12th Grade Philosophy Fall 2025 PDF - St. Edmund Campion

St Edmund Campion Fall Semester 2025 Teacher: Mr. McLean Email: D2L 12TH GRADE PHILOSOPHY Love of wisdom ___ Notes Unit 1 : Introduction Defining Philosophy? Almost every topic has a philosophy of itself, philosophy of dance, or art, or even sometimes a favorite tv show. The word philosophy b...

St Edmund Campion Fall Semester 2025 Teacher: Mr. McLean Email: D2L 12TH GRADE PHILOSOPHY Love of wisdom ___ Notes Unit 1 : Introduction Defining Philosophy? Almost every topic has a philosophy of itself, philosophy of dance, or art, or even sometimes a favorite tv show. The word philosophy broken down comes from Greek “philosophia”, therefore the love of wisdom. It is the study of the nature of knowledge, reality and existence. The goal of philosophy is to get us to answer these questions for ourselves—to make up our own minds about our self, life, knowledge, society, religion, and morality with-out simply depending on authority. In past times the goal of a philosopher was to try and make connections in life using reason and logic rather than connections to the supernatural. Philosophy isn't concerned with rituals or worship, it is more so in accord with a certain ideology, it is an attempt to primarily solve real world problems and issues, simply “thinking…about thinking.” We have preconstructed ideas on certain topics and principles, such as what we consider good, bad, or what makes a human being, a human being. 6 Big Questions of Philosophy 1. What is a person 2. What is a meaningful life 3. What are good and evil 4. What is a just society  5. What is beauty 6. What can we know for certain Metaphysics Tied to the meaning of life, questions such as, what is reality? Is there a supreme being? What is the meaning of life? Is there such a thing as free will? What is the relationship between our mind and our body? Epistemology What makes something true? Is it possible to know reality as it really exists? Example being, you wear glasses to clearly see reality, but take them off and suddenly your reality is all distorted. How do you justify a belief? Ethics What is a good person? Are laws similar to “the good samaritan” law justified? Social and Political Philosophy What are the limits of state authority? What is the best form of government? What is social justice? Do we have an obligation to provide aid to foreign countries? Science Are there ethics in science? What distinguishes science from other ways of knowing? How reliable is science? Beauty/Aesthetics What is beauty? How do we determine the merit in works of art? Is censorship justified? Western tradition plays an important role in how cultures affect sets of philosophies. European views on items such as the construction of society, religion and relationship differ from Asian views. 1.2 - The Traditional Divisions of Philosophy These questions suggest the categories under which philosophy topics are grouped: knowledge, reality and values. These are otherwise known as epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. Epistemology ★ This means the study of knowledge, including the structure, reliability, extents and kinds of knowledge we have ; the meaning of truth; logic; and the foundation of all knowledge and questioning if real knowledge is even possible. Gail Stenstad, a contemporary feminist philosopher, argues that there is not just one “ objective” truth but many conflicting truths. She suggests that male thinking assumes there is only one true view of reality, which she calls theoretical thinking. She contrasts theoretical thinking with feminist anarchic thinking which recognizes that there is not just one “objective” truth but opposing insights can be equally valid and true. Simply, male thinking will reject any conflicting views, and Stenstad says we should accept the feminist view and that many truths exist and the opposition to these truths also exist and are equally true. Criticism: this view can be seen as self-defeating, because if her view is correct, she must as well accept the perspective of someone who disagrees with her. Metaphysics ★ Studies the nature of reality, it looks at the place of humans in the universe, the purpose and nature of reality and the nature of the human mind. A core question is whether human behavior is at free will or determined. Determinism: theory that all things including humans are unfree because everything that occurs happens according to a regular pattern or law. Paul Henri d’Holbach 18th century philosopher, who argued everything (i.e. how we think, act, exist) is determined by causes we do not control, therefore we are not free. However, this contrasted with Eastern views, for example the view of kamra, that the actions that happened in a past life would be a deterministic factor on certain aspects of life; but we are still free to choose within the limits of what we have become. Ethics ★ The study of morality; it attempts to understand and critically evaluate our moral values and how these relate to our conduct and to our social institutions. Someone who supported this philosophy is Gandhi, yet the opposing view is egoism, a view supported by Harry Brown. A contemporary philosopher asks the question “is someone who aids another automatically selfish, because of the satisfaction gained from feeling needed?” Socrates (469-388 BCE) Father of Western philosophy ★ “The unexamined life is not worth living” ★ He did not actually record any of his philosophical ideas, instead his character was captured by his student “Plato” in the “Dialogues of Plato” ★ He claimed that “to know is to be”  ★ Socrates was tried for impiety, and teaching false doctrines and sentences to murder ★ Socratic Ignorance “claiming he knows nothing, other than the fact he knows nothing” From Plato’s recollection, this is how Socrates' conversations went… Structure of the Dialogues 1. Socrates finds someone who claims to know something. 2. Socrates exposes weaknesses in the person’s beliefs / knowledge. He twists his victim into a state of confusion with a plethora of questions 3. Socrates and his victim admit their ignorance and agree to pursue a new hypothesis or the victim abruptly ends the conversation. 4. The Dialogues end inconclusively. What Is the Socratic method? Used to engage someone over the meaning of some claim to knowledge, and then to cross-examine the opponent until a clear definition is achieved and cannot be refuted STEPS Step One: The Socratic method starts by someone making a claim to knowledge Step Two: A common-sense definition is then put forth, usually by Socrates’ dialogue partner Step Three: The claim is challenged and weaknesses are exposed; here we run into a circular argument Step Four: Conclusion – the process continues until a suitable definition is constructed or until the parties agree that the subject is more complex than originally thought. Value of Philosophy Plato and Philosophy - Plato argued that the value of philosophy is freedom. Freedom from assumptions we have unquestionably accepted from others, and freedom to decide for ourselves what we believe about ourselves and our place in the universe. Eastern Philosophy - In Buddhism it is suggested that philosophical wisdom is the key to a different kind of freedom, freedom from the unending cycle of birth, suffering, death, and rebirth. Studying philosophy becomes a search for the ultimate wisdom - escape from the reincarnation cycle. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs - Abraham Maslow pointed out humans have more than just maintenance needs; we have actualization needs. Self actualization and philosophy…philosophy promotes the ideal self actualization A self- actualized person: 1) Has the ability to form their own opinions and has beliefs and doesn't automatically go along with the popular idea 2) Profound self-awareness, they harbor few illusions about themselves and rarely resort to rationalizations to justify their behavior Invites the participant to examine the basic intellectual foundations of their lives. 3) Flexibility, they demonstrate resilience in the face of doubt and disorder. A lack of a definitive answer does not overwhelm them. Able to see the bigger picture. 4) Creativity, this spirals into all areas of their lives Philosophy helps a person engage with life on a deeper level, and exercise their imagination 5) Value systems, they have clear well thought out value systems in morality, the arts, politics, etc. One goal of philosophy however, is integration of your experience into a unified, coherent systematic world view. Studying philosophy exposes you to different ways of looking at the world and how various philosophers have ordered the universe for themselves. It exposes you to the history of thought, and pushes you to become more open-minded. It helps refine our powers of analysis, logic, and reasoning. The PreSocratics Who? Began with the Milesian thinkers in the 6th century BCE. They focused on nature and problems of being and knowing. ➔ Interested in the world; saw it as being ordered, open to reason and subject to its own internal logic rather than chaotic and random ➔ Believed that since the world is not random, but governed, it means there is a reason for enquiring into its nature and looking for explanations ➔ Claims about the nature of the world would have to be supported by argument How do they differ? ➔ They step away from the traditional explanations of nature and being which involved the gods, “it's raining because Zeus is upset with humanity.” This period in Greek history is unique; therefore the emphasis on reason, argument and inquiry can be seen as one of the greatest achievements of the PreSocratics. Key Figures of Presocratic Philosophy ★ Thalesc. 624-546 BCE ★ Anaximander. 610-546 BCE ★ Anaximenes. 585-528 BCE  ★ Pythagoras. 570-495 BCE ★ Xenophanes c.570-475 BCE ★ Heraclitus c.536-475 BCE ★ Parmenides c.515-440 BCE ★ Anaxagoras c.500-428 BCE ★ Empedocles c.490-430 BCE ★ Zeno c.490-430? BCE ★ Leucippus not recorded ★ Democritus c.460-370 The Matrix “You are a slave in a world you cannot touch taste or smell, controlling your mind.” “Unfortunately nobody can be told what the matrix is, you must see it for yourself” refers to how everyone has their own philosophy and they cannot take for word what others say but must see the truth for themselves. What is real if you describe real as what you can see taste smell touch, then real is simply the electrical signals interpreted by your brain. The person who had first control over the matrix freeing the minds of others connects to Socrates teaching others philosophy. You take the red pill... you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes." It is implied that the blue pill is a sedative that would cause Neo to think that all his most recent experiences were a hallucination, so that he can go back to living in the Matrix's simulated reality. At the end of the movie Neo says, I will reveal this world to everyone, after winning the battle with the Agents of the Matrix; this is symbolic of all philosophers throughout history that have been prosecuted for trying to spread a new way of thinking, in the end, all their work doesn’t go to waste and the idea of finding “the truth” has lived. Unit 2 : Logic & Human Nature Human nature is the study of what it essentially means to be a human being; what makes us different from anything else. Individual vs. Social Atomistic individualism: - Each of us stands alone as an entirely independent and rational entity Social view: - Members of a greater public/whole - We are who we are through our relations - Social beings - A theory: The selfishness view Sigmund Freud’s view is that men are not gentle, friendly creature, but are selfish, aggressive beings, that act on impulsivity and power control, they view helpers or women as sexual objects but also a temptation to them to gratify their aggressiveness, to seize their possesions, to humiliate them, to cause them pain, to torture and kill them. This is based on his theory… DR. Sigmund Freud’s Ego, ID, and Superego ➔ Ego - the balance between id and superego, the conscious component of an individual ➔ Id - the drive to fulfill all desires of a physical nature; exists in the unconscious mind ➔ Superego - the conscience; in opposition to the id. Also exists on the unconscious level. The interaction of these three components of the mind, result in the mental causes of human behavior, according to Freud, human behavior is predictable if one can find the unconscious, mental cause of the action. Therefore, we are NOT free- instead we are bound to the decisions that our desires decide to throw into our consciousness. Thomas Hobbes on Human Beings Hobbes theories: - Human beings are motivated by the antisocial desire for power over others - Hobbes was a materialist who believed that humans are governed by their biology, which is dominated by desire - This is why he advocates for the ‘Leviathan’ (government) to govern society Mortiz Schlick on human nature, he argued for psychological egoism, the belief that human beings must always act out of self-interest. Schlick claimed that even a seemingly heroic act - like saving the life of another - is performed on the basis of the gratification it gives the individual. Plato Traditional Rationalist - We are made of both physical body and immaterial soul - The soul is superior because it does not have the desires that the body has - These bodily desires cause suffering Plato’s Goal: To access the perfect ideals known as the forms Theory of Forms ★ All forms that exist in the physical world are duplicates of perfect forms in the invisible world ★ Perfect ideals are real but not visible ★ Can only be known by accessing the invisible world  ★ Visible world = imperfect, always changing ★ Invisible world - perfect, unchanging The Soul and immorality The soul is immortal - the knowledge source that existed before we were born and will exist after our bodies die. Most akin to what is divine/Godly. The 3 Parts: Soul Reason, appetite, and aggression Depending on which part dominates, determines what type of person you may be The Soul The purpose is to achieve happiness by establishing harmony among the three parts. Plato believed that the purpose (or destiny) of the soul is to be free of its body and ascend to heaven, where it will be united with perfect forms. The soul can do this only if it controls its bodily desires and trains its aggressive impulses so that both obey reason. One way of achieving harmony is to use the theory of forms to focus/concentrate on the ideal of goodness. Virtue as the solution - Humans control their appetite and impulses through reason - Unlike Freud, they are not ruled by self-interested desires but reason’s ability to control appetite and aggression depends on one’s past choices. - If a person continually gives in to his aggressive impulses and appetites, he will lose the ability to control; his appetites and aggressions. - Hence Plato stresses virtue. Soul and Virtue Our happiness consists in beholding the Good (the Form of all forms) and conforming our lives in this world to it. There are four chief or cardinal virtues which enable us to achieve this: 1) wisdom, which is the virtue of the rational part of the soul; 2) courage or fortitude, which is the virtue of the spiritual part; 3) temperance, which consists in the union of the spirited and appetitive parts under the rule of reason; 4) justice, which is a general virtue consisting in every part of the soul performing its proper task in due harmony. The human mind or soul gets into imperfect contact with ordinary things and happenings in this world by sight, hearing, touch and so on. Simultaneously, the human mind or soul can get into non-sensible contact with the ideal and eternal objects of the transcendent world. We are shortly at home here, but we are also lastingly at home there. The immortality of the soul is proven by our ability to understand the everlasting concept-objects that Plato often calls the Forms. Life experiences: examples - A moment where something special happens - The “real” person you love - The idea of permanence immutability (unchanging) Self Mastery is the purpose… Rationalists argue we are creatures that can control our appetites and aggression unlike animals. We can see ourselves as distinct from the world because of our mind. T he Mind is how we find meaning and sense of events around us. Self mastery is done through reason and learning self-control and becoming conscious of the forces that influence and shape us. Self mastery through reason becomes the goal of human beings. Traditional Rationalist View Human beings have a soul. Human beings possess the nature of being capable of reasoning and that capacity is located in the soul (inner self). St. Augustine and the traditional western religious view The Will and Intellect ➔ According to the Judeo-Christian tradition, humans are made in the image of God. ➔ They are like divine beings because they contain something of the ability to love and know that characterizes their Creator. ➔ The ability to Love relates to the Will ➔ The ability to Know relates to the Intellect ➔ The Judeo-Christian view holds that these qualities make human beings “like” God. Augustine (354-430 AD) - Born to a devout Christian mother and a pagan father - Tried out various life alternatives before focusing on theology - Was troubled by the existence of evil in the world created by a good God - Was influenced by Neoplationists (the physical world is so far removed from God, and thus absent from his goodness) - Drafted into priesthood later on in his life and died as a bishop  - His view on human nature… Human selfishness is inherent, from the fall of original sin. Ex. a baby sucks on their mother like a parasite without consideration for the mothers being Faith and Reason - “Unless you believe, you will not understand” - Reason by itself is not enough - Begin with faith to set us in the right direction once we believe in God through faith, we can seek to understand the foundations of our belief through reason - We can know many things indisputably and other things with at least a high degree of certainty - Other types of truth require special help from God before we can grasp them - Human nature is limited and we’re not in a position by ourselves to comprehend the most important truths - Modern explanation: we first develop beliefs on our own, and then God illuminates our minds so that we can see if they are true or false; God provides the justification for our beliefs. Austine was heavily influenced by Plato. (Augustine took the doctrine that the human self is a rational self: an immaterial soul that is conscious and that can think. The self, Augustine held, can with the help of God control its desires and has the power to allow reason to rule over passion) We have a soul! - Augustine borrowed Plato’s idea of an immaterial and immortal soul - Plato has said that after death the souls of those who love “perfect eternal” ideals would rise to heaven. - Augustine modified this, arguing that the souls of those who love the perfect, eternal God will rise to heaven How do we get to heaven? Key point: we have the free will to do this or to reject this For Christians, the way to heaven is through living a life of love as Jesus lived For Jews, the way to God is through expressions of justice and righteousness We are doing good when we make God the center of our lives. Refusing to serve and love God is the greatest evil. Whenever we commit offenses against God we lose touch with ourselves by retreating from our alliance with God. We are not selfish…the will is a two-edged sword. Whereas it enables us to choose the good, but as well the evil. WE humans, Augustine held, are constantly attracted to evil and away from God. This view states that we are able to rise above our self-interested desires and turn to God. Aristotle’s Influence Key point: Purpose of humans is to achieve happiness by using their reason ➔ The Judeo-Christian tradition modified another key part of the rationalist tradition. ➔ Thomas Aquinas argued the purpose of humans is to achieve happiness by using their reason to know God. Key aspects of traditional western religious view - Self that is spiritual and can survive the death of its body - Humans are special and different from other animals - Reason should rule over our passions - Humans have a purpose - Purpose may be related to the spiritual dimension of the universe - Christianity took the intellectual emphasis of the Greeks and combined it with the religious emphasis of the Jews Challenges to Traditionalism: Darwinism, Extensionalism, Feminism Evolution and Adaptation Darwin proposed two key ideas: ➔ Sometimes offspring are born with features that are different from their parents and they pass it on to their own offspring. Darwin called these differences, variations, and argued that they happen randomly ➔ Because animals produce more offspring than can survive, they are continuously caught in a great struggle for existence. ➔ Animals must continually compete with one another to stay alive. ➔ This is a life-or-death struggle for every animal, and most fall by the wayside and die. Survival Darwin pointed out that the random variations an animal is born with can sometimes give it an advantage in this great struggle for existence. The great struggle for existence, then, “selects” those animals with advantageous variations and lets them survive and multiply. At the same time, the struggle for existence weeds out animals and plants that have less advantageous variations and lets them die.According to Darwin, over many thousands of years the process of natural selection can make a species change into wholly new species. Darwin’s Impact, his theory was incredible for his time. It meant that the world around us is not fixed, but is caught up in an unsettling and continual change. His idea became disturbing when applied to human beings, as humans are animals and Darwin's theory applied to animals as well applied to humans. Therefore, humans also must have evolved. Reason? What reason? Darwin denies that we are unique because of reason.  - All human abilities are merely more developed variations of the same kinds of abilities that nonhuman animals haveIf humans evolved from lower animals, then all human abilities, including reason, evolved from the abilities that their earlier nonhuman predecessors had. - The human power to reason is thus no more “God-like” than any other developed animal ability. - Humans are made not in the image of God, but in the image of the apes that preceded them. - Power to reason isn’t qualitatively unique but is merely a more developed version of cognitive powers of nonhuman primates Purpose? What purpose? Humans are not designed for a purpose, everything developed bit by bit through tiny chance variations and blind process of natural selection - Darwin’s theory of evolution undermined the idea that living things are designed for a purpose. The evolution of a species, Darwin argued, is the result of CHANCE, not of purposeful DESIGN. Humans and other animals are the product, not of a purposeful plan, but of chance variations and the blind mechanical forces of natural selection - Darwin argues: the ability to reason was a capability of almost all animals; although linguistic reasoning may be uniquely human, the brain structures attached to this ability still evolved from nonhuman brain WHAT/WHO? Challenges Darwinism? - Fossils Some have argued that large gaps in fossil records - new species seemingly appearing without earlier forms, missing gradual changes and intermediate steps, etc. Stephen Jay Gould “The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with[Darwinian] gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappeared.... 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.” Purpose vs Chance - Others have argued that Darwin was wrong in his belief that his theory disproved the idea that human nature has a purpose. - George Mavrodes argues that a “theistic” understanding of evolution holds that “there was a divine direction at each crucial stage in accordance with divine plan or intention.” - In other words, God still directed evolution. Evolution is merely the tool of God’s design. Evolution is thus consistent with a belief that God, through evolution, produced human beings for a purpose.  Philosopher George Mavrodes “There is a divine teleology in this process, a divine direction at each crucial stage in accordance with divine plan or intention.” - Mathematician William Dembski“The complexity of living organisms cannot be explained by random processes but requires the admission of intelligent design” Omega Point Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), a French philosopher, Jesuit, and priest conceived the idea of the Omega Point (a maximum level of complexity and consciousness towards which he believed the universe was evolving). His book, The Phenomenon of Man, sets forth a sweeping account of the unfolding of the cosmos and the evolution of matter to humanity to ultimately a reunion with Christ. Existentialism This idea holds that humans are whatever they make themselves, individuals create their own nature through free responsible choices and actions. Without a fixed purpose or a guideline, we must suffer the anguish of our own decision making and accept responsibility for its consequences. Existentialists cannot say that humans have a fixed rational nature and a fixed purpose. Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) ➔ Saw humans as “condemned to be free”. ➔ We are free because we can rely neither on a God (who doesn’t exist) nor on society to justify our actions or to tell us what we essentially are. ➔ We are condemned because without a fixed purpose we must suffer the agony of our own decision making and the anguish of its consequences. ➔ There is no fixed human nature, we are free to be what we choose ➔ Without a fixed human nature all the responsibility for what we are rests with ourselves ➔ There is nothing we ought to do because there is nothing we ought to be ➔ We do not discover who we are as much as we MAKE ourselves Everything is a choice; we should make individual choices fully aware that we are doing so. Taking full responsibility for our actions, beliefs, feelings, and attitudes. Sartre argues that if we are depressed, we often have chosen to be. Emotions are not moods but ways we freely choose to perceive the world. Sometimes we escape this anguish by pretending we are not free (aka a bad faith) Existence before Essence Self-deception (or “bad faith”) is the attempt to avoid anguish by pretending to ourselves that we are not free.  Existentialism emphasizes the free and conscious individual. However, the self in this view is not necessarily rational, or mechanical, or a creature of God. It is instead a project that possesses a subjective life; it is the sum, not of everything that happens to it, but of everything it ever does. We are what our choices make us; to be human means to create oneself Existence is prior to essence; humans exist first and then they make something of themselves (Man is what he wills) We confront the meaninglessness that is at the core of existence and thus discover a truth that enables us to live fully conscious of what being human means ➔ What counts is that we act; we freely adopt a project ➔ Before we choose, one thing has no more value than another thing in this world Key Aspects of Existentialist Theory a) Subjective experience b) Personal freedom c) Personal responsibility Challenge to Traditionalist view? If existentialism is correct, then: 1) No such thing as a universal human nature. We all create our own nature 2) Humans are not defined by rationality. A person is only defined by their future choices. 3) Humans have no purpose. We decide what our purpose will be or decide that there is some purpose that is meant for everyone. We are therefore responsible for our own nature and purposes. Our inability to blame anyone else for who we are, is the basis of feelings like fear, guilt, and despair; as well as anxieties of death. Here we confront the meaninglessness that is at the core of existence and thus discover a truth that enables us to live fully conscious of what being human means. Feminist Challenge The problem. - Feminists have argued that Plato states: The soul and reason are superior and should rule; whereas the body and its desires and emotions are inferior and should obey - Aristotle associated men with reason and claimed that women do not share fully in reason; as a result men should rule over women; states: reason that characterized the essential nature of humans is fully operational only in males - Reason is male and must rule whereas feelings are female must be ruled Feminist Argument Feminists state that the rationalist view of human nature has associated males with the superior traits that are supposed to set humans apart from all other beings. Trad. Rat. view allows only for men to be fully human because only men are fully rational, and women are incomplete and driven by their emotions. Feminists also argue that the religious version of the rationalist view of human nature adopted this association of reason with men and appetites and emotions with women. See St. Augustine from earlier. Implications? - Besides sexism; there is a profound lack of respect for some of the basic aspects of human nature: the body, the appetites, and emotions - Arguably, feelings are just as important as reason Mary Wollstonecraft and feminist ideas ➔ First feminist philosopher ➔ She argued that all human beings possess reason and that reason is the source of the equal moral rights that all human beings have ➔ It is reason that allows us to restrain our animal passions ➔ Ability to rise above our animal nature is what sets us off from the animal world and is the source of the respect which all humans who acquire virtue have an equal right to Developing reasoning… if women fail to develop their reason, they fail to rise above animal feeling and passion, they will not merit the respect that is due to a developed human being. When women fail to acquire the “manly” virtues that males cultivate- fortitude, humanity, justice, wisdom, and truth - they give up their equality with men. The problem in connection with society In A vindication of the Rights of Women, she argues that society in general and men in particular keep women in an undeveloped and morally inferior state Women are trained to think that they must devote themselves to pleasing men and to becoming dependent on them The popular view that women must be educated differently from men is based on the theory that the moral virtues of women are very different from those of me Women as equals - Women and men must be educated as equals, because both are equally endowed with reason and because a single standard of morality applies equally to men and to women - Wollstonecraft believed that women will flourish as the equals of men when they are freed from the deadening influence of this conditioning The challenge of the rationalist view - Its difficult to simply tossed aside the rationalist view of human nature as sexist 1) Women have as much reason as men 2) Female traits of feeling/emotion are as valuable as the ‘male’ trait of reason Remaining issues? The major issue is the notions of ‘reason and desire’ ‘body and mind’ ‘rationality and emotion’ Each pair has been associated with a gender and it seems impossible to reject these notions of human nature Dualism VS Materialism The Cartesian Argument The view that human beings are immaterial minds within material bodies is an ancient one. EX: Plato and AugustineHowever, the dualist view has most clearly expressed in the 17th century by Rene Descartes (1596-1650). From Rene Descartes “I think, therefore I am” The essential nature of the mind is its conscious ability to think. Descartes pointed out that we can conceive of ourselves as existing without a body. He then makes a crucial assumption: if we can conceive of one thing without the other, then those two things are different. Therefore the body is not the same as the mind. I can doubt the existence of my body I cannot doubt the existence of my mind; the act of doubting requires a mind. Therefore thinking is necessary for the self. All humans then are selves that are immaterial and conscious that can exist without the body which is material and essentially unconscious Two Parts to a human being - Minds and bodies; mental properties as well as physical; spiritual as well as material - Physical substances are quantifiable - Minds or mental substances are in time but they are not in space; they possess a different reality than physical objects - Philosophers refer to this idea as DUALISM Dualism, however raises more questions and issues - How can something like the mind reach into the physical world and affect it? How can a physical body of matter affect an immaterial mind? - The mind would somehow have to introduce new energy and force into the physical world. Clearly the two interact so there has to be some point of contact. - Descartes argued that the mind interacted with the body through the PINEAL gland (this is not accepted anymore nor was it accepted during his time either) Leibniz’s Solution ➔ Gottfried Liebniz (1646-1716) suggested that the mind and body don’t really interact at all, but seem to. ➔ Instead he proposed that the mind and body run in parallel order, like two clocks that are synchronized so that they seem to be connected yet operate independently. ➔ Whenever something happens to the body, it also seems to affect the mind, and vice versa – while the two never really interact. ➔ (Other philosophers said that was as ridiculous as Descartes’ pineal gland theory). Malebranche ➔ Nicolas Malebranche (1683-1715) agreed that the immaterial mind could not interact with a material body. ➔ He refused to believe that the mind and body were synchronized by some incredible coincidence. ➔ Instead he argued that God steps in to synchronize the body and the mind. Problems? - Don’t the contorted explanations of Descartes, Leibniz, and Malebrance show that dualism has gone wrong somewhere? - Wouldn’t it make more sense to reject dualism? - What seems to be the major struggle that dualism seeks to explain? The Platonic Argument - From Plato - It is possible for the mind or soul to pre-exist the body and it’s possible for it to survive bodily death - If it is possible for the mind to exist without the body, the mind cannot be identical with the body or with any part of the body The Materialist Argument - All that exists is matter - There are no minds or souls or immaterial spirits - Anything we attribute to the mind are really activities of our material body; we can explain the mind based on the workings of the body - Key argument: if you destroy the brain; you destroy the mind; therefore: the mind is the brain Man is an animal If we came from animals and those animals were formed from other microorganisms then there is only matter and no soul If we say we have a soul, we would have to also admit that animals have souls and so do micro-organisms Arguably, most dualists are not willing to accept other organisms as having souls except for human beings Hobbes Activities we attribute to the mind are really activities of the body Human activity is akin to that of a machine Thought and Life are nothing more than physical and chemical processes. Although the mind seems to be an immaterial entity, it is really nothing more than a physical, material thing. Hobbes rejected the immaterial mind because he could not resolve the problem of how an immaterial mind could affect a material body. Motivated by science of the time Hobbes decided that a scientific view of human nature was also necessary – since we can observe and measure only material or physical bodies Hobbes believed that all of our human nature can be reduced entirely to the observable world of matter, that is, to what is physical, chemical, and biological. In particular, Hobbes argued that we can reduce consciousness, the most characteristic feature of the mind, to observable (bodily) facts. Types of Materialism 1) Identity Theory ❖ Mental events like thoughts are “type identical” to physical events in the brain ❖ If four different people are thinking “Chocolate Chip cookies would be good right about now”, the exact same things are happening in their brain ❖ Thoughts are simply complex sequences of physical events that are happening in the brain ❖ t’s only a matter of time before neuroscience can figure out the specific patterns of every thought ❖ Main Comparison: sound is now understood as just compression waves racing through a medium such as air and hitting your eardrums; this wasn’t a known fact before and it took awhile to develop this thought; neuroscience will eventually “figure things out” ❖ In other words, every state of mind can be explained by a corresponding brain state. 2)Eliminative Materialism ❖ All discussions regarding thoughts, beliefs, desires, the mind are mistaken ❖ Thinking that we have a “consciousness” is where all the problem starts ❖ We need a PARADIGM shift in the way we think ❖ Ideas about “consciousness” should be reduced to “Simple Folk Psychology” ❖ The advancements of neuroscience in the near future should change:“Ow, my toe hurts” “Ow, C-fibres are firing in section L2 of the cortex” ❖ This is the paradigm shift that we need to start embracing  3) Behaviouralism ❖ A school of psychology that restricts the study of human nature to what can be observed rather than to states of consciousness. ❖ Mental activities can be explained by observing behaviors ❖ Gilbert Ryle – we can explain mental activities and mental states in terms of the externally observable behaviors associated with which they are associated. ❖ EX: Loving someone is a disposition to behave in certain ways towards that person. 4) Functionalism ❖ A view which does not try to reduce all mental activities to external behavior, but which claims that humans should be thought of as complicated computers. ❖ DM Armstrong argues we explain mental activities in terms of input and outputs. ❖ Inputs are the stimulus observed and outputs are the behaviors that result. ❖ Beliefs are just links in the brain that connect sensory input with behaviors ❖ Mental states are to be explained in terms of the roles they play in linking our sensory stimulation to our external behavior. 5) The Computer view ❖ A view that insists the human brain is a kind of advanced computer that processes inputs (sense observations) and generates outputs (behavior). Some functionalists such as Alan Turing believe that computers will one day be able to imitate the inputs and outputs of the human brain and then they will have minds and be able to think. The Enduring Dilemma - Most Philosophers are not willing to return to the idea that the mind is a different entity from the body. - The issue is what to do with our consciousness and mental states. - The other issue is how to explain the relationship between the mind and the body The Enduring Self Change and Permanence VS No Self View: “Pervasive Flux and Change without Permanence” Traditional View - some philosophers assume that we are selves that endure through time Despite the effects of aging, many believe that we remain the same person, one and the same self, throughout our lives. Belief that you continue to be the same being as time passes, is a basic part of who you are. What you’ve accomplished, what you’ve achieved all depend on your belief that you are a being who endures and remains through time. But what about when we feel that someone has changed so much that she is no longer the same person she used to be, we think that this can have enormous consequences for her and for everyone around her. Some experiences such as divorce or a stroke, or Alzheimer’s might cause such a change in someone that we no longer consider them the same person The Body - In what sense am I today the same person I was when I was born? - This is known as the “Problem of Personal Identity” - Perhaps what makes you the same person today that you were ten years ago is your body Philosopher Diotima suggests that “we speak of an individual as being the same as long as he/she continues to exist in the same form. - Is bodily continuity what makes us the same person today that we were ten years ago? - What about the disease and divorce stories earlier? The Soul as the enduring self - Some philosophers argue that in each living human body is a soul - The soul is ‘immaterial’ or spiritual - As long as the soul remains in my body, I remain the same person Descartes: it is the continuity of his thinking mind that makes him remain the same person “as often” as he exists. In this view, life after death is possible because the mind/soul (person) can continue to exist after the body dies. Memory as the source of the enduring self Locke: what makes a person at one time the same as a person at another time is MEMORY. It is the continuity of consciousness that makes me today the same person I was. My memory of what happened to me in the past or of what I did in the past is what makes me today the same person I was then. Buddhist Thought: A Paradigm Thought - Everything in existence are made up of parts, and these parts are always changing - Nothing can be considered permanent The Self as we know “it”... - Our ordinary notion of the self consists of five components: matter, sensation, perception, predisposition, and consciousness - The Buddha argues that all of these parts are always changing - Therefore, it is illogical that we would use these to prove the existence of a permanent/enduring self Obsession with the self - Western Thought has created an obsession with individuality and individualism - Buddhist thought argues that this obsession and illusory belief in the self is the cause of suffering - Unless one grasps that everything, including the self, is transient, one cannot find salvation. - If one resists the pervasive flux of phenomena and desires permanence when none exists, the inevitable result is the suffering that is suggested above Humean Thought True knowledge is dependent on sense perceptions: what we see, hear, touch, smell, taste, and feel. If you can’t experience (perceive) it with your senses then it’s not genuine knowledge. Hume argues that no one can actually perceive the “self” All About Perceptions... - All we ever experience are sensations and perceptions; not an inner self - “I never can catch myself at any time without a perception and never can observe anything but the perception” - At most, all we can say is that we are “a bundle or collection of different perceptions”: ie. I feel cold, I’m hungry, I see that bright light, etc. Hume and Buddhism ➔ Similarities: - Hume and Buddhism agree that our inner experience is one of pervasive flux and change without permanence. - The self has no fixed existence ➔ Differences: - Buddhism believes that we can give up the idea that we have an individual self. - Salvation is achievable only by giving up the craving for self-identity and the striving for personal success and self-fulfillment. - Hume did not believe that we can give up the idea of the self and its importance. - Hume believed that in the end, we will find it impossible to face the fact that there is no self. The Bourne Identity To what extent does the movie agree with the concept of an enduring self? What would Descartes, Locke or Hume think of how the concept is depicted in the film? Does the movie provide evidence to support the idea that one of the three perspectives is correct? Notes: The film presents a fractured identity: Bourne initially lacks any memory of his past and grapples with his sense of self throughout the narrative. As he uncovers fragments of his history, the film suggests that identity is not solely a function of memory, but also involves continuity of consciousness and action. Ultimately, Bourne’s actions and choices shape his identity, even as he tries to figure out his past. Descartes: Descartes famously posited "Cogito, ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am"), suggesting that the act of thinking is central to existence and identity. From a Cartesian perspective, Bourne’s ability to think and reflect on his existence could imply that he retains an enduring self, despite his memory loss. Locke: John Locke emphasized memory as the basis for personal identity. According to Locke, continuity of consciousness is crucial; if Bourne cannot remember his past, he might struggle to claim that he is the same person he once was. But as he regains his memories, he is regaining identity. Hume: From Hume’s perspective, Bourne’s fluctuating identity can be seen as consistent with the notion that the self is not fixed but rather a collection of experiences and actions. As Bourne acts and makes choices, he continuously constructs his identity in the moment. In this light, The Bourne Identity illustrates the complexity of identity formation, providing support for the idea that identity can be fluid rather than a fixed essence, resonating strongly with Hume’s perspective.