Summary of Philosophy PDF

What’s philosophy? -Philosophy: all of the rational inquiry (except science) -Philosophical questions: questions about the limits of human inquiry and knowledge -How can we get a better understanding of philosophy? By considering what sorts of things (other than scientific issues) humans might in...

What’s philosophy? -Philosophy: all of the rational inquiry (except science) -Philosophical questions: questions about the limits of human inquiry and knowledge -How can we get a better understanding of philosophy? By considering what sorts of things (other than scientific issues) humans might inquire into. *Many philosophers (especially logical positivists) thought there was nothing we could intelligibly inquire into except for scientific matters (and that’s not right) *Philosophical issues are diverse and far-ranging *The areas of philosophical issues are: 1) Metaphysics 2) Epistemology 3) Ethics Metaphysics (What is it?) -concerned with: the nature of reality -includes: the existence of God and the nature of human free will -Examples of metaphysical questions: What’s a thing? How are space and time-related? Does the past exist? How about the future? How many dimensions does the world have? Are there any entities beyond physical objects (like numbers, properties, and relations)? If so, how are they related to physical objects? *Historically, attempts to establish systematic metaphysical worldviews were unsuccessful *19th century: metaphysics has frequently been dismissed as a waste of time and meaningless. But in the past few decades: metaphysics has returned to vitality. *Contemporary analytic metaphysics has more modest aims than definitively settling on the final and complete truth about the underlying nature of reality -What’s a better way to understand metaphysics as it is currently practiced? Aiming at better understanding how various claims about reality logically hang together or conflict with the goal of better understanding how things could or could not be. *Metaphysicians (explorers of logical space) explore the realm of possibility and necessity Epistemology (How do we know?) -concerned with: the nature of knowledge and justified belief + what it is for a belief to be rationally justified + what we ought to believe and how we ought to reason -Examples of epistemological questions: What’s knowledge? Can we have any knowledge at all? Can we know the laws of nature, the laws of morality, or the existence of other minds? -Skepticism: the view that we can’t have knowledge *An extreme form of skepticism -> denying that we can have any knowledge whatsoever *Scientific knowledge and moral knowledge face many of the same skeptical challenges and share some similar resources in addressing those challenges Ethics (What should we do about it?) -concerned with what we ought to do, how we ought to live, and how we ought to organize our communities *Religiously-inspired views -> often take right and wrong regarding morality as a matter of what is commanded by a divine being *People who reject faith -> Moral Relativism (simply substitutes the commands of society for the commands of God) *we don’t know for certain what the laws of morality are.  The Philosophy of Science The philosophy of love concerned with: concerned with: 1) metaphysical issues (what science 1) metaphysical questions (what is) love is) 2) epistemological questions (how we 2) ethical questions (the value of can know scientific truths) love) *The branches of human inquiry can’t proceed entirely independently of others. *Philosophy areas intermingle between them, and with science as well. *The scientist who neglects philosophy runs the same risk of ignorance as the philosopher who neglects science. The main characteristics of philosophy. 1) Universality 2) Critical Knowledge 3) Certainty 4) Systematicness 5) Methodology 6) Worldview 7) Transversality 1) Universality * Mysticisms or superstitions are not taken into account because universality is one of the main characteristics of philosophy. 2) Critical Knowledge * Truth must be verified with the application of various methods to prevent absolute truths from being asserted * Questions are asked and problems are raised -> exercise the thought and reasoning -> rethink the knowledge that one has and question those that lack a solid base of veracity * Philosophy always starts from the criticism and analysis of knowledge (Why?) so that human beings can understand the world where they live and everything around them 3) Certainty * Philosophy is not satisfied with a simple answer, the answers must be forceful and lead to deep reasoning of the knowledge. * The bases of metaphysics are more abstract. 4) Systematicness * In philosophy, ideas about a particular subject are presented in a coherent and united way. Ideas and truths are organized based on a model, principle, or truth. 5) Methodology * In philosophy, the methodology is used when making logical reasoning or an empirical activity about a particular subject. This means that philosophy is concerned with knowing the nature of things and existence and with the method to be applied to arrive at the truth of these things 6) Worldview * Philosophy is interested in reaching the principle and truth of the totality of the universe 7) Transversality * Philosophy comprises different areas of study and research *The branches of philosophy are both humanistic and scientific *Among the branches of philosophy are metaphysics, gnoseology, logic, ethics, politics, art, aesthetics, language, and religion What’s the value of philosophy? * Philosophy is notorious for failing to establish definitive knowledge on the matters it investigates. But we still learn much from it. * philosophy reveals why some initially attractive answers to big philosophical questions are deeply problematic * Philosophy frustrates our craving for straightforward convictions * Bertrand Russell argues that there is great value in doing philosophy because; 1- it frustrates our desire for quick easy answers 2- it liberates us from narrow-minded conventional thinking and opens our minds to new possibilities 3- it provides an antidote to prejudice by revealing how hard it is to settle questions 4- it can lead us to question our comfortably complacent conventional opinions * The primary value of philosophy according to Russell is that it loosens the grip of uncritically held opinions and opens the mind to new possibilities to explore The value of philosophy -The security blanket paradox: a psychological predicament that humans are very prone to suffer from, it’s when humans know the world is full of hazards, and like passengers after a shipwreck, they tend to latch on to something for a sense of safety, they might cling to a possession, another person, our beliefs, or any combination of these -The philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce speaks of doubt and uncertainty as uncomfortable anxiety-producing states and that explains why humans tend to cling * The clinging strategy --> having a security blanket --> worrying about our safety and being anxious about our security blanket getting lost or damaged --> the clinging strategy for dealing with uncertainty and fear becomes counterproductive * Russell described the consequences of the security blanket paradox (without calling it by this name): 1) Man goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and convictions. 2) Man's life is shut up within the circle of his private interests. * The private world of instinctive interests is a small one, set in a great and powerful world that sooner or later will lay our private world in ruins. Must we remain forever uncertain about philosophical matters? -Russell holds that some philosophical questions appear to be unanswerable -Russell gives credit to philosophical successes for the birth of various branches of the sciences BUT… -Problems that looked unsolvable to the best experts a hundred years ago often look quite solvable by current experts (Keep in mind that Russell was writing 100 years ago). -Even where philosophy can’t settle an issue, it’s not quite correct to conclude that there is no right answer. -When we can’t settle an issue this usually just tells us something about our limitations. There may still be a specific right answer; we just can’t tell conclusively what it is. - It would be intellectually arrogant of us to think that a question has no right answer just because we aren’t able to figure out what that answer is. Eastern Philosophy -Eastern Philosophy: The Philosophy in Asia and Africa, in past and present days, which includes Ancient Iraq, ancient Egypt, ancient China, and ancient India in particular. It includes also Japanese, Korean, and other Asian nations. * Eastern Philosophy is very complicated because it has emerged with the Religions, #Notes… 1) The religions in these countries were complicated and had many teachings in every aspect of life. 2) The Religions in these Countries dominated everything in life so philosophy served the teachings of religion. * Most of the philosophies in ancient China, India, Mesopotamia, and Egypt are practical, seeking to build a virtuous life not to think about the Metaphysical issues in depth. Differences between the Eastern and Western Philosophies Western Philosophy Eastern Philosophy 1 born out of wonder (Aristotle) -more practically oriented about the universe and man -inquire into human suffering and how to alleviate it -emphasize the harmonious living of man 2 -sharply distinguished from -there is no sharp division between religion (and even theology) Philosophy and religion - a rational enterprise, severed -there was no conflict between from faith, superstition, or philosophy and religion; Philosophy religious experiences of various heightened some aspects of religion + it kinds represented the contemplative aspects of religion + it provided a theoretical framework and justification for the basic concepts of religion 3 Philosophy is theory and is Philosophy includes experience (say of distinguished from actual the oneness of existence) and actual practical living living: they supplement each other 4 The dominant trend in Western The dominant trend in the East had been Philosophy had always been an to arrive at a unifying experience, an inquiry into the fundamental experience that is free from a sense of principles of the universe, of duality and multiplicity, in an attempt to man, of his society, and values. answer these questions () 5 -Life is governed by reason and -Reason has its place in life, but the final not by custom, instinct, or goal of life is liberation and freedom passion from the self. And the way we live our e.g. --> the `examined life' of lives, must not be severed from this goal. Socrates So ethical codes are organized around this idea. Eastern Philosophy is existential 6 The methods used in Western Some of these methods () are also philosophy: Rational speculation, used in the East in their system building dialectical use of reason showing or showing the contradictoriness of the inadequacy of reason, or different views of reality logical analysis. e.g. --> Shankara's or Nagarjuna's use of dialectical reason to refute opponents' systems #Note… The results also may seem similar. e.g. --> Hume's rejection of the notion of the self as a substance and the Buddhist analysis of the ego as an illusion 7 The ultimate distinctions like Distinctions, divisions, and oppositions good and evil must be real. And are not ultimately real what is ultimately real must also e.g. --> the opposition between the self be good, the West always and the world, subject and object, good struggled to reconcile these two and evil, right and wrong, pleasure and ideas. pain, and beautiful and ugly, are all thought-generated and have no ultimate validity. #Notes… 1. In the West, Philosophy started as a reaction against religion, myth, and magic. 2. To some degree, Eastern Philosophy to religion is as Western theology to Christianity. 3. There are elements of Eastern Philosophy that represent an independent aspect of civilization, consisting of an independent mode of apprehending reality. 4. In the East when philosophical speculations began, philosophers started asking the same questions as in the West, such as what is the ultimate reality behind the universe, the unity behind the diversity which we experience, and sometimes even came to similar conclusions… e.g. --> the 4 or 5 elements: earth, air, water, fire, and ether are the ultimate principles of the universe 5. In the East, Philosophy as theory is construed only as a means of formulating and justifying systematically these experiences. This is particularly true of the systems of Samkhya-Yoga, Vedanta, Buddhism, Taoism, and Zen Buddhism. 6. In the West, philosophy contains a system of interrelated principles explaining the universe. It is concerned with matters of living, but only as an intellectual discipline inquiring into the sources behind problems of living. e.g. -- -> Hume, Kant, Mill, and Bentham asked what is the highest good for man and what is the justification behind our notions of right and wrong. 7. The dominant trends in Western Philosophy would present a view of the world and life, but leave the person who studies them unaffected. As a matter of history, only a few Western philosophers translated their philosophies into e.g. --> Socrates, Zeno the Stoic, Epictetus, and Spinoza living 8. In the West. values are matters of personal opinion, and institutions have no right to impose their values on individuals, so a philosopher in a Western university isn't required to live what he professes in his philosophy. Nothing outside of the professional ethical standards everyone is supposed to adhere to -Thales *The first philosopher in ancient Greek *Was a noted physicist of his time *Tried to explain the nature of the universe in purely physical terms  e.g. --> he said that water was the substance out of which the whole universe arose *Allowed his scientific observations and reasoning to govern his behavior, rather than relying on myth and magic e.g. --> eclipses #Note… In the East, although philosophers used reason to speculate about the nature of Reality and attempted to rationally systematize their philosophic intuitions into systems of philosophy, there is still distrust in the capacity of reason in comprehending ultimate Reality. When it came to experiencing or comprehending Reality they believed that reason is incapable of it. What are their reasons for believing so? -1- -2- Any reality (which one comprehends in The reason is thinking done using some fashion) if it deserves the name of concepts. The process of conceptual the reality, must include the knower. thought uses a concept to "represent" Reality, then it must distinguish that Reality from what it is not: the object (Reality known) from the subject (the knower), or the object from the non- object, and so on. #Note-that... reason by its nature must #Note-that... concepts can be used only in separate the knower from the known, we contrast to one another; they can only are at least aware of ourselves as operate in duality. e.g. --> we can make separate from the known. e.g. --> to think sense of the concept of the chair by of a chair is to have the concept of a chair knowing not just what the chair is, but in mind, and this presupposes that I am also what it is not. aware of myself as distinct from the chair #Note-that… there can be no concept, at (even though only in the background of least no positive concept, of something my consciousness) unique, or all-inclusive. And if the Reality I'm trying to know is to be all-inclusive, then it cannot be known by a divisive concept  Indian Philosophy Features of Indian Philosophy: Indian Philosophy shares with It has a few important features of its own (which other Eastern philosophies differentiate it from Western Philosophy and the rest of Eastern Philosophy) many features: * * common features of all Indian philosophies: 1) Its practicalness, Existential 1) Believing in the law of karma and rebirth nature, and emphasis on one 2) Liberation is considered to be freedom from unifying experience (which helps suffering, karma, and rebirth. Also from the material us transcend merely rational knowledge aspects of oneself. which separates the knower from the known and which frees us from duality #Note → Samsara: the binding effects of one's and opposites including good and evil, activities which include being born, dying, and being pleasure and pain) born again. 2) Emphasis on self-knowledge 3) What the West considers psychological aspects of and selflessness; an man, the Indian philosophy considers it to be only his understanding that the material side. Bifurcation in human nature in Indian individual ego or self is unreal philosophy is between the body-mind (both of which are 3) An understanding that all considered material) and consciousness. real knowledge must affect #Note → the bifurcation in Western Philosophy is one's being between body and mind 4) containing accounts of the basic principles (particularly of what constitutes the universe and the human being) 5) In the Indian theory of knowledge there are six means of knowledge: 1. Perception 2. Inference 3. Verbal testimony 4. Comparison 5. Presumption 6. Non-existence #Note → not all of them are recognized by all the schools of Indian Philosophy 6) Having a theory of truth, a theory of universals, and a theory of causality (there’s a considerable amount of discussion about what constitutes truth, how universals are related to particular objects, and how cause and effect are related to each other 7) Having a theory of what constitutes the highest state of the soul, an analysis of the psyche, and an account of the means that one can adopt to attain the highest state that is construed #Notes… 1) Every school of Indian Philosophy has a theory of knowledge and also a theory of error. All the orthodox schools generally accept the Nyaya theory of inference and fallacy. Several schools accept verbal testimony as an independent means of knowledge, and the Vedas as a trusted authority. Comparison as a means of knowledge is the basis for identifying a new object based on the knowledge of its similarity with another previously familiar object The presumption is a case of presuppositional inference: for example, if we see a man gaining weight, but he is not seen eating at all in the daytime, it is presumed that he has been eating at night or when no one is observing him Absence or non-existence would again be a special case of perception 2) In Buddhism → body and mind are considered to be two aspects of the same basic process (bifurcation doesn’t exist) #KARMA… -Karma: action. -The law of karma: whatever we are is the result of our previous actions and what we will be in the future is determined by what we do in the present (and also by what we did in the past if the effects of past actions are not yet exhausted). The effects of our actions may be: 1) physical, e.g. --> when I slap someone on his face, there are red marks on his cheek. 2) psychological, e.g. --> the other person may get angry at me in return, I may feel guilty about my slapping, or I may feel justified (thus, the law of karma establishes a conditioned response in myself not only in others) 3) metaphysical, “the law is invoked to explain a lot of unknowns in a person's life”, e.g. --> I’m born to poor parents and am a beggar, or being born a cripple, and my neighbor is born rich, yet nothing in this life seems to explain the difference in our plights, I’m tempted to say that it must be because of what I have done in my past life (or lives). #Note(1)… I may lead a life of piety and righteousness in this life; yet the circumstances in my life seem constantly to turn against me while in someone else's life, they may be in his favor, notwithstanding the immoral life he has been leading. If I can't seem to find any immediate effects in this life of my moral or immoral conduct, then I am tempted to say that our plights will reflect our conduct more faithfully in our future lives. Thus, the law of karma begs for the postulation of past and future lives for a person #Note(2)… Aga in almost all Indian Philosophy believes in some form of rebirth or another *How does karma or the effects of one's previous actions carry over into another time in this life or future life? The actions cause unconscious latent impressions in one's psyche. These latent impressions are carried over into future life by a subtle body. The impressions not only cause our future plight but become our future lives. The future plight includes going to heaven or hell. #Note... Heaven and hell are not permanent states one gets into but are temporary stages in one's spiritual career where one works out the effects of one's previous actions without at same accruing further merits or demerits. Thus, being subject to karma and undergoing births and deaths are considered bondage in Indian Philosophy. #Note… The law of karma requires an outside agency to coordinate the circumstances of the external world with the merits or demerits created by one's past karma, or the karmas of different persons so that in some appropriate contexts they are bound together. To affect this, some philosophies have invoked an unseen agency called “Adrshta” or “Apurva” (both these terms mean an unseen force) -Explanations for the coordination of the effects of karma: 1) The first is used by Nyaya as one of the fundamental constituents of the universe. - Nyaya: one of the orthodox schools of Indian Philosophy 2) The second is proposed by Purva Mimamsa as an unseen residual force that occurs as an effect of our actions and lingers on and takes effect at a later time. Chinese Philosophy -The Hundred Schools of Thought: The large body of ideas that were produced by the new social class of administrators and magistrates within the courts after the ruling Zhou Dynasty was disintegrated. * All that coincided with the emergence of philosophy in Greece and shared some of its concerns, such as seeking stability in a constantly changing world, and alternatives to what had previously been prescribed by religion. - Chinese philosophy was concerned with morality and ethics rather than the nature of the cosmos (Why?) because Chinese philosophy evolved from practical politics * Laozi “Lao Tzu” (the philosopher) → Daode Jing “The Way and its Power” (the idea) -Daode jing: one of the first attempts to propose a theory of just rule, based on de (virtue), which could be found by following Dao (the Way), and forms the basis of the philosophy known as Daoism -Daoism: a philosophy based on the virtue that could be found by following the way. Stages of change * Ancient Chinese believed that: 1) the changes in the world are cyclical, continually moving from one state to another, such as from night to day, summer to winter, and so on. 2) They saw the different states not as opposites, but as related, one arising from the other. These states also possess complementary properties that together make up a whole. 3) The process of change is seen as an expression of “dao”, and leads to the 10,000 manifestations that make up the world. #Note → Laozi (in the Daode jing) says that humans are one of these 10,000 manifestations and have no special status. But because of our desire and free will, we can stray from the Dao, and disturb the world’s harmonious balance. To live a virtuous life means acting by the Dao. *Following the Dao is not a simple matter (why?) *Philosophizing about Dao is pointless (why?) Because: 1) Dao is beyond anything that humans can conceive of 2) It is characterized by wu (“not-being”), so we can only live according to the dao by wu wei, literally “nonaction.” By this Laozi does not mean “not doing”, but acting by nature (spontaneously and intuitively); acting without desire, ambition, or recourse to social conventions. #Note → Several texts indicate that Laozi was an archivist at the Zhou court and that Confucius consulted him on rituals and ceremonies. Western Philosophy Greek Philosophy -The three major ancient Greek philosophers: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle The Pre-Socratics The poet Homer → In the Iliad and the Odyssey → a view of the world as under the influence of the Olympian gods - The Olympian gods were much like humans, capricious and willful. * In the Homeric view of the world, human qualities are projected onto the world via human-like gods. - In the early epic poems, we find a moral outlook that is key to the scientific and philosophical frame of mind e.g. → In Homer and later Greek tragedies: -We find stories of the grief that human hubris brings upon us. -The repeated warnings against human pride and arrogance make a virtue out of humility. -Intellectual humility involves recognizing the fallibility of human thought. -The willingness to submit one’s own opinions to the rational inquiry is essential to moving beyond the realm of myth and into the realm of philosophy and science. -Intellectual humility makes it possible to see the world and one’s place in it as a matter of discovery rather than a matter of self-assertion. The Milesians the Milesians Thales, Pythagoras, Heraclitus Thales -585 B.C. is the year that Thales predicted a solar eclipse (and that was the beginning of philosophy in ancient Greece) -Thales brings a new naturalistic approach to explaining the world -His proposed explanations for natural phenomena are given in terms of more fundamental natural phenomena, not in supernatural terms. -Thales is interested in the fundamental nature of the world -Thales thinks that the basic substance of the world is water (because from the four recognized elements - earth, air, fire, and water - only water can take the form of a solid, liquid, or gas) - Thales thinks that the earth is water that is even more concentrated than ice and fire is water that is more rarified than steam - Thales disagrees with projecting ourselves onto the world through myth and superstition and agrees with explanations that invite further investigation of the world (because the world is independent of human will). #Note… A major development → stepping away from supernatural myths and trying to understand the natural world on its terms Pythagoras -Pythagoras traveled to Egypt where he learned astronomy and geometry. -His thought represents a peculiar amalgam of hardnosed mathematical thinking and creative/kooky superstition. -Pythagoras holds that all things consist of numbers. - He saw mathematics as a purifier of the soul; thinking about numbers elevates the mind to the realm of the eternal (scientific thinking is not so far from meditation) - Pythagoras is responsible for the Pythagorean Theorem -The Pythagorean theorem: the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the remaining sides. - He determined how points in space can define shapes, magnitudes, and forms: 1 point defines the location | 2 points define a line | 3 points define a plane | 4 points define solid 3D objects - Pythagoras introduces the concept of form (form implies limits) #Note… the earlier Milesians only addressed the nature of matter, the stuff of the universe. A full account of the nature of the world must also address the various forms that underlying stuff takes. #Note… the form is more sophisticated and important in the thought of Plato and Aristotle than in Pythagoras. - Pythagoras led a cult (founded a religious society) based on the following precepts: 1) that at its deepest level, reality is mathematical in nature 2) that philosophy can be used for spiritual purification 3) that the soul can rise to union with the divine 4) that certain symbols have a mystical significance 5) that all brothers of the order should observe strict loyalty and secrecy Members of the inner circle were strict communist vegetarians. They were also not allowed to eat beans. Pythagoras might have done well in Ballard. -Ballard: the name of the city where Pythagoras established his school in ancient Greece. #Note… in the Homeric gods → the more popular beliefs are not concerned with salvation or spiritual purification. the Dionysian religion → sought spiritual purification and immortality (through drunken carnal feasts and orgies). Pythagorean religious belief → aims at purification and immortality. Heraclitus - was born in Ephesus on the coast of Asia Minor -best known for his doctrine of eternal flux. eternal flux: everything undergoes a perpetual change “One can never step in the same river twice” -According to Heraclitus: 1) The underlying substance of the world is fire or heat 2) Fire is the least stable of the elements and explains the transitoriness of all things 3) Everything is a kindling or extinguishing of the fire 4) While everything is in a continual state of flux, this change is not without order. Logos or rational order are essential to the world. 5) Changes are injustices, which are redressed in further changes (by natural necessity) - Heraclitus ethical views → The good life involves understanding and accepting the necessity of strife and change #Note… Pythagoras and Heraclitus offered some views on religion and the good life. The Sophists -The Sophists were the first professional educators. -For a fee, the sophists taught students how to argue for the practical purpose of persuading others and winning their way. -While the sophists were well acquainted with and taught the theories of philosophers, they were less concerned with inquiry and discovery than with persuasion. -Social and moral issues occupy the center of attention for the Sophists. -The conflicting views of the Ionian and Eleatic philosophers of nature → encouraged skepticism about our ability to obtain knowledge through rational inquiry. -The Sophists took a relativist stance on ethical matters (because they tended towards skepticism about the capacity of reason to reveal the truth and their cosmopolitan circumstances, which exposed them to a broad range of social customs and codes) -Among the Sophists, this skepticism is manifested in epistemic and Moral Relativism. Epistemic relativism Moral Relativism -Epistemic relativism: the view that there - Moral Relativism: the parallel is no objective standard for evaluating the doctrine about moral standards. truth or likely truth of our beliefs. *Epistemic standards of reasoning are *In the moral relativist, there are relative to one’s point of view and no objective grounds for judging interests. “Roughly, this is the view that some ethical opinions to be correct what is true for me might not be true for and others not. you” *Epistemic relativism marks no distinction *Ethical judgments can only be between knowledge, belief, or opinion on made relative to one or another the one hand, and truth and reality on the system of moral beliefs and no other system can be evaluated as *The value of reason lies not in revealing objectively better than another the truth, but in advancing one’s interests #Note… The epistemic and Moral Relativism of the Sophists has become popular again in recent years and has an academic following in much "post-modern" writing *Later on, Plato derisively labeled the Sophists as “shopkeepers with spiritual wares”. (Why?) Due to the Sophists’ lack of interest in knowing the truth for its own sake and their entrepreneurial interest in teaching argument for the sake of best serving their client’s interests. #Notes… -Before the Sophists, most of the early Greek philosophy was concerned with the natural world. -but the sophists were impatient with natural philosophy and adopt the skeptical view that reason simply cannot reveal truths beyond our immediate experience (why?) the desire to explain an underlying reality required natural philosophers to speculate beyond what is observable, but natural philosophers lacked any developed critical method for adjudicating between rival theories of substance change or being. Protagoras -One of the better-known Sophists -He authored several books including: Truth, or the Rejection (the rejection of science and philosophy), that begins with his best-known quote, “Man is the measure of all things, of those that are that they are, of those that are not that they are not”. According to Protagoras: -Knowledge is reducible to perception. - knowledge is relative to the knower (why?) because different individuals perceive the same things in different ways #Note… a classic expression of epistemic relativism → because different individuals perceive the same things in different ways/knowledge is relative to the knower * Protagoras rejects any objectively knowable morality and takes ethics and law to be conventional inventions of civilizations, binding only within societies and holding only relative to societies  The 3 major Greek philosophers 1. Socrates 2. Plato (Socrates’ student) 3. Aristotle (Plato’s student) Socrates -Socrates is the founder of philosophy and rational inquiry. -He was born around 470 B.C. -He was tried and executed in 399 B.C. -He did not write anything himself. -We know of his views primarily through Plato’s dialogues (where Socrates is the primary character). #Note… In Plato’s Socratic dialogues: 1. The interlocutor proposes a definition or analysis of some important concept 2. Socrates objects or offers counter-examples 3. Then the interlocutor reformulates his position to handle the objection 4. Socrates raises a more refined objection 5. Further reformulations are offered, and so forth * Socrates uses dialectic to discredit others’ claims of knowledge. * Socrates shows how to make progress toward more adequate understanding (while revealing the ignorance of his interlocutors) - An example of Plato’s early Socratic dialogues → Euthyphro In this dialogue: * Socrates and Euthyphro are discussing the nature of piety or holiness. * Euthyphro provides a classic argument against Divine Command Theory. Divine Command Theory: a view about the nature of morality that says that what is right is simply right because it is commanded by God * Euthyphro and Socrates don't achieve full knowledge of the nature of piety, but their understanding is advanced through testing the answers that Euthyphro suggests. → Apology: A dialogue by Plato that documents Socrates’ defense of his behavior and the Athenian assembly’s decision to sentence him to death (Socrates was found guilty of corrupting the youth who liked to follow him around and listen to him reveal people’s claims of knowledge as false pride) -Socrates is also known through the plays of Aristophanes and the historical writings of Xenophon. -He was a distinguished veteran who fought bravely on Athens’ behalf. -He claimed to hear a divine inner voice he called his daimon -He was prone to go into catatonic states of concentration -Socrates was not an epistemic or moral relativist (like the sophists). He pursued rational inquiry as a means of discovering the truth about ethical matters. But he did not advance any ethical doctrines or lay claim to any knowledge about ethical matters. Plato -Plato came from a family of high status in ancient Athens -Some of his early dialogues chronicle events in Socrates’ life -Socrates is a character in all of Plato’s dialogues, but in many, the figure of Socrates is employed as a voice for Plato’s views Plato's core metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical views: 1) Metaphysics and Epistemology Plato’s metaphysics and epistemology are best summarized by his device of the divided line. The vertical line between the columns below distinguishes reality and knowledge. It is divided into levels that identify what in reality corresponds with specific modes of thought Objects Modes of Thought The forms Knowledge Mathematical Objects Thinking Particular Things Belief / Opinion Images Imaging Here we have a hierarchy of Modes of Thought, or types of mental representational states, with the highest being knowledge of the forms and the lowest being imaging (in the literal sense of forming images in the mind). Corresponding to these degrees of knowledge, we have degrees of reality. The less real includes the physical world, and even less real, our representations of it in art. The more real we encounter as we inquire into the universal natures of the various kinds of things and processes we encounter. According to Plato → The only objects of knowledge are the forms, which are abstract entities. #Note… In saying that the forms are abstract, we are saying that while they do exist, they do not exist in space and time. They are ideals in the sense that a form is a template or paradigm Example → No actual triangular object is perfectly triangular, for instance. But all actual triangles have something in common, triangularity. The form of triangularity is free from all of the imperfections of the various actual instances of being triangular. We get the idea of something being more or less perfectly triangular. For various triangles to come closer to perfection than others suggests that there is some ideal standard of “perfectly triangularity.” This for Plato is the form of triangularity #Note… Plato also takes moral standards like (justice) and (aesthetic standards like beauty) to admit to such degrees of perfection. Example → Beautiful physical things all partake in the form of beauty to some degree or another. But all are imperfect in varying degrees and ways. The form of beauty lacks the imperfections of its space and time-bound instances. Perfect beauty is not something we can picture or imagine. But an ideal form of beauty is required to account for how beautiful things are similar and to make sense of how things can be beautiful to some less-than-perfect degree or another. ** Opinions can only be had through our sensory experience. With physical things constantly changing, the degree to which we can grasp how things are at any given place and time is of little consequence. Knowledge of the nature of the forms is a grasp of the universal essential natures of things. It is the intellectual perception of what various things, like horses or people, have in common that makes them things of a kind. ** Plato accepts Socrates’ view that to know the good is to do the good. So, his notion of epistemic excellence in seeking knowledge of the forms will be a central component of his conception of moral virtue 2) Ethics * Plato offers a tripartite account of the soul; the soul consists of a rational thinking element, a motivating willful element, and a desire-generating appetitive element. * Plato offers a story of the soul falling from a state of grace (knowledge of the forms) and being dragged down into a human state by unruly appetites. * This story of the soul’s relation to the imperfect body supports Plato’s view that the knowledge of the forms is a kind of remembrance. This provides a convenient source of knowledge as an alternative to the empirical and imperfect support of our sense experience * Plato draws an analogy between his conception of the soul and a chariot drawn by two horses, one obedient, the other rebellious. The charioteer in this picture represents the rational element of the soul, the good horse the obedient will, and the bad horse represents those nasty earthly appetites -To each of the elements of the soul, there corresponds a virtue: 1) for the rational element, there is wisdom #Note… Wisdom is acquired through teaching, dialectic, or through “remembrance." (think of remembrance as insight). 2) for the willing element of the soul, there is courage 3) for the appetitive element, there is temperance #Note… Temperance is a matter of having your appetites under control. Temperance and courage are cultivated through habit. In guiding our appetites by cultivating good habits, Plato holds, we can come to desire what is good for us. * Plato’s political philosophy is given in his view of the state as the human “writ at large” * Project the standards Plato offers for virtue in an individual human onto the aggregate of individuals in a society and you have Plato’s vision of the virtuous state * In the virtuous state, the rational element (the philosophers) are in charge. The willing element (the guardians or the military class) is obedient and courageous in carrying out the policies of rational leadership. And the appetitive element (the profit-driven business class) functions within the rules and constraints devised by the rational element (for instance, by honestly adhering to standards of accounting) -Plato’s vision of social justice is non-egalitarian and anti-democratic. -According to Plato, important functions must be carried out by people with the expertise or wisdom to do them well. -Plato has a healthy regard for expertise. Aristotle -Aristotle is a towering figure in the history of philosophy and science -Aristotle made substantive contributions to just about every philosophical and scientific issue known in the ancient Greek world -Aristotle was the first to develop a formal system of logic -As the son of a physician, he pursued a lifelong interest in biology -His physics was the standard view through Europe’s Middle Ages -He was a student of Plato, but he rejected Plato’s other-worldly theory of forms in favor of the view that things are a composite of substance and form Logic Aristotle’s system of logic was the first developed in the West and it was considered complete and authoritative for well over 2000 years. The core of Aristotle’s logic is the systematic treatment of categorical syllogisms. You might recall this argument from Chapter 2: 1) All monkeys are primates 2) All primates are mammals 3) So, all monkeys are mammals This argument is a categorical syllogism. That’s an antiquated way of saying it’s a two-premise argument that uses simple categorical claims. Simple categorical claims come in one of the following four forms: All A is B All A is not B Some A's are B Some A's are not B There are a limited number of two-premise argument forms that can be generated from combinations of claims having one of these four forms. * * Aristotle systematically identified all of them, offered proof of the valid ones, and demonstrated the invalidity of the others. * * Beyond this, Aristotle proves several interesting things about his system of syllogistic logic and he offers an analysis of syllogisms involving claims about what is necessarily the case as well * * Immanuel Kant (one of the most brilliant philosophers of the 18th century) pronounced that Aristotle’s logic was complete and final. only within the past century logic has developed substantially beyond Aristotle’s. Metaphysics -Aristotle’s metaphysics is anti-Platonist. Plato Aristotle According to Plato: -Aristotle rejects the theory of abstract forms and takes everything that exists to -The various forms matter takes be part of the physical spatiotemporal and the ways things are in terms world. of their participation in abstract and ideal forms to one degree or -Aristotle is considered a materialist, another. someone who thinks all that exists is matter, just atoms swirling in the void. -Plato’s metaphysics centrally features an abstract realm of -Aristotle denies the existence of an eternal unchanging and ideal abstract realm of eternal and unchanging forms. ideal entities, but his account of the nature of things includes more than just matter. -Plato’s forms are not themselves part of the physical -Aristotle thinks that form is an integral spatiotemporal world. part of things in the physical world. #Note... Some pre-Socratic philosophers could accurately be described as materialists. But this would miss key elements of Aristotle’s metaphysics. * * Aristotle introduces the distinction between essential and accidental characteristics of things. When we set out to give an account of what a thing is, we are after an account of its essence. To say what a thing is essentially is to list those ways of being it could not survive the loss of. * * How a thing functions is a critical aspect of its nature in Aristotle’s view (as an organism, I metabolize. As an organism with a mind, I think. These are both ways of functioning). For Aristotle, what makes something that it is, its essence is generally to be understood in terms of how it functions. * * Aristotle’s account of the essential nature of the human being, for instance, is that humans are rational animals. That is, we are animals that function in rational ways * * Aristotle would say that functioning is ends oriented. He understands things as functioning towards ends or goals, and we can understand the essence of things in terms of these goal-oriented ways of functioning. So, Aristotle has a teleological view of the world. #Note… The Greek term for an end or a goal is telos * * We still understand people’s actions as teleological or goal-oriented. We explain why people do things in terms of their purposes and methods. * * Aristotle similarly understands natural processes generally as ends oriented. Even Aristotle’s physics is fundamentally teleological. So, water runs downhill because it is part of its essential nature to seek out the lower place. Explanation: The Four Causes -An explanation is an important methodological and epistemological issue. -Aristotle was the first to address explanation systematically and his treatment of explanation structures guides his philosophical and scientific inquiry. -According to Aristotle, explaining something involves addressing four causes. 1) The material cause: identifying the material from which it is made. 2) The formal cause: giving an account of its form, its shape, and structure. 3) The final cause: refers to the function, end, or telos of a thing. 4) The (explanatory principle) cause: The kind of cause in our normal sense of the word. The efficient cause of a thing is that which brings it into existence or gives form to its material. e.g. → the activity of a carpenter is the efficient cause of my chair. Philosophy in the Middle Ages * One important philosophical accomplishment of the Middle Ages was → wedding philosophy to the requirements of the expanding Christian religion. * The theological synthesis was achieved by → defining God as the most real being in the Platonic–Aristotelian sense and by treating the Greek Forms as ideas in the mind of God. * Realists (such as Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus) argued with Aristotelians that Forms were real, but only in particular things. * Nominalists (such as William of Ockham) argued with the early atomists that Forms are only names to which no abstract entity corresponds in reality. * Ockham argued that → The basic realities are particular things, but to talk about specific things, we must introduce general terms and relations into our language. Just because there is a word for something (such as justice), it does not follow that there is a real object corresponding to it (Justice). * With the rise of the New Science toward the end of the Renaissance (late 16th and early 17th centuries), philosophy took a new turn, and the period known as Modern Philosophy began (the 17th through the 20th centuries). Modern Philosophy -The first major figure of the modern period → René Descartes * He argued that → Knowledge must be erected on a solid foundation of complete certainty #Note… The purpose was to secure our scientific knowledge of the physical world, but it led toward subjective idealism * Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am” became the foundation for all subsequent developments in Modern Philosophy until the early twentieth century.  Two Forms of The Idealist Trend The Continental Rationalists (including The British Empiricists (including Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz) Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume) -stressed the importance of reason in -stressed the role of sensation and the acquisition of knowledge observation -looked primarily to Plato as their -called upon the authority of Aristotle source of inspiration and the atomists Both groups agreed that our knowledge of the external world had to be constructed out of subjective certainties, regardless of whether they were derived from our reasoning faculty or our faculty of sensation -insisted that all or some of it come -claimed that all knowledge comes innately from within by pure reason from the sensation -stressed logical and mathematical -stressed perceptual knowledge, knowledge as the basis of knowledge, explaining logical and mathematical emphasizing the uncertainties of certainty nominalistically, as being opinions about the physical world true simply by definition. #Note… The empiricists began on the materialist note that our sensations are caused by the interaction of our bodies with the physical world. But as it gradually became clear that this was only a supposition, empiricism moved progressively toward a kind of idealism known as phenomenalism. * * The German philosopher Immanuel Kant came up with a resolution of rationalism and empiricism: -Borrowing Plato’s distinction of matter and form, Kant held that the materials of our knowledge come from sensation (conceding to the empiricists), while the form of our knowledge comes from reason and the other cognitive faculties (which he interpreted the rationalists to mean). -Just as Aristotle had said that neither matter nor form could exist alone, but that things could exist only as a mixture of form in matter, so Kant argued that the objects of our experience can be neither pure sensation (matter) nor pure thought (form), but must always be a combination of the two. Twentieth-Century Philosophy * The twentieth century was characterized by a revolution against the past. The dominant mood among philosophers of that century was to denounce all previous philosophy as a colossal mistake and to begin reexamining the nature of philosophy itself and the reconstruction of its foundations. * The positive characteristics of this revolution: 1) a break with the metaphysical dream of discovering the real nature of the world. 2) a new conception of the role of philosophy as the analysis of meaning. Two Philosophical Movements The Analysts (consisting of Ludwig The phenomenologists (such as Wittgenstein, Gilbert Ryle, John L. Edmund Husserl, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Austin, and P. F. Strawson) Maurice Merleau-Ponty) -prided themselves on their tough- -tended to revel in more tender, minded rigor emotional, and relevant issues, which -thrived on logic and avoided they dealt with in a sometimes-literary discussions of such things as sex, style death, and anxiety #Note… The phenomenologists complained that the analysts were too mechanical, aloof, trivial, and irrelevant. The analysts responded that the phenomenologists were vague, wishy-washy, and too poetical #Note… Much of the distinction between these two important philosophical movements resulted from differences in historical background and style rather than in substance. Islamic Philosophy The Islamic religion * * Muslims have six main beliefs: 1) Allah (as the one and only God) 2) Angels 3) The holy books 4) the Prophets → Adam, Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses), Dawud (David), Isa (Jesus) #Note… Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the final prophet 5) The Day of Judgement... (the day when the life of every human being will be assessed to decide whether they go to heaven or hell. 6) Predestination... (Allah knows all that will happen; Muslims believe that this doesn't stop human beings from making free choices). * * Islam has five Pillars (these Pillars are the core beliefs and practices of Islam): 1) The profession of Faith (shahada). The belief that "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah" is central to Islam. 2) Prayer (salat). 3) Alms (zakat). 4) Fasting (sawm). 5) Pilgrimage (hajj). Allah *Allah is the name Muslims use for God *The heart of faith for all Muslims is obedience to Allah's will *Muslims worship only Allah because only Allah is worthy of worship *A believer can approach Allah by praying, and by reciting the Qur'an, which is the speech of Allah. Allah: -is eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent -has always existed and will always exist -knows everything that can be known -can do anything that can be done -has no shape or form -can't be seen or heard -is neither male nor female -rewards and punishes fairly -is merciful The one and only God ‫ال إله إال هللا‬ * * All Muslims believe that: There is only one God God has no children, no parents, and no partners God was not created by a being There are no equal, superior, or lesser Gods Islamic or Arabic Philosophy? -There are a lot of discussions about Islamic Philosophy: Is it Islamic Philosophy or Arabic Philosophy or Arabic Islamic Philosophy; The Name does not matter, we can name it with all the above names. -Most of this Philosophy is written in the Arabic Language, With the majority of Muslim Philosophers. The Main Philosophers Al-Kindi Al-Farabi Ibn Sina Al-Ghazali, Ibn Rushd (Avicenna) Abu Hamed Al-Kindi * Al-Kindi's philosophic thought is directly connected with Greek philosophical doctrines (transmitted to him through translations) and with the rationalist theological movement of the Mu'tazilites. * He seems to have espoused the Mu'tazilite doctrines in toto and to have sought to create a philosophical substructure for them. * The Muʿtazilite dogma led him to the somewhat parallel idea of God as an absolute and transcendent being. * He formulated the doctrine that philosophy and religion, or the rational truth and the revealed truth, not only do not conflict with each other but lend support to each other and are identical. * Al-Kindi adopted the Neoplatonic doctrine of emanation in his metaphysics and cosmology. * In his theory of intellectual knowledge, he adopted the doctrine of the active intellect and the passive intellect (which is originally formulated by Aristotle and modified by Neoplatonists). #Note… Mu'tazilite doctrine believes that the source of our knowledge of values is reason confirmed by revelation. Al-Farabi -With al-Farabi, philosophy reached maturity in Islam. -The importance of al-Farabi lies in his attempt to elevate philosophy to the place of the highest value and to subordinate the revelation and the Shariʿa, or religious law, to it. -In his cosmology and psychology, al-Farabi was almost entirely Aristotelian, except for the doctrine of emanation. -In political theory, he based himself on Plato's Republic and Laws, but he adapted the Platonic system to his contemporary political situation with remarkable ingenuity. -He developed the doctrine of the intellect from the point at which al-Kindi had left off, and he constructed a theory of divine inspiration. -In this doctrine the Shariʿa took an inferior place as a symbolic expression of a higher intellectual truth, that was also ultimately responsible for the fatal attacks on the philosophical movement by representatives of the orthodoxy. -In his religious attitudes, al-Farabi was a genuinely universalistic spirit who believed that the entire world should have one religion, of which all particular religions would be considered symbolic expressions. -He wasn't a relativist; he tells us in no uncertain terms that not all religions are equal either as adequate symbols of truth or as the effective harnessing of men's minds and hearts. -He believed that there are religious symbols that are positively harmful and must be discarded -He affirmed that there are religions that are equivalent in their religious value; and any one of these symbolic systems may be applied in a given milieu, depending upon circumstances. -Al-Farabi gave no concrete examples of religions or names of prophets, but there is little doubt that the prophet Muḥammad was fixed in his mind as a paradigm par excellence of a prophet and a lawgiver. This becomes clear in his insistence that the teachings of a prophet should not only be universal but should also be successful in history. -Al-Farabi's writings give us a full-scale picture of the basic worldview of Muslim philosophy. -The goal of man is to develop his rational faculty by his will. The rational faculty is developed by the action of the active intelligence upon it, through which actual thought arises. -The end of man is to reach philosophic contemplation, and al-Farabi categorically states that men whose rational faculty remains undeveloped cannot attain immortality but perish with their physical death. -The actual activation of man's rational power demands certain practical virtues as well, and this makes it necessary for man to live in organized societies rather than in isolation. -People who are ultimately responsible for organizing and directing human societies are those possessed of philosophical wisdom, for it is not possible to enunciate practical laws for humankind without having theoretical wisdom. -For al-Farabi the philosopher and the prophet are identical. It is the philosopher-prophet who can formulate the practical principles and laws that will lead men to their final goal of philosophic bliss. -The prophet is a person who, having attained this philosophical illumination, transforms the philosophic truth into an imaginative myth that moves people to action and can influence societies toward greater morality. It is because of his imaginative power, the power to represent intellectual truth in the form of a figure or a symbol, that the prophet can make laws and bring revelation. -Societies governed by such laws are "good societies"; others are "ignorant societies," "misguided societies," or "retarded societies. -Revelation is not philosophic truth but imaginative truth. -In Al-farabi’s theory of prophethood, there seems to be no place for miracles Ibn Sina (Avicenna) *Ibn Sina elaborated on one of the most cohesive, subtle, and all-embracing systems of medieval history. *In the West, his ideas had a profound influence on medieval scholastic philosophy. *In the Muslim world, his system is still taught in the traditional centers of Islamic learning *The central thesis of Ibn Sina's metaphysics is the division of reality into contingent being and Necessary Being *To formulate this doctrine, Ibn Sina devised his theory of the distinction between essence and existence *In this theory, he refined the implications of the Islamic doctrine of creation into an integrated philosophic system *Ibn Sina effected basic changes both in the doctrine of emanation and in the Aristotelian doctrine of matter and form #Note... The bases of this theory of essence and existence are set in Aristotle's doctrine of movement and the Neoplatonic doctrine of emanation -A closer examination led Ibn Sina to posit three factors—matter, form, and existence—and to postulate a Necessary Being as the basis for the world process. -Since Ibn Sina could not accept the creationism of the Muslim theologians because it implied the temporal priority of God over the world, he affirmed that God is distinguished from the world by the fact that his being is necessary and simple; God cannot be composed of matter and form but must be pure existence. -Ibn Sina was able to solve the contradiction between the Greek philosophic worldview and the Islamic doctrine of creationism: in accord with the philosophers, he affirmed the eternity of the world and rejected temporal creation, but with the Islamists, he made the world entirely and eternally dependent upon God. -Ibn Sina expounded his view that religion is a kind of philosophy for the masses: It does not tell the naked philosophical truth but is an endeavor to make the masses come as near to the philosophical truth as possible. The prophets are, then, mass psychologists who launch religious movements as pragmatic endeavors to make people virtuous -Ibn Sina reaffirms Al-farabi’s position that revelation is not philosophic truth but symbolic truth Al-Ghazali, Abu Hamed Ibn Sina's system went the furthest in integrating the traditional demands of the orthodox religion with purely Greek rationalism, which explains why his works continue to be studied in traditional Islamic schools even today. However, his system was made the object of denunciatory criticism by the orthodoxy on certain points: the eternity of the world, the inferior status of the shariʿa (religious law) as a mere symbol of the higher truth, and the rejection of the resurrection of the body. The classical criticism was carried out by al-Ghazaliin in his famous work Tahafut al-Falasifa (Incoherence of the Philosophers. Ibn Rushd -The unrelenting criticism of philosophy (as it appeared in Ibn Sina's system by al-Ghazali and others) led Ibn Rushd to defend the claims of philosophy. -In the process of doing this, Ibn Rushd sought to resurrect the original Aristotelian doctrines from the later Neoplatonic and Muslim accretion as much as possible. -He wrote many commentaries on the works of Aristotle. -He accused both Ibn Sina and al Ghazali of having mutilated philosophical theses and of having confused them with religious doctrines. -Ibn Rushd did not advocate a theory of two truths, although this may be a on )‫ فصل المقال‬Fasl al-Maqal( logical conclusion of what he said in his work titled the relationship between philosophy and religion -Ibn Rushd rejected Ibn Sina's distinction between essence and existence. He insisted that existence is part of the essence of a thing. -The doctrine on which Ibn Rushd does not appear to be a faithful follower of Aristotle is that concerning intellect. -He declared the passive human intellect also to be eternal and incorruptible and to be universal to all humankind, like the Active Intellect. -This doctrine of the unity of intellect, besides being unfaithful to Aristotle, was also unacceptable to the followers of the revealed religions. -He was thus attacked by Muslims and by Thomas Aquinas in the West. #Note... Thomas Aquinas wrote a special treatise against Ibn Rushd's doctrine. -Ibn Rushd never held that the act of cognition is universal and he was at pains to prove its individual character. -What he seems to be concerned to show is that all thinking, although it occurs individually, becomes in a real sense universal. -Ibn Rushd never denied the individuality of the act of cognition -Ibn Rushd believed that religion and philosophy are in two different orbits, but he felt the necessity of reconciling the two and of so stating the philosophic doctrines so as not to offend religion and of so conceiving the religious dogmas that they would not conflict with philosophy. -On the question of the eternity of the world, Ibn Rushd taught the doctrine of eternal creation. -Although he did not reject the religious dogmas of the resurrection of the body (as Ibn Sina had done), he taught that the numerically same body cannot be resurrected. -There was bitter opposition to the doctrines of Ibn Rushd. The Future of Philosophy -Perhaps there will yet be a reconciliation between philosophy’s past and present, British and Continental, analytic and phenomenological. -What is clear is that philosophers are beginning to absorb currents of thought outside their Western tradition from Africa, the Middle East, and especially the Far East.