positive and negative forces in nature and in human beings. -​ “The principle of Yin and Yang is that all things exist as inseparable and contradictory opposites, for example, female-male, dark-light and old-young.” -​ The principle, dating from the third century BCE or even earlier, is a fundamental concept in Chinese philosophy and culture in general. The two opposites of Yin and Yang attract and complement each other and, as their symbol illustrates, each side has at its core an element of the other (represented  12 by the small dots). Neither pole is superior to the other and, as an increase in one brings a corresponding decrease in the other, a correct balance between the two poles must be reached in order to achieve harmony. -​ We need both good and evil to help us understand the other. For example, Adam and Eve lived in good but were unaware because they had never experienced evil. -​ Disharmony creates suffering in the world which is why we are always in need of balance 2.3 b Plato: Essence & Forms Essence -​ Refers to the thing or things that make up the permanent and universal nature of a being or entity -​ A being’s essence is shared by all members of the species. -​ Essence precedes existence, e.g, human beings enter the world already endowed with essential defining characteristics. -​ Precedes means "comes before”. -​ If we say that essence comes before existence, it means the essence of being human comes before birth. Where does it come from? Where does it live? -​ Plato believed in the theory of forms. He believed there were two worlds. The world of senses (where we live) and the world of ideal/universal forms. -​ In the world of senses, we only get glimpses of reality. The whole truth is not found here. Why? Because we perceive what is true through our senses. -​ Changeable -​ Finite (not eternal) -​ Imperfect forms of the “ideal” -​ In the world of ideal forms is where the essence of human beings exists. There is an “ideal” form or shape of a human  13 being there (opposite of Christian thinking where we believe that all souls are unique, while Plato believed there is an ideal). Reason is what gets us to this world. There is an ideal form of everything, desks, chairs, cakes, etc. There is an ideal for everything living/non-living in this world. People who use reason (philosophers) are the closest to get to this ideal world. Human essence starts here. It does not contain your “uniqueness”, it contains your essence. When you die, you die, but your essence returns to this world as it “does not belong to you”, you are just given it to use during your life. -​ Unchangeable -​ Unmoveable -​ Eternal -​ Truth Essentialist -​ Suggest that reason is the distinguishing flame of human beings. In their view, the conscious ability to think and reason is the essential characteristic of human beings. -​ Essentialists are those who have suggested that reason is the distinguishing feature of human beings. -​ They believe that humans inherit a shared essence as part of their nature (although what this is made up of varies from theorist to theorist). -​ Anyone who believes that there is an inherited “something” that defines a human being is an essentialist. Example; Christians believe everyone is born with a soul. John Locke believed that humans are born with nothing (he is not an essentialist). -​ Believe if there is an essence, every human being is born with it. That is what makes you human, a human essence.  14 -​ The conscious ability to think and reason is the essential characteristic of human beings. -​ Plato said that all three elements are present in everyone and that the kind of person someone is depends on which element dominates. Someone dominated by reason seeks knowledge, truth, and wisdom. A person dominated by spirit might seek power and success, while someone dominated by appetite might sek possessions and wealth. -​ Plato recognized the potential for these elements to conflict within the soul or self. He believed that reason is the most important element because it enables people to maintain harmony among the elements. Only reason, he said, can show people the best way to live and how to properly develop the elements of our nature that makes us unique. -​ Made up of three elements. -​ All three elements are present in everyone and the kind of person someone is depends on which element dominates. -​ If the human being is dominated by reason, he/she might seek knowledge, truth and wisdom; if dominated by the spirit perhaps power and success, dominated by appetite might result in seeking possessions and wealth. -​ Plato recognized the potential for these elements to conflict within the self. -​ Believed reason is the most important element because it enables people to maintain harmony among the elements. -​ Plato was a rationalist: this is the belief that knowledge comes from exercising the human ability to reason  15 -​ Only reason can show people the best way to live and how to properly develop the elements of our nature that makes us unique. -​ Reasoning takes place in the soul. -​ He believed that the soul is distinct from the body and that it existed before birth and continues to exist after the body perishes. 2.3 b Plato’s Tripartite theory of the soul 1.​ Reason, the highest and most important element Essence of Human Nature -​ People who use their reason (Socrates, Plato, philosophers) -​ Access from world of ideal forms -​ Ruled by the mind, enables intelligence and self-control -​ Essential in those who rule (according to Plato) -​ Desires the truth, wisdom 2.​ Spirit, which is expressed as emotional states or attributes such as pride, vanity, aggressiveness, and courage -​ Ruled by emotions/passions. -​ People who will try to do the right thing to get attention. -​ Seek honour and victory. -​ Desires self-preservation. -​ Predominant in soldiers and auxiliaries (those who oversee workers, soldiers and keep them in place). 3.​ Appetite, the lowest element which is expressed as desires or needs -​ Ruled by basic instincts, hunger, thirst, warmth, sex. -​ As soon as we feel or want something, we do what it takes to get it or to avoid suffering. Example; if you have a headache you take a pill. -​ Desires, pleasure, money, comfort, physical satisfaction. -​ Predominant in merchants/workers, women, children, slaves and others who are self-interested (selfish people, egoistic).  16 2.4 Challenges to Essentialism (especially Buddhist Challenge Existentialism) -​ Though Buddhist ideas developed outside the western tradition, Buddhism may represent the most radical challenge to essentialist ideas of human nature, at least from the perspective of western philosophical thought. -​ Founded by Siddharta Guatama, born in India and lived from 563 to 483 BCE. -​ Buddhism maintains that the notion of self is an illusion. The self does not exist. If the self does exist, arguing about the nature of the self is pointless, an idea that runs contrary to contemporary western notions of personal identity and importance of individuality. -​ The doctrine of impermanence, which is the belief that all things, including human beings, are constantly changing and moving, is also central to Buddhist teachings. If humans are constantly changing, no identifiable characteristic can endure over time. Buddhists maintain that clinging to the illusion of self causes only pain and suffering. People suffer because they are searching for something that does not exist. -​ The self does not exist; it is an illusion; therefore arguing about the self is pointless. There is no self, there is no essence of the self -​ Belief in the: Doctrine of Impermanence (not permanent)- all things, including human beings, are constantly changing and moving. Because we are in a constant state of change there can be no enduring characteristic over time. -​ There is no part of us that stays the same throughout our lifetime as we are constantly moving. -​ Clinging to the notion of the self only causes pain and suffering; we cling to things that do not exist.  17 -​ The futility of their search leads to insecurity and anxiety; it creates destructive thoughts that promote egoism, selfish desire and negative feelings toward others. Scientific Challenge -​ Some scientists and social scientists have tried to challenge essentialism by reducing human nature to the basic elements of matter and mechanical processes. This approach is not new. Hobbes was one of the earliest advocates of the idea that humans are much like machines. -​ Though some of today's scientists offer more complex explanations than Hobbes, their conclusions are often similar to his. They analyse human beings, then present them as a sophisticated piece of biochemical and biomechanical machinery. Thinking and reasoning are considered to be nothing more than the result of electro-chemical actions in the brain. -​ This materialistic view of human nature denies that thinking and reasoning are proof of a mind at work. It says, as philosopher Gilbert Ryle maintained, that there is no "ghost in the machine." -​ If these scientists are correct, it means that people are little different from non-human animals. We are just somewhat higher up the evolutionary chain, perhaps because we are more adept at using our brains. -​ In Dark Nature: A Natural History of Evil, contemporary biologist Lyall Watson wrote that the answer to questions about human nature is simple: it is dark and it is evil. -​ It would be foolish to ignore the possibility that evil is not peculiar to human nature. There seems to be a lot of it about  18 right now, and maybe it is not confined to our particular ecology at all. It could even be universal. And if it is, then it becomes necessary to see evil as a force of nature, as a biological reality.... I believe it will help to know that evil is commonplace and widespread, perhaps not even confined to our species.... The sad fact is that we are born selfish. So, of course, are all other living things. -​ In support of his argument, Watson pointed out that other species, such as chimpanzees, are capable of elaborate deceptions and intrigue, as well as planned acts of physical violence that would be called murder in human society. But does proof that chimpanzees are capable of aggressive, brutish behaviour support the theory that humans are essentially evil and selfish? -​ Some scientists say no, as does American science reporter Natalie Angier. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the United States, Angier's New York Times column explained the reason for the tens of thousands of acts of generosity that took place after the tragedy. -​ Altruism and heroism. If not for these radiant badges of our humanity, there would be no us, and we know it.... And while biologists in no way claim to have discovered the key to human nobility, they do have their own spin on the subject. The altruistic impulse, they say, is a non-denominational gift, the birthright and defining characteristic of the human species. -​ Though Angier's sweeping generalisation about biologists may  19 not be entirely accurate, many biologists do support the notion mentioned in her column. Angier also wrote that most biologists concur with anthropologist Barbara Smuts, who has concluded that biologists are beginning to recognize that the best way to compete is often to co-operate. This conclusion echoes the lessons about cooperation outlined in the prisoner's dilemma. -​ Finally, Angier cited several sources that challenge Watson's dark vision of animal nature. One of these is primatologist Richard Wrangham, who has studied red colobus monkeys. Wrangham found that when set upon by chimpanzees, which are much bigger and stronger, the male monkeys confront their attackers. To find out more about Richard Wrangham's research, ensuing struggle, their tactic enables Though the monkeys often die in the mothers and offspring to escape. -​ Just as biologists disagree about human nature, so do psychologists. Freud, for example, argued that human beings have innate drives focused on sex and aggression. He said that relief can be achieved only by the selfish satisfaction of desires. -​ The 20th-century American psychologist Carl Rogers presented a more optimistic view. Rogers argued that the impulse to goodness is basic to human nature. He said that people are growth-oriented and progressive when conditions are favourable. They become aggressive and harmful only when alienated from their basic nature. -​ Rogers himself acknowledged that this theory seems to express conflicting views of human nature: people choose  20 the good when free to do so but may also find themselves in the grip of alienating forces that control their behaviour. -​ B.F. Skinner, another 20th-century American psychologist, took a neutral view of human nature. Skinner believed that people's behaviour is completely controlled by their environment, a theory that is called behaviourism. As a result, behaviourists like Skinner limit their study of human behaviour to what can be observed and make no judgments about whether behaviour is good or bad. -​ Behaviourists' methods ignore people's states of mind or consciousness, as well as their motives. As a result, behaviourists attribute no actions to human nature. Instead, they view humans as organic machines, which are programmed by their environment to act in certain ways. This means that humans are not free. -​ Though scientists and social scientists have reached no agreement about human nature, their investigations have refocused the philosophical debate over the issue. In addition to asking, What is human nature? philosophers now also ask, Is there such a thing as human nature? Revised Answers BELOW -​ Materialistic view of human nature, denial of a soul or inherited essence. -​ We are defined by the matter that makes us and matter  21 alone. -​ Some scientists and social scientists have tried to challenge essentialism by reducing human nature to the basic elements of matter and mechanical processes. -​ This is not a new idea; Thomas Hobbes described human beings as machines. -​ Human beings are a sophisticated piece of biochemical and biomechanical machines. -​ Thinking and reasoning are considered to be nothing more than the result of electro-chemical actions of the brain. -​ Humans are little different from non-human animals; we are just more evolved. Feminist Challenge -​ Feminist philosophers have argued, with considerable justification, that sexist assumptions pervade traditional western philosophy. In particular, they have questioned the essentialists’ emphasis on reason as the defining characteristic of human nature. -​ Plato maintained that reason must take precedence over desires and emotions. In this view, however, men and women are equal in their ability to reason and are equally capable of becoming leaders of society. Aristotle did not agree with his teacher. In his view, men’s superior reasoning ability meant that they should naturally rule over women. -​ Aristotle’s views on the reasoning ability of men and women became entrenched in western thought. Many influential philosophers, such as Augustine of Hippo, Immmanuel Kant, and Georg W.E Hegel, accepted this belief and argued that  22 women are inferior to men. -​ In addition to challenging traditional western ideas about the abilities of women, many feminist philosophers have also challenged the essentialist assumption that reason, which is traditionally associated with men, is superior to emotions. In the feminist view, this assumption symbolises more than two millennia of subjugation and injustice. -​ This is a response to traditional western beliefs that the female of the human species (women) are inherently inferior to men in their capacity to reason. -​ This means that the essence of being female makes women inferior by nature. -​ Feminism challenges the essentilist’s emphasis on reason as being the defining characteristic of human nature. -​ This emphasis on reason (which is traditionally associated with men) has led to the subjugation of women who are traditionally associated with emotions. Emotions are inferior to reason as they sometimes impair the human ability to reason. Existentialist Challenge -​ Rooted in the 19th century, existentialism is a philosophical movement that became prominent in the 20th century and remains an important force at the beginning of the 21st. -​ Existentialists concern themselves with human existence: the problems humans face and the place of humans in the universe. The roots of existentialism  23 are found in the thought of the 19th-century Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, though it is most closely associated with a school that emerged in the mid-20th century. Consisting of several branches, including Christian and atheistic existentialism, the movement has generated a broad range of views. -​ The issues of despair, depression, anxiety, meaninglessness, and nothingness recur in existentialist writing. Kierkegaard's works are filled with anxiety and despair. He wrote, for example: "I stick my finger into existence, it smells of nothing. Where am I? What is this thing called the world? Who is it who has lured me into the thing, and now leaves me here? Who am I? How did I come into the world? Why was I not consulted?" -​ In Kierkegaard's world, happiness and self-fulfilment are out of the question. Life simply is not conducive to pleasure and happiness. Resisting existential angst, a German word for anxiety, is futile. Angst is a permanent, universal feature of modern humanity. -​ Kierkegaard rejected traditional values and social conventions. He was even sceptical of the meaningfulness of truth and reason, the foundation of classical rationalism. His ideas stood in direct opposition to the essentialist belief that rationality is the distinguishing attribute of humanity. Because of  24 Kierkegaard's bleak vision, existentialists are often described as pessimistic and gloomy. -​ The French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, an influential 20th-century existentialist, did not agree that existentialism emphasised the darker side of human life. He suggested that those who accused the movement of being too gloomy were frightened by existentialism's emphasis on freedom and choice. -​ Like Simone de Beauvoir, Albert Camus, and many other existentialists, Sartre was an atheist, someone who does not believe in a supreme being. As a result, his views directly contradicted those of Plato and the many philosophers who followed in the footsteps of this ancient Greek. -​ Sartre's view of human nature can be summed up in this three-word sentence: Existence precedes essence. In Existentialism and Human Emotions, he explained what this sentence meant. -​ It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. Not only is man what he conceives himself to be, but he is also only what he wills  25 himself to be after this thrust toward existence. Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) - Founder of Existentialism -​ “Existence before essence.” -​ Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard was the founder of existentialism. -​ He grew up in a deeply religious home, however he rejected Lutheranism. -​ For Kierkegaard, people must make and judge their own moral choices. To do this people must move beyond judging their actions according to reason or the standards of society and become accountable only to the judgments of God. -​ In his view, authentic choices (use your reason, not blindly following) are very important. Authentic choices are those that involve consistency of perception, thought, and action. We have the responsibility of creating ourselves. -​ For Kierkegaard, life is not conducive to pleasure and happiness. -​ He rejected traditional values and social conventions. He was sceptical of traditional rationalism and opposed essentialist belief. Existentialist Challenge in 20th Century  26 -​ Existentialism examines the importance of human existence over human essence. -​ It emphasises that a good person is one who makes individual moral choices and takes responsibility for those choices. -​ Existentialists believe that absolute moral values do not exist-- the idea of being true to oneself when making moral choices is the only virtue worth striving for. -​ Existentialism also examines issues of despair, depression, anxiety, and meaninglessness. These themes recur in the existential writing. -​ Existential Angst is a permanent feature of modern humanity (Angst is a German word for anxiety) Jean-Paul Satre -​ French philosopher and writer, Jean-Paul Satre, believed existentialism was about human freedom and choice. -​ He was an atheist and he opposed Plato. For Satre, ‘Existence precedes Essence.’ -​ He argued that man exists, turns up, and then defines himself. “Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism.”  27 -​ Everyone is responsible for his/her choices and is condemned to be free. Albert Camus (1913-1960) “The Myth of Sisyphus” -​ Existentialist author Albert Camus (1913-1960) wrote about the Greek hero Sisyphus who was condemned to push a rock up a hill for eternity. -​ Sisyphus would spend all day pushing his rock to the top only to watch it roll to the valley below. -​ For Camus, this myth represented the absurdity of life-- unending, frustrated tasks with no final meaning. Still, Sisyphus is admired by Camus as an existential hero for not giving up in the face of his challenges, and for giving a meaning to a condition that is intrinsically meaningless. Unit 3: Metaphysics Terms: free will Religious determinism Naturalism Social Determinism atheism Refers to the belief that there is no such thing as a deity.  28 agnosticism This refers to the belief that the existence of a deity or deities cannot be either known or proven. Religious claims to the existence of God are either unintelligible or unverifiable. Personhood Lesson # Review the following Concepts: 3.2 Aristotle & the Supreme Being Substance as Matter and Form -​ Aristotle believed that any particular substance is a combination of both matter and form. The matter of the substance is the substratum or the stuff of which it is composed. For example the matter of the house is the bricks, stones, boards, and other materials, or whatever constitutes the potential house. While the form of the substance is the actual house. -​ The matter of the house is its potentiality and the form is its actuality. According to Aristotle, the potential being (matter) and the actual one (form) are one and the same thing. Expressed another way, the potential being, for example, the statue of David sculpted in marble and the actual form of David are the same thing. -​ For Aristotle, substance is both essence (form) and substratum (matter). Substance constitutes the reality of individual things. ​ ​ A house is created when bricks, stones, boards, and so on, are put together according to a certain plan and arranged in a certain form. It is destroyed when the bricks, stones, boards, and so on, lose that form  29 -​ Aristotle believed that any particular substance is a combination of both matter and form. It is located within the individual thing and has a real existence in itself. -​ It is the reality of individual things. In other words: Substance = Matter + Form The matter of the substance is While the form is the actual the “stuff” of which it is shape substance takes, its composed, as well as the actuality. For example, the potentiality for that “stuff”. actual house. A house takes its For example, the matter of a proper form when the matter house is the bricks, stones, is arranged according to a wood and other building certain plan for a house. In materials that make a house. this example, the potential That matter has the potential being and actual being are the to become a house. same thing. Aristotle and Non-Material Substances -​ Aristotle differentiates between substances that are physical (or material), and are movable or changeable. These physical substances are capable of changing, or of being changed. Another kind of substance is non-physical, non-material, eternal, immovable, and unchangeable. Non-material substances may include: mathematical objects such as numbers, and human ideas. Substance and Accidents -​ In his arguments against Plato's transcendent forms, Aristotle introduced the concept of what he called  30 "accidents." For example, one could speak of a large brown horse. Now the elements within this description are large, brown and horse. The terms large and brown do not exist in the same way as a horse does. In fact, large and brown are dependent on the term horse for their meaning. Thus we can say that here horse is the substance while large and brown are merely accidents which do not exist on their own, but only in relation to the subject which is horse. Accidents only exist when they are the accidents of some substance. Examples are colours, weight and motion. Without the presence of horses in this case, there would be no existence for large or brown. There are two substances: -​ Some substances are physical/material and are moveable and changeable. For example, people, animals, trees and buildings. -​ Another kind of substance is non-physical and non-material. These are eternal, immovable and unchangeable. These include numbers, mathematical objects and human ideas. -​ Accidents do not exist on their own. They only exist when they are accidents of some substance. -​ Examples of accidents are colour, weight and motion. -​ Accidents must be attached to a substance in order to have meaning. I.e., a large brown horse. Without the presence of the horse there would be no existence for large or brown.  31 Potentiality to Actuality -​ Plato emphasised the imperfection of all things compared with the forms they imitated. On the other hand, Aristotle taught that an organism moves from an imperfect or immature condition in a development toward achievement of a full reality in which its inherent form is actualised. For example, the dandelion seed always moves toward becoming a dandelion plant, the embryo always moves toward becoming a child, the kitten always moves toward becoming a cat, and so on. -​ The imperfect or immature condition does not imply "less-than-good", but rather it means "not yet what it should be." For instance, the egg and the sperm are considered imperfect, not because there is something wrong with them, but because they have not yet reached their potential - which is to unite and to form a foetus. -​ Aristotle placed an emphasis on nature's processes of growth and development. He saw each organism striving to move from imperfection to perfection - from a state of potentiality to a state of actuality, or realisation of its form -​ In the case of natural objects, Aristotle thought the purpose or final cause was internal to the object. In effect, there was a plan of development for the object within the object. Aristotle in the 4th century BCE was anticipating the discovery of genetic traits in each natural object. Thus, the formal cause and the final cause (both dealing with the plan of development for the object) were closely linked.  32 For example, both the formal and final cause of an acorn is to produce an oak tree. -​ In order for something to change their needs to be a “causer”, something who makes it change. -​ This theory was intended to solve the difficulties which earlier thinkers had raised with reference to the beginnings of existence. -​ Plato emphasised the imperfection of all things compared with the form they imitated but did not address how things came to exist in the world of the senses. -​ Aristotle addressed the problem of change by teaching that an organism moves from an imperfect or immature condition in a development toward the achievement of a full reality where its inherent form is actualized. -​ Within every substance is the potential to be what it was made to be. -​ The imperfect or immature condition does not imply “less than good” but rather “not yet what it should be”. -​ Example, the kitten moves toward becoming a cat, a seed to a plant, etc. -​ He emphasised nature’s processes of growth and development with each organism moving from state of potentiality to a state of actuality or the realisation of its form. Supreme Form/Unmoved Mover/Uncaused Cause -​ Although Aristotle rejected the aspects of Plato's philosophy which located universal essences outside the physical realm, he made an exception when speaking about the vital principle behind the universe.  33 -​ The potentiality of all objects is located in their forms. Aristotle believed that all objects have efficient causes that allow them to move to actuality. For example, a seed must have been produced by a mature plant, and a child must have come from a parent. If everything in the world is, or has at one time been, dependent on something prior to it then there must be an ultimate source from which everything has come. -​ Aristotle concluded that there is a supreme form that exists separately from matter which is responsible for sustaining the universe. Everything in the universe is in a continual process from potentiality to actuality. However, the supreme form is not subject to such processes and is perfect. The supreme form is immaterial, perfect and without motion. -​ Aristotle also considered the notion of time. -​ To move something from point a to point b is a time-based activity: Aristotle concluded that time and motion are eternal. -​ An object only moves because something else caused it to do so. Yet what caused all the motion in the world and the universe to begin? Objects cannot have always been moving because motion is a time-based activity. An event leads back to a cause, and another cause, and another cause and so on. Aristotle reasoned that there needs to be an eternal cause of causes in the world. This cause of causes is not limited by time and motion. Aristotle concluded that there is an eternal uncaused-causer of everything. This "unmoved mover" is one and the same as the aforementioned "supreme form".  34 The Uncaused Cause -​ Although he rejected Plato’s universal essences outside the physical realm, he made an exception when speaking about the vital principle behind the universe. -​ The potentiality of all objects is located within their forms. All objects have efficient causes that allow them to move to actuality. -​ If everything in the world is, or has at one time, been dependent on something prior to it, there must be an ultimate source from which everything has come. The Supreme Form -​ There must be a supreme form that exists separately from matter which is responsible for sustaining the universe. -​ Everything in the universe is in continual process from potentiality to actuality; however, the supreme form is not subject to such processes. -​ The supreme form is eternal, immaterial, unchangeable, perfect and without motion. The Unmoved Mover -​ Aristotle also considered the notion of time. To move something from point A to point B is a time-based activity. Aristotle concluded that time and motion are eternal. An object only moves because something else caused it to do so, what caused all the motion in the world and universe to begin? Objects cannot have always been moving because motion is time-based. An event leads to a previous cause and so on. He concluded that there must be  35 an eternal causer of causes in the world, not limited by time and motion. -​ The Supreme Form is the first of all substances, the necessary first source of movement who is himself unmoved or uncaused. The Supreme Form is a being engaged in never-ending contemplation (reason is eternal and non-personal). Four Causes for Change 1.​ Material Cause -​ The material out of which an object is created. (What is it made from?) -​ For example, a table’s material cause is wood. 2.​ Efficient/Agent Cause -​ The means by which something is created or comes to existence. (Who or what brought it into existence?) -​ The mover that causes the thing to be or exist. -​ For example, how did the wood become a table? A table’s efficient cause is a carpenter who made it. 3.​ Formal Cause -​ The final shape of the object or the idea/plan that exists before it. -​ The form in which the thing is arranged. -​ For example, a table’s formal cause is the idea of an elevated flat surface. 4.​ Final Cause -​ This is the purpose or end (telos) of a thing realised in the full perfection of the object itself. (The reason it was created or the realisation of its fullest potential)  36 -​ The purpose for which the thing exists. -​ For example, a table’s final cause is to be used to place food or other things on. Plato vs. Aristotle -​ Plato argued that all -​ Aristotle came to things have a universal disagree with Plato. He form. argues that there are no -​ When we look at an universals that are apple, we see an apple, unattached to existing and analyse the form things. If a universal of the apple. There is a does exist, then it must particular apple (in the be something to which world of ideal forms) it is attached. which is separate from -​ Aristotle disagreed the individual apple. with the location of the *There is an ideal form universals. Plato spoke of apple. about the world of forms, where all universal forms subsist, but Aristotle maintained that universals exist within each thing. -​ If there is an “ideal form”, it has to be part of it (it has to be attached to the existing thing)  37 Why did Aristotle Disagree with Plato’s Theory? -​ Forms are powerless in explaining change. Forms are not causes of movement nor can they cause their own alteration. -​ Forms are equally incompetent when it comes to arriving at knowledge of particular things. To have knowledge of a particular object, it must be knowledge of the substance which is in that thing. Forms place knowledge outside of particular things. -​ To arrive at the knowledge of these things, we need to study them. -​ Forms cannot explain the existence of particular objects. Plato argues that forms do not exist in the particular object that they are separate from and existing in the world of universal forms. In Plato’s theory the ideal form and particular object are not directly connected. In Plato’s theory it is like there is a “third man” (middle person) between the individual and ideal form of the man. -​ There needs to be a bridge between both “worlds” that can bring one to the other. There needs to be a cause in order for this to happen. -​ Aristotle says that the substance of a particular thing cannot be separate from the thing itself -​ Plato fails to explain how the objectivity and permanence of the realm of ideal forms made the material world. 3.4 Arguments for and Against the Existence Arguments for the Existence of a Supreme Being of God The Ontological Argument ~ Anselm of Canterbury -​ First developed by the Christian theologian. Anselm of Canterbury, who lived from 1033 to 1109. -​ Anselm’s argument is a priori. It does not rely on evidence presented by the senses, rather, it works only with  38 concepts and reasoning. -​ His ontological argument begins by defining God as a supremely perfect being. At this point in his reasoning, what Anselm proposed was a definition only. He said nothing about whether anything in reality corresponds to the definition. As a definition, his proposal is no different from definitions of other real or imaginary things, such as tooth fairies and hobgoblins. -​ Anselm argued that if God is supremely perfect, it follows that God is also all-powerful, all-knowing, and self-causing, and that God must also have all other perfections. One of the perfections included in the definition must be the perfection of existence. If God does not possess existence, then God would be missing one all important feature that is possessed by all existing things -- and would be less than perfect. Because this would contradict the definition of God as supremely perfect, God must exist. -​ Some critics have argued that a definition like this simply tells people that they have a concept of God, just as they have concepts of iguanas and unicorns. Anselm disagreed. He said that God is the one thing that exists both as a concept in the human mind and as a reality outside the mind. -​ This is an A priori argument. It does not rely on any form of empirical observation, evidence or data, i.e. evidence perceived by the senses but relies entirely on logic and reasoning. -​ His ontological argument begins by coming up with a definition for God. At this point in his argument what he  39 proposes is a definition only. Even a good definition is not proof that a thing or being exists. -​ St. Anselm defines God as being supremely perfect. -​ To use this type of argument one must outline the specific definitions of all terms used. How would one define the term: perfection? -​ We must ask: How is God perfect? -​ According to this definition, God is a being with every conceivable perfection. -​ Therefore, He is perfect in power, knowledge, goodness and all other areas a being can be perfect in. -​ Naturally, one of these areas God is perfect in must be His own existence. If God did not possess the perfection of existence then God would be less than perfect which contradicts the definition we have already agreed upon, so God would not be God. -​ Therefore, St. Anselm concludes that God must exist. -​ Many have challenged Anselm’s approach. His approach merely proves that humans can have a concept of God, not that He exists. St. Anselm disagreed. He argued that God exists as a concept in the human mind and as a reality outside the mind. -​ Based on reason alone. The Cosmological Argument ~ St. Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle -​ The cosmological argument begins with the simple observation that it is impossible for any natural thing in the world to be the sole source of its own existence. In other words, it is impossible for anything to create itself.  40 Everything comes from something else. But at some point in the cause-and-effect series, say cosmologists, there must be a cause that is not itself caused. The function of this cause is to bestow existence on all other things. -​ Consider your own existence. You came into being as a result of your parents, who came into being as a result of their parents, who came into being as a result of their parents, and so on. None of your ancestors created her- or himself.. But the chain of causes cannot be endless. It must begin somewhere with an originating daily member who was not caused by any preceding member. Cosmologists say that this beginning point is a supreme being. -​ This is an A posteriori (begins with observable facts about the world). -​ The cosmological argument begins with the simple observation that it is impossible for any natural thing in the world to be the sole source of its own existence. It is impossible for anything to create itself. Whatever exists must come from something. -​ Nothing is the source of its own existence. At some point in the cause and effect series that extends far back into the past. At some point the chain must stop. There must be a cause that is not in itself caused, an ultimate original cause. -​ Cosmologists say that this cause is a supreme being, a being who is not caused by anything outside of itself; it is self-causing. -​ Critics have noted that even if this argument is valid, it does not prove the existence of a supreme being. The most  41 it shows is that the universe had a beginning. This beginning is not necessarily an all-powerful, all-knowing being. A scientific materialist might argue that this beginning point is something material like the big bang. -​ This scientific argument has been challenged by some. Critics ask, did the ‘big bang’ cause itself or was it caused by something else? In other words did the big bang come from nothing or something? If something other than what? Was that something a supreme being? The Argument from Design ~ St. Augustine (of Hippo) and St. Thomas Aquinas -​ After watching the orderly movement of the constellations in the sky, Huck and Jim might have concluded that some form of intelligence was created, and maintains, the beautiful display. If they did, their conclusions would be similar to those of philosophers who argue that the orderliness of the universe suggests that an all-powerful agent is responsible for creating this order. This position is called the argument from design, or the teleological argument. -​ Supporters of this argument say that the order that characterises the universe could not have come from nowhere or from nothing, nor could it have emerged spontaneously at some distant point in the past. They claim that the universe is as orderly as a perfectly harmonious machine, or the workings of an infinitely large clock, which a clockmaker must have designed and set in motion. -​ Many philosophers have challenged this view. Some have pointed out that even if some sort of cosmic order does  42 exist, it does not follow that this order was created by an all-powerful and benevolent, supreme being. It might just as well have been created by an evil demon, a very powerful computer, or some other very powerful intelligence. -​ Supporters of this argument say that the order that characterises the universe would not have come from nowhere or nothing, nor could it have emerged spontaneously at some point in the past. -​ Everywhere in nature there seems to be a design. -​ At some point there must have been a designer and this designer must be God. The existence of order in nature implies that there must be some supremely intelligent and perfect agent who is responsible for creating this order. -​ The universe is “too perfect” to have been all accidental Arguments Against the Existence a Supreme Being Atheism ~ Karl Marx, Friederich Nietzsche, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Sigmund Freud -​ Reject the idea of the existence of an omniscient (knowing everything) and omnipotent (unlimited power; able to do anything) supreme being whose task it is to create and sustain the world, to create humans in his, her, or its image, and to give to human existence a purpose for living. -​ To support this position, atheists propose a variety of arguments. One argument says that human history is a saga of calamity, evil, war, poverty, death, and suffering. Atheists who take this position say that it is inconceivable that a supremely perfect and benevolent (well meaning  43 and kindly) being could create such an imperfect world. And if human beings were really created in the image of a loving divinity, it is inconceivable that they could be so cruel to one another. -​ Argued that the concept of a supreme being is a soothing fiction, not unlike the fictions created to entertain children, such as Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. -​ Atheism: Refers to the belief that there is no such thing as a deity -​ Agnosticism: This refers to the belief that the existence of a deity or deities cannot be either known or proven. Religious claims to the existence of God are either unintelligible or unverifiable. -​ Atheists reject the idea of the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent supreme being whose task it is to create and sustain the world, to create humans in His or Her image, and it gives humans a purpose for living. -​ To support this position, atheists propose a variety of arguments. Argument 1: The Problem of Evil -​ One argument says that history is a saga of calamity and suffering. Atheists who take this position say that it is inconceivable that a supremely perfect and benevolent being could create such an imperfect world. Some atheists point to the evil and suffering in the world and ask: How can a perfect being create an imperfect world? If humans are created in God’s image and likeness how could they be so cruel to one another?  44 -​ Theists have challenged this argument by saying that it is based on a false premise. Some say that humans have rejected God and in using their free will to do so, are responsible for the problems of evil. Argument 2: No empirical Evidence of God -​ Many atheists today use the discoveries of modern science as a basis for rejecting the existence of a supreme being. They claim that the concept of a supreme being is useless and that everything in nature can be explained adequately using the tools of modern science. As a result they say that there is no need to suggest that a supreme being is the creator of nature. -​ Scientific investigation fails to reveal any credible evidence for a supreme being. They add that scientific discoveries have challenged the ideas of the world’s major religions that say that human beings occupy a privileged place at the top of a great chain of being. Argument 3: Fulfils a Psychological Need -​ Others say that the belief in a supreme being is a way to pacify and soothe human beings. That faith fulfills a deep-seated human emotional need for security, order and meaning. -​ Freud claimed that God is an invention that satisfies a deep-seated, human emotional craving for authority. He maintained that religion is the childhood of the mind, and that psychological maturity requires people to overcome this. Argument 4: Neurological Perspective -​ Those who adopt this point of view say that belief in a supreme being can be explained as a function of the chemistry of human brains. They say that what people  45 interpret as religious experiences, such as talking to God, represents nothing but changes in the activity of certain parts of their brain. -​ To support this claim, some neuroscientists have conducted experiments that show that certain kinds of artificial neural-electrical stimulation on the brain can trigger religious experiences in experimental subjects. 3.4 Pascal’s Wager Pascal’s Wager ~ Blaise Pascal Stipulations 1.​ God’s existence cannot be either proven or disproved by science. Let us admit for the sake of argument that uncertainty rules our intellectual life. 2.​ It is possible for us to know that something is without knowing exactly what it is, infinity, for instance, in mathematics. 3.​ We will all die. On our life’s journey we must decide to either believe in God’s existence or not. Pascal suggested that people view the question of God’s existence as they would a bet. Suppose that you did this. As with any bet, you would have two choices: God does exist, or God does not exist. 1.​ If you choose to believe in God and it turns out that God exists, then you have bet, and won big. Because Pascal was speaking from the Christian perspective, he suggested that the reward would likely be eternal life. In betting terms, the gains of betting on God’s existence are infinite. 2.​ If you choose not to believe in God, and it turns out that God does exist, then you have lost big and risk eternal suffering in hell. In betting terms, the losses associated with betting that God does not exist are infinite. 3.​ If you choose to believe that God exists and you live  46 accordingly, and yet it turns out that God does not exist, then your losses are minimal. All that you have given up are a few selfish pleasures and vices. 4.​ If you choose to live as if there is no God, and it turns out that God does not exist, then you have won the bet. Big deal! Your gain is the relatively insignificant one of being right. And of course, you would realise this only after you are dead (if realisation is possible in that state). -​ For Pascal, the only real issue in regard to the existence of God is heaven and hell. -​ The only reasonable choice is to bet on God even though you may be wrong so as to avoid the possibility of going to hell. -​ Given the amount to win over against the smart person would do. He concludes that atheism is the ultimate bad investment. 3.5 Theories of the self Substance Theory ~ Rene Descartes -​ The substance theory maintains that the self is a determinate and unitary thing -- a substance -- that persists over time. -​ The self is not a material substance, however. It is mental. According to Descartes, the self controls the body and the brain in the same way as a captain controls a ship. -​ The substantial self is a unity that cannot be divided and is not subject to decomposition or change. -​ As the subject of experience, the self supports changing experiences, but does not itself change. It is the thing that has or owns these experiences. -​ Descartes argued that people enjoy a privileged access to their selves, which they know better than they know  47 anything outside them. -​ He was a dualist. -​ Dualism asserts that the mind is separate from the body; it is a substance capable of existing independently of all things besides the sustaining power of God, which he believes is necessary for anything to exist. -​ He sets out to prove his own existence by beginning with extreme scepticism. -​ He concludes: All thinking things exist. I think, therefore I am (therefore I exist). -​ He defines the self as a determinate and unitary thing - a substance that persists over time. -​ The self is a substance that cannot be divided and is not subject to decomposition or change. -​ As the subject of experience, the self supports changing experiences but itself does not change. -​ It is the thing that these experiences happen to. Bundle Theory ~ David Hume -​ The bundle theory of self was proposed by the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume, as well as by Buddhist philosophers. This theory holds that the self is a bundle or a collection of bits and pieces of experience. Hume argued that when he engaged in introspective thought, or thought about himself, as Descartes had, he found nothing-like self waiting to be discovered. All he encountered were fleeting ideas, sensory impressions, fragmentary memories, passing desires, and other bits and pieces. -​ As a result, he concluded that the self is nothing but a  48 loosely knit collection -- a bundle -- of perceptions. -​ Denies the existence of a soul/self that is unchanging and permanent. -​ The self is in constant flux. -​ This theory holds that the self is like a bundle or collection of bits and pieces of experience. -​ No part of the self that lives on. -​ Hume argues that when he thought about himself, he did not find anything like a self waiting to be discovered-- all he discovered were the memories of experiences, impressions, ideas, desires, etc. -​ He found no unity or thread that gave him continuity. -​ He concluded that the self is nothing but a loosely knit collection, a bundle of perceptions Narrative Theory ~ Paul Ricoeur -​ The narrative theory which was proposed by the 20th century French philosopher Paul Ricoeur and others, maintains that the self is defined by narrative structure and unity. People make sense of their experiences by narrating them. -​ This narrative situates them in a story that traces their development and links them to the stories of others. -​ In your story, for example, you are the central character, as well as the central author or co-author. Whatever unity the self possesses is a function of the unity of the narrative under which it is identified. A fragmented narrative is thus a fragmented self. -​ Unlike the stories told in books, the narrative self has no neat and tidy ending. As long as life goes on, new  49 narratives can always be discovered in situations past and present. New stories can be told, and old stories can be retold or dropped. -​ The narrative is not just a story, but refers to the way in which humans experience time and future potentialities. -​ He points out that we experience time in two different ways. We experience time as linear succession, we experience the passing hours and days and the progression of our lives from birth to death. This is cosmological time. -​ The other is phenomenological time; time experienced in terms of the past, present and future. -​ We draw disparate past events into a whole establishing casual but meaningful connections between them. -​ The self is defined by structure and unity. -​ People make sense of their experiences by narrating them. -​ The narrative is connected to other narratives, whatever unity the self possesses is a function of the unity of the narrative under which it is identified. -​ A fragmented narrative is a fragmented self. Project Theory ~ Jean Paul-Satre -​ The project theory of the self was proposed by the 20th century French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. -​ This theory maintains that the self needs to be thought of in temporal terms, more as an event in time than as a thing. -​ The self is neither a static thing, nor a bundle, nor a point-like ego at the centre of experience. Rather, it is a dynamic and future-oriented project. Like the project of building a bridge, said Satre, the self is always under  50 active construction. It is never finished. -​ The self is not given to people ready-made or with instructions for constructing it. Sartre said that the project, which defines each person, is more or less coherent. The feelings, desires, and thoughts that someone displays in her everyday behaviour are expressions of a single fundamental project. -​ In keeping with the holistic idea that the whole is contained in the part, Sartre claimed that there is a thematic organisation and an inherent meaning in this totality. A particular case of jealousy, for instance, carries an enormous amount of information about someone’s project. According to Sartre, the case of jealousy “signifies for the one who knows how to interpret it, the total relation to the world by which the subject constitutes himself as a self.” -​ There are two types of reality which lie beyond our conscious experience. -​ There is the existence of the object of consciousness and consciousness itself. -​ An essential feature of consciousness is its negative power by which we can experience nothingness. -​ This power is also at work with the self where it creates a lack of self-identity. -​ The unity of the self is understood as a task for itself. -​ The only way you will have a self, with identity, is by creating it yourself. -​ In order to ground the self it needs a project and the desire for being lies within individual consciousness. -​ The self should be static or more as an event in time rather than a thing.  51 -​ The self is neither static, nor a bundle, nor an ego at the centre of one’s experience. -​ It is a dynamic, future-orientated project, the self is always under construction and never finished. 3.8 Free Will & Each of the Determinisms What is Free Will? -​ The will is perfectly insulated from all external causes, no matter how powerful. -​ Though the body and brain are physical entities that are subject to the deterministic laws of nature, the will remains outside these laws. -​ It is not part of the brain although it can interact with the brain and send it messages to perform an action. -​ According to this theory, even prisoners in chains enjoy freedom of will (not able to act freely but can WILL freely) -​ No proof -​ Allows us to say no to our existence, rise above our natural responses (ex. dieting) Existentialism and Free Will -​ Existentialists support the view that humans are radically free. -​ Sartre argued that it is entirely up to humans to define themselves because there are no predetermined blueprints, moral absolutes, divine commandments, or innately given value to guide people’s decisions on how to be. -​ Humans are alone and abandoned in the universe.  52 Implications of Free Will -​ Groundless values and ideals, leading to moments of angst or anxiety. -​ Some people say they are condemned to be free, and must bear at all times, in all situations. -​ One cannot give or take away freedom, can only deny and pretend it does not exist. What is Causal Determinism? -​ The idea that every physical event in the universe is caused by a previous event that unfolds according to casual laws, there are no uncaused events. -​ All thoughts and actions are caused by previous events, you may not be aware of the cause. -​ Determinists believe that free will is an illusion. -​ Not influence, as it implies you have a choice (free will). Implications of Causal Determinism -​ Your psychological and behavioural makeup (personality) is formed FOR YOU, not BY YOU. -​ Conditioning agents include: early childhood, neurophysiological development, social conditioning, exposure to external events. -​ Questions about the personal responsibility for one’s actions (how can you be held responsible for your actions if they are determined by forces beyond your control?) Three Types of Causal Determinism 1.​ Religious 2.​ Social 3.​ Natural  53 Freedom (Exercising Free Will) -​ Freedom → the power to act or not to act, and so to perform deliberate actions of one’s own will. -​ When you exercise your freedom, the action that results has a positive or negative impact on the world. -​ As a result of your action, you are also changed. -​ Because you acted freely, you are responsible for each one of your actions, regardless of the circumstance. Free Will -​ Free Will → the idea that we are able to have some choice in how we act. -​ Assumes we are free to choose our behaviour (self-determined) Challenges to Freedom (Causal Determinisms) -​ Some philosophers say there is no such thing as freedom. -​ One’s intention can be seen as neutral or as chemical changes in the brain. -​ Therefore, free will is an illusion. Challenge #1: Naturalism -​ Understands the material universe as a unified system. -​ Everything in it is shaped by physical, biological, and physiological and environmental processes. -​ No spiritual dimension to human life, only material. -​ Everything can be explained, or will be explained by physical and biological processes. -​ Everything, including humans, are part of one grand chain connected to the past by cause and effect.  54 Naturalism and Science -​ Science reigns supreme, if we want to prove something is true, it must be proven using the scientific method -​ For naturalists, who we are is directly linked to our genes -​ The human self is not an ‘intending’ self, there is no human spirit or culture, humans are the result of the natural selection process. -​ Makes a direct assault on human freedom, genes rule supreme, determine who you are and what you will become -​ Promises and commitments do not come from motives and intentions but from a genetic predisposition, freedom is a delusion -​ Denies the possibility of ethics and morality, can’t be responsible for your actions -​ Some evidence to support interaction between genetic code and human behaviour, humans cannot act without their bodies, spirit is an embodied spirit Naturalism and Artificial Intelligence -​ The philosophy underlying AI is Naturalism -​ Common interest in the human brain and its neural networks -​ Naturalism tends to look at the body and brain as objects separate from the self, can be the subject of research whereas the self cannot  55 -​ The question of personal identity is not addressed Challenge #2: Religious Determinism -​ NOT CATHOLIC POSITION, free will is -​ Historically, some churches within Christianity have also denied human freedom -​ Predestination → a belief in God whose knowledge and will have predetermined not only history but also every human action and deed -​ Providence → God’s influence upon human actions, most Christians today believe -​ No respect for human freedom, Catholic teaching maintains that human freedom and God’s providence do not conflict -​ Salvation is what God desires for each one of us, but it requires our own co-operation -​ The Catholic tradition has always been a great defender of human freedom, we can either choose to follow God’s plan for us or not Challenge #3: Social Determinism -​ NATURE vs. NURTURE = NATURALISM vs. SOCIAL DETERMINISM -​ Behaviour is determined by the influences of others upon you (parents, culture, psychological state, traumatic experiences, history, social background → race, status, gender, religion, education)  56 -​ Actions can be explained by what you have experienced at the hands of others -​ Not free because you are the product of what others have done to you -​ Your past determines who you are -​ Your behaviour is explained by social factors, not by your decisions -​ You cannot be held directly responsible for your actions Challenge #4: Sigmund Freud’s Theory of the Unconscious -​ Freud demonstrated that human behaviour is often driven by unconscious impulses based on repressed memories and desires -​ Humans repress painful memories and desires through a mental censor -​ This censorship does not remove the memories, they end up in the unconscious mind where it does not have to deal with them directly -​ Unconscious memories and desires do not go away, exert a constant pressure on one’s conscious mind, play an indirect role in shaping one’s perceptions and decisions -​ Deterministic as the unconscious determines one’s actions, not one’s freedom -​