Lecture notes - philosophy.pdf

Monday, 22-07-2024 - The module is basically the history of philosophy. - I’m in group 1 - Read - NEED to read the textbook! - Will have tutorial readings - check! - Will read Republic by Plato - this is found on SUNlearn - 80% attendance is neede...

Monday, 22-07-2024 - The module is basically the history of philosophy. - I’m in group 1 - Read - NEED to read the textbook! - Will have tutorial readings - check! - Will read Republic by Plato - this is found on SUNlearn - 80% attendance is needed to write exam - First tutorial next week. - Test - 25 September - 60% of grade - exam on all the work - Final exam - 13 November - Purpose of module - to understand how greek philosophy has affected everything. Why is ancient Greek philosophy relevant? - They were the first “western” philosophers. - Their philosophies are still very much used and talked about. Even the questions that they asked which we no longer do, our questions originate from those. Greek age - ca 1200 BCE-0 Why Ancient Greek and Medieval Philosophy? - Cannot understand or practise contemporary philosophy without it. - Nor can you understand our contemporary society without it. - Plato and Aristotle’s influence incalculable (science and religion). - Not only “western” - is relevant and applicable to ALL. “Western” - wasn’t really a term before the 19th century. Therefore, not really relevant to ancient Greek. - They influenced the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, the rest of Africa and the rest of the world. Both directly and through religion (Christianity, Islam and Judaism). “We ‘catch’ our beliefs and values in the way that we catch a cold” - unconsciously, we do not have power or control over it, we often catch them from people who surround us. → If we understand where our ideas come from we can start judging them critically. Sub-disciplines in Philosophy thanks to Greeks Epistemology - theory of knowledge (what do we know and how do we know that it is true?) Metaphysics - theory of reality (what is real? What do mind and consciousness entail? Do we have free will?) Ethics - what makes something right or wrong? Who decides? Are there objective moral principles? Logics - the study of the principles of reason, what does good reasoning entail? More Sub-disciplines in Philosophy Social and political philosophy - what does the ideal state look like? What is the purpose of government? When is a government legitimate? When is civil disobedience justified? Philosophy of religion - is there a God? Can we prove the existence of God? What is the relationship between faith and reason? Is there life after death? Strategy for reading philosophy - FOCUS Possible to divide philosophical texts into three parts: Facts, Outlooks and Critique. F - Facts (Where and when? What problems? Why this particular question? Who influenced him/her?) O - Outlook (Try to adopt the philosopher’s point of view. Why did s/he answer the question in this manner? What resources did s/he have available?) C - Critique (Not criticise!) Which ideas are strong and which weak? Why? How can they be improved upon? US - Undergo Self-examination, how would you answer the question? Why? Did you learn something from the philosopher? Why/Why not? Tuesday, 23-07-2024 Greek philosophy begins: 28 May 585 BCE - Thales predicts a solar eclipse. He is seen as the first philosopher but also the first scientist - philosophy is basically all forms of thinking or knowledge. Before Greek philosophy Homer and the poets - they were seen as historians, scientists, theologians, educators, astronomers etc. They shaped the Greek worldview. They explained events and the origin of the universe, etc. They followed moral guidelines relating to honour and status. They served a religious function. They were inspired by muses (goddesses of art and literature, devine!). Myths - the poets explained the world and the unknown through myths, ex stories about gods and muses. Gods were very human-like, they had emotion, could be bribed etc. Events attributed to the anger or goodwill of the gods. The world according to Homer - Events in the world are caused by gods, who were fickle and impulsive. - There is also fate, which is some random things that cannot be explained. Both gods and humans were subject to fate. - Warrior heroes were seen as role models - their values and characteristics were called virtues and seen as admirable, the highest of them being excellence.  - There was no objective moral order since gods usually only cared about their own self-interest, except for Zeus. - Zeus was the only god who could become mad if people behaved immorally. - Conflict within Homer’s worldview - Events can be caused by both gods and can be random - Both humans and gods are subjective to fate - but sometimes gods denounce humans for not acting morally - Because of these inconsistencies philosophy started to emerge. - The idea of “fate” ” later led to the idea of natural laws that are independent of the will of any agent (divine or human) New way of thinking - From mythology, philosophy grows (6th century BCE) - Thales starts to try to understand the patterns of nature - beginning of natural philosophy (science) → founder of school of natural philosophy and Greek astronomy. - He was probably influenced by the mathematics of the Egyptians and the astronomy of the Babylonians - This is the origin of science and philosophy as we know it today (original theoretical enquiry, rather than appealing to myths and tradition) - conclusions stand or fall on their own merits Periods of classical Greek philosophy - Cosmological - characteristics of nature/reality, 585-5th cent BCE - Anthropological - human-centred issues, 5th cent - 399 BCE - Systematic - comprehensive philosophical system, 399-322 BCE - Post-Aristotelian - individualistic / practical Thursday, 25-07-2024 The Milesian Philosophers - ~ 600 BCE - Thales (~ 624-545 BCE) - “The problem of the one or the many” - What is the university made of? Hos conclusion: water. His reasons were: - Everything needs water - Water has different forms - Everything contains water (it has no opposites) - He was wrong about water, but the question was still important. Today’s answer: particles. - Further question: problem of change. Why do things change? Better yet, how do things change?  - His answer: Animated, causal agent in all things. - Why was he significant? - Material monism: only one principle of explanation - material / physical. - Most important contribution is his original question, that it was very theoretical and not only practical. This was a new way of thinking and practicing curiosity. - Gave a rational approach: does not rely on authority or tradition but gives REASONS The Ancient Greeks start exploring all aspects of the world and human existence in this way. Slowly start building up a body of knowledge that is based on reason rather than on opinion, speculation or myth. - Anaximander (610-545 BCE) - Responds to Thales and questions him. - Suggested the theory of the Apeiron. Reasons: - Fire and water are opposites - Water itself needs to be explained - Fundamental reality cannot have properties (eternal) - Apeiron must be boundless, indefinite, undefinable (a mass) - Opposite characteristics form out of Apeiron. He believed that these formed the world but also was in constant conflict with one another. The tension between these causes change. - Why was he significant? - Moves to abstract mode of thought - he realises that the reality in the world does not have to be what it looks like to us. - Starts process of philosophical criticism - gives reasonable counter-arguments. - Early conception of natural laws, and evolution (he argued that all beings originated in the sea, which isn’t entirely wrong). - Problem with apeiron - it doesn’t tell us anything. What is it if it is nothing and all at the same time. - Anaximenes (545 BCE) - Argues that the most fundamental substance in the world is air. Reasons: - The apeiron is an empty concept, we cannot know if it exists. - Air is everywhere. - Air supports life. - Water cannot support earth, air can. - Problem of change: - Two principles affect air - expansion cause heat and compression cause cold. This causes air to change into new elements. - Significance - Tries to give an empirical basis for theories (science).  - Conceptual clarification - apeiron is too vague. Milesians’ contribution - Early empiricism - use of sensory experience to obtain knowledge. - Early rationalism - try to deduct knowledge about reality by means of reason. - They raised the problem of appearance vs reality - are things what they seem to be? - Assume that they can explain the universe in terms of a single principle. - Assume that this principle if physical - Identify the problem of change. Notable pre-Socratic philosophers - The Milesian philosophers (e.g. Thales) - The Pythagoreans - Xenophanes - Herakleitos - Parmenides - Zeno - Empedocles - Anaxagoras - Democritus Heraclitus vs Parmenides - Heraclitus - there is only change - Parmenides - there is no change Monday, 29-07-2024 Socrates “The father of [Greek] Philosophy” - lived 470-399 BCE - Was the teacher of Plato. Plato was the teacher of Aristotle - Falls under the Anthropological period - Not a systematic philosopher - didn’t write anything down. Everything he did was documented through verbal communication with others. Athens in the 5th century BCE - the Golden Age - Centre of greek culture - Democratic society - had both positive and negative consequences for Athens. Socrates was against it because he didn’t believe the population was fit to rule. He wanted philosophers to rule. - Advances in medicine, architecture, art, poetry, drama Cultural changes during this time - Respect for traditional authorities and myths declines → no metaphysical basis for values - More contact with different cultures, laws and customs - realise values are relative to culture (the others were different). - Democracy - individualism and opportunities for personal power and success (less interested in the divine origins of society or metaphysical questions) - Philosophers and scientists cannot agree about reality → leads of scepticism. - Led to less interest in metaphysical questions - instead, a practical disposition Sophists - Travelling teachers - in rhetoric (education in the political arts) - According to Aristotle they “made the worse argument seem the better” - Everything we know about them we know from people who didn’t like them → might not have been as bad as they sound. - Sceptical (don’t believe true knowledge is possible) and only interested in success (= political success by being a good speaker) - Relativists - instead of asking, “is it true?”, they ask, “will it be to my advantage?” - Deny physis (nature; independent of humans and objective); accept nomos (convention; practices based on human convention; subjective - knowledge is relative) - Ethical relativists – morality only a matter of convention Protagoras - “Man is the measure of all things” Relativism - Everything we know and believe is based on how we experience things and individual opinion. - No way to differentiate between different beliefs. - All beliefs/opinions are equally true. Socrates and Plato - React against the Sophists. - Argue that relativism undermines itself and is false. - Look for universal truths (especially ethical truths). Socrates - What we know about him is from the early works of Plato, Aristophanes and Xenophon. - Lived in Athens. Socrates vs. the Sophists - People described him as a ‘gadfly’  - He constantly approached people of power and experts (eg priests) and asked them simple questions, that they should know the answer to, that they weren’t able to explain. Eg ‘What is holiness?’ to the priest. Oracle of Delphi - Legend: “Socrates is the wisest man in Athens” - “I do not think that I know what I do not know” - He would repeatedly tell them that he did not know. In conversation he would not contribute anything to the conversation but only ask questions to show people that they didn’t know either. His calling: Exposing ignorance - Sophists – intellectually wrong and morally harmful - Expound ignorance and superficial values (“schools for success”) Search for truth - Socrates – we can only act on the basis of truth/carefully examined opinions - Asks: what knowledge is available, how can we obtain it, why is it true? Tuesday, 30-07-2024 Socrates’ Epistemology Epistemology - Subsection in philosophy which regards knowledge, what is knowing? Metaphysics - the theory of reality Socratic method/questioning - Dialectic - engages people in dialogue (again, never wrote anything down) - Saw himself as a midwife - delivers inherent knowledge. Believed that the knowledge are already within people, inherent knowledge. The right questions can set pull this knowledge to the surface, into the conscious. - Deepens insight of both pupil and teacher. Was no hierarchy between teacher and student in this method. Issues he talked about - Wisdom - Justice - Goodness - Virtue - Love A. Socratic method/questioning 1. Approaches someone in public (expert, e.g. Thrasymachus) and would pretend he doesn’t know anything. 2. Asks: “What is X?”(e.g. justice) and often receive an answer, often a definition. 3. Feigns ignorance. 4. Examines definition – inadequate (E.g. “Justice is simply that which is in the interest of the stronger party”) 5. Leads to absurd (or contradictory) conclusion (Those in power always make laws that are in their own interest. Hence, corruption, for example, is justified, because it has better consequences for the corrupt official). a. Socrates: People are fallible. Even those who are stronger or more powerful sometimes wrongly think that something is in their own interest. b. E.g. corruption causes the infrastructure that everyone relies on to crumble, leading to an unstable society. Causes violence. 6. Becomes clear that the person does not really know what he is talking about or that his understanding is not necessarily correct. 7. It does not make sense to equate ‘justice’ with that which is in the interest of the stronger party; we need another, more objective standard. B. Universal definitions - We often use words/concepts without really understanding what they mean. - Socrates wants to use reason and dialectic to establish universal definitions that will help us acquire true, objective knowledge. - Socrates believed that there always, on every subject, is an objective truth. - Socrates believes things can be grouped into non-arbitrary, natural categories (e.g. instances of justice). - Induction: Deduce general truths from studying specific cases. - Universal categories allow us to identify and evaluate things. Consequences - Legal implications; moral implications; pedagogical implications. - The same kind of questioning led to the criticism of other practices that were once taken as self-evident, e.g. racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. - Which of our practices could become questionable if subjected to a similar process? (Speciesism?) Wisdom - To know that you do not know and to always examine your assumptions. - Get closer to the truth through self-examination and logical thought. - Philosophy as “nonsense-detector” Most important knowledge for Socrates - How to live/care for our souls (‘psyche’) - Ignorance is a disease of the soul  - Athenians are ignorant and don't even know. Socrates’ Metaphysics Soul - ‘psyche’ - Greeks before Socrates: “breath of life” - Socrates: Soul is the true person - Most important task: Care for the soul (body and material is worthless) Thursday, 01-08-2024 Socrates’ Ethics - Socrates’ ethics follows from his metaphysics - Ethics: questions about how we should live. - For Socrates, ethics = ‘living well (justly)’ - To be able to live well, we need to understand what our perfect end (excellence) is. - He created the word ‘arete’, which means virtue, excellence - to fulfil an end/function - “To cut well” - “To swim well” (?) - “To be fully human” Virtue, morality - part of our nature - Our arete – to be successful in the art of living; to live a good life (thus, virtue independent of ‘morality’; purely naturalistic). - But not ‘successful’ in Sophistic sense – i.e. being rich, famous and politically powerful—but rather, to be successful in the art of living. - To be good at being a person = fulfilling our true nature (situated in the soul). - Excellent soul: well-ordered, wise, and controls bodily desires and emotions. - = Makes us happy! (to be immoral = “illness of the soul”). “Why be moral?” - Not because of fear of punishment - to Socrates it is more of a personal thing. Why would anyone not want to be happy? That would be irrational - and Socrates is NOT irrational. - Because it makes us happy/leads to the good life. - And because ignorance and immorality lead to a diseased soul, which inevitably makes us unhappy. “Knowledge is virtue” - Ethical intellectualism - If you know what the good is, you will always do it.  - No one chooses to do evil knowingly. The only reason people do bad things is because they don’t know any better. 1. Everyone pursues their own happiness. 2. Virtue (arete) leads to ultimate happiness. 3. No one that knows what virtue entails will act unvirtuously. - Unvirtuous people wrong about what they think is good for them. - Pursue false values in search of happiness. - Is he right? - Knowledge (wisdom) = virtue (=happiness) - “The unexamined life is not worth living” (Literally!) Socrates’ political philosophy - Not well-developed - Criticises Greek democracy (to govern requires specialised knowledge, which not every person the people vote for have) At this point things weren't going as well in Athens. There were political turmoil - and when that happens politicians usually search for a scapegoat. That Scapegoat was Socrates. He was blamed for ruining the youth etc and sentenced to death. After trial he was imprisoned. That night Crito bribed the guards to set him free but Socrates refused to go. His reason was the social contract. That he has been a part of the society, benefitted from it, and therefore needs to follow its rules or laws. He also said that one cannot answer injustice with injustice (by escaping). Question: How does this fit into the fact that Socrates had said that he would continue with philosophy even if it was illegal? - Socrates believed that philosophy was good for your soul → when faced with the question of if he should ruin his soul by breaking the law or stop philosophy. Then he will continue with the one that is most important for his soul - philosophy. Socrates’ legacy - Paradigm for a philosophical life. - Self-knowledge as a life goal. - Dialectical method. - Intellectual humility - knowing, accepting and admitting that he didn’t know. - Plato! Tuesday, 06-08-2024 Plato (~ 428-347 BCE) Plato is the start of comprehensive philosophy. Comprehensive philosopher - Socrates’ student - extremely upset by his death - Extends Socrates’ philosophy - Tries to situate ethics in broader context - Main aim: universal/true ethics - BUT Socrates’ death → realises that good people cannot survive if society isn’t good. - Good people cannot be good if society isn’t good. What is the most ethical kind of society/politics? - Also develops a political philosophy Themes 1. Theory of knowledge (epistemology) 2. Metaphysics (theories about reality) 3. Political theory 4. Moral theory (ethics) 5. Cosmology Starting point: nature of reality itself - Socrates did not go far enough to undermine the Sophists’ relativism. - Universal moral and political principles only possible if we understand reality itself. - For that we require true knowledge. 1. Epistemology (Theory of knowledge) Framework: Knowledge vs. opinion 1. Rejects Sophists’ relativism - our lives and societies = based on universal principles. ・ “All opinions are equally true”, especially regarding morality and reality ・ Illogical/self-refuting - believe own opinion is true (otherwise, should accept opponent’s position that relativism is fake) ・ Protagoras even asks for money for his opinions, even through he says that all opinions are equally true… ・ Some beliefs clearly true or false (example of broken foot - who do you believe, random person or doctor?) ・ Some people know better than others ・ Not all opinions are of equal value, and not even relativism act as if this were the case (they don’t consult an artist if they need a doctor) 2. Universal knowledge cannot be based on sense experience. ・ He rejects empiricism - he believes in rationalism. ・ Empiricism - get all knowledge from sense experience ・ Plato differs. ・ World is in flux and is not constant enough to offer true knowledge (example of cup of coffee which changes temperature) - Heraclitus’ position  ・ Perceptions are relative - differs according to context (example of dress which people see in different colors, blue/black or white/gold) ・ Problem of universals ・ How can we point to many very different trees and still call all of them “trees”. Same with humans - we all look and are very different from each others, but we are all human ・ Circle - we know the concept of a perfect circle but we have never encountered a perfect one. Same with all shapes. ・ A circle is a simple shape of Euclidean geometry that is the set of all points in a plane that are a given distance from a given point, the centre. The distance between any of the points and the centre is called the radius. ・ Another example is justice ・ We cannot describe what perfect justice is but still everyone have an inherent opinion of what justice is. ・ Where do these universal concepts come from? How come we all know them? This must be solved in order to find true knowledge. ・ Reasons: 1. Either “justice” is (a) real and objective, or (b) it is a mere word without meaning. 2. If (b), we cannot make moral judgements - there would be no difference between Mandela and Hitler. 3. But (b) is absurd, we do make such moral judgements. 4. → thus, “justice” is something real and objective. 5. What is real must be either physical or non-physical. 6. “Justice” cannot be physical 7. → thus, “justice” must be something real, objective and non-physical. ・ Plato believes that this argument is true for all concepts that we use. 3. True knowledge must be based on rational insight. ・ Plato distinguishes between knowledge and true beliefs. ・ I can accidentally have a true belief (e.g. that the US president is currently tweeting)… ・ … but we won’t say I have knowledge of this belief - unless I can give rational reasons for it. Thursday, 08-08-2024 Solution - Must obtain knowledge through rational insight. Thus, true knowledge is… - Objective - Unavailable to senses  - Universal - Unchanging - Grounded in rational understanding Universal forms = the basis of knowledge - We’ve seen that things in the world fall into categories on the basis of what they have in common (e.g. ‘tree’, ‘human being’, 'justice’) – stays constant in our experience. - He names these categories: “Universals” (constant characteristics that things have in common, such as ‘beauty’, ‘circularity’, ‘humanity’). - Universals are also called Forms or Ideas. - Non-physical, ideal characteristics, independent of the things that embody them. Plato’s Theory of Forms - Question: How do we obtain knowledge of the Forms? - Remember, the Forms are non-physical and unavailable to the senses. - Meno’s paradox: Either we know the Forms, or we don’t. If we know them, we don’t have to look for them. But if we don’t know them, how will we recognise them when we find them? (example of justice). - Plato’s answer: Our knowledge of the Forms must be innate. - Hence, we must be born with it. Anamnesis - Soul - Knows forms before birth – forget upon birth. - In body - Dialectical questioning + rational thought. - Anamnesis - Remember Forms from before birth. Do the Forms really exist? - Plato: Forms are the objects of true knowledge. - True knowledge must be knowledge of something real.  - Thus, the Forms must be independent, objectively existing entities. Metaphysical dualism - Sensory (physical) reality - Accessible to senses (Particulars) - Rational knowledge (intelligible reality) - Accessible to rational thought (Universals) How does it work? → Needs new metaphysics Metaphysics Realm of Ideas/Forms - Universals (Ideas/Forms) exist in separate reality (outside of time and space) (think of mathematics) Problem of change - Things change. How do we know something stays the same thing? (Theseus’ ship) - Plato: physical world changes constantly and we cannot have rational knowledge of it - Intelligible world does not change and we can have rational knowledge of it Metaphysics dualism - Sensory reality - Accessible to senses (Particulars) - Rational knowledge - Accessible to rational thought (Universals) Theory of Forms Analogy of the divided line-degrees of reality Realm of Ideas/Forms How do we know the forms? - Innate to soul - Soul originates from realm of Ideas - Knowledge in innate (anamnesis) Relationship between particulars and forms? - Forms cause particulars (things in the world)—like something in the world causing a shadow. - Physical objects resemble their Forms. - Objects "participate" in their Forms. - Forms– standards against which we evaluate objects. - Forms make objects intelligible. Wisdom… - Is to know the Forms… - … through education, and rational thought. … Thus - Plato gives a metaphysical basis for Socrates’ universal definitions = Forms - “The Good” (ultimate Form) – source of all knowledge and reality. - Impersonal rational, first principle (not a deity). Monday, 12-08-2024 Moral theory Against relativism - Sophists = morality is social convention or personal opinion. - = Cannot evaluate or judge objectively - Plato – morality just as objective as mathematics. Objective morality - Possible due to access to Forms of Justice, the Good, etc. - People are misled by the appetites, desires, false values, etc. = people do not easily agree on moral issues - However, the right answers exist and can be determined naturally. Why be moral? - Why live a just life rather than one of pleasure and selfishness? (just person = truly moral) - Because of consequences or external rewards like a good afterlife? - Why should I be a good person even if no one will ever know? (Gyges’ ring or Glaucon’s good man vs. evil man) Bases answer on human nature - Just like Socrates—because it makes us happy (fulfilment). - Essence of human being = psyche (“soul”/self)—must be healthy to be happy - (Remember that Socrates' argument was that no one would be evil willingly) - Plato does not quite agree; he wants to determine why we sometimes do the wrong thing, even when we know better The soul/self - Plato—we find that our soul is not unified. - We have inner conflicts and competing forces/drives - E.g. eat something that isn’t good for us; do something that makes us unhappy - Like everything, the soul has a Form - Form = standard against which we measure particular things - If we understand the Form, we understand what the soul should be like (‘excellence’) The first psychologist: Structure of the soul Reason is the most important component of the soul. It is what keeps everything in order - the ruler. The black horse represent the appetites. The white horse represents the spirit/drive. The person who steers represents the reason. Four moral virtues - Wisdom - Courage - Temperance - Justice Virtue and the balanced soul If you have all of the three → you have achieved justice. - Having a balanced soul means you have a just soul. - Just soul = healthy soul = greatest happiness and pleasure. - Wickedness = cancer of the soul = deformity (answers Glaucon) - “Happiness” of the evil person = only apparent happiness (under influence of the appetites) - Analogy: soul consists of a many-headed monster (appetites), a lion (spirit) and a man (reason). - Wickedness feeds the monster and allows him to take over your being. - Moral goodness leads to the highest kind of pleasure and happiness. Why should I be moral? → to Plato like asking: Why shouldn’t I be a slave to that monster? Morality = Happiness Political theory Society - Similar to soul of individual. - Individual needs state to be able to lead a good life and a good state needs good individuals.  - Plato views the state as an organism—different parts have rightful place and cannot function independently. - Functional state is organised around a division of labour. - Critical of democracy. - Politics = science and should be practised by experts – philosopher kings - Good society only possible if leaders govern according to philosophical reason (knowledge of the Forms and the Good) How Plato believe society should be arranged: Different leaders can all be put in one of these categories. Philosopher kings (could be queens, gender doesn’t matter) - Leaders need to know what the Good and Vorm of good state entail. - Philosophers = most skilled in use of reason. - Meritocracy – nature determines position in society. - Producers have most freedom - Lives of Auxiliaries and Guardians highly regulated. State fails if: - Leaders love honour or ambition. - Leaders desire wealth. - People put their own desires ahead of the interests of society. - In failed states people become slaves to baser passions. - Plato believes this happens in democracies because all desires are treated as equal. Tuesday, 13-08-2024 Cosmology - His ideas of where the universe comes from and how it works. - Timaeus (He calls his cosmology a ‘likely story’). - “Everything that exists must be made/caused by something” - Because the universe is so complex, something intelligent must have made it. - Supreme cause = “god”/Demiurge (Craftsman) (dêmiourgos) - Creates universe out of pre-existing material called receptacle - … In accordance with the Forms (“Blueprint”) - Gives the universe its purposeful nature (teleological explanation) - Universe has also has a ‘soul’(universe is like an organism) - It is the soul that continues creation - the demiurge is not part of the picture after the first creation. - Mediates between the Demiurge and the universe; continues with the process of creation. Evil / imperfection - Result of a permanent, irrational element in the universe – blind chance - This force of chaos is called “Necessity” → is cause for imperfection and evil. - Makes it difficult for us to understand the universe Change → Result of struggle between order in the Realm of Ideas and “necessity” Plato's Influence on the world - Establishes almost all philosophical questions. - Religious influence – Christianity, Judaism & Islam - Body-soul dualism and forms the dominant conception of the soul (reason most important)  - Establishes the idea of inherent knowledge. - Psychological – warring parts - Objective standards: morality and public life. - Education – public benefit. Thursday, 15-08-2024 Aristotle – 384 - 322 BCE - The first systematic scientist - Student of Plato - Addresses shortcomings in Plato’s work - Starts biological study as model for his philosophy (whereas Plato used mathematics) Plato (the older guy) points upwards - he believed in the forms etc. Aristotle points downward - regarded the actual world, what you could see, touch etc. (kind of) Difference between Plato and Aristotle - Mathematics as model: focus on perfect, ideal entities that can be understood by reason – make inferences about concrete things (e.g. circles) - Biology as model: focus on concrete entities that are experienced through senses—make inferences about universal characteristics, principles and laws. - Start by studying particulars (x Plato) - E.g. Plato describes the perfect state, while Aristotle studies 158 states, systematically orders them and explains which ones work the best in which circumstances. - Aristotle then deduces fundamental truths (essences), from which new knowledge can be deduced. - Hence, science for Aristotle = complete, deductive system. Epistemology Deduction - if the premises are true the conclusion must also be true. A way of creating arguments. Experience - Plato was a rationalist - a person who believed that true knowledge comes from reason. - Aristotle says the opposite - that all knowledge come from our senses, our experience in the world. - Wants to understand the world—essential to human beings (“All human beings by nature desire to know”) - Source of all knowledge = senses (empiricism) - ‘Correct method’ – turn sensory experience into true knowledge - Method = rational discourse (“science” Aristotle ‘invented’ modern science) Knowledge - when we know how things are. Wisdom - when you understand why they are the way they are (= the ultimate causes and principles governing things). This is what Aristotle focuses on (in contrast to what we see science as today). Differs from Plato - Plato – we cannot have scientific knowledge of particulars because they are always changing, hence he studies universals. - Aristotle – we can only start with particulars and then deduce universals (fundamental truths) - Science goes beyond particulars by showing how particulars follow from fundamental truths. Illustration of scientific knowledge - Artist: interested in superficial characteristics of particular tree (colour, texture, etc.) – cannot be generalised to universal truths. - Gardener: more knowledge, knows how to encourage growth in tree, etc. (knows what works, but doesn’t know why). - Scientists: not interested in specific tree, but in its universal, essential characteristics – what is a tree, what makes it grow and why? → Hence, distinguishes between essential as opposed to accidental characteristics. - Applied to human beings: accidental characteristics: characteristics that can change without affecting my 'humanness' e.g. skin colour, limbs, senses. - Essential characteristics: characteristics that cannot be changed without changing my humanness (more difficult to determine), e.g. reason (?), soul (?), social bonds (?), mortality? Science for Aristotle - Inquires into the universal nature (essential characteristics) of things and finds the necessary connections between them. - = knowledge of the ultimate principles from which particular facts can be derived. - Like geometry = consists of necessary truths demonstrated from self-evident axioms and definitions. - Deductive (In the 18th century, Hume will show that this is impossible). - Problem with the deductive theory: - Your premises must be true. - Aristotle found the premises based upon experience, which is very limited → high risk of it not being true. - Science in its basic form is not deductive. Basic assumption Aristotle is what we call a realist - believes there is a one-to-one correspondence between what we experience in the world and what is real. Anti-realist - language and what we say create what is real. They would not be real without us experiencing them. - The structure of our language and thought mirror the world as it is. - He wants to establish what this structure entails. - Firstly determines the categories that the world is divided into (e.g. substance, quantity, quality, relation, time, position, state, action, passivity). - Substances – most basic entities; the other nine categories are predicates that can apply to them (or they exits in substances). Substance - = individual entities like Socrates, dog, table, Earth (ask: What is it?) → Is the lokus of many other different properties and activities - Can ask: What is Sokrates like? What is he doing? Answers: “S is bald”, “S is talking” - Only substances exist independently – the other categories only exist in substances. - Hence, is interested in the essential characteristics of substances. Goal - Wants to establish fundamental principles underlying reality (partly in terms of essential characteristics) - And then wants to deduce specific, universal facts. - → Needs an effective method for conducting one’s reason. Monday, 19-08-2024 Aristotle invents logic - List of facts are not yet knowledge – we need to apply theory to the facts by means of reason and the correct method - Method must guarantee that true information must always lead to true new information. - = Rules of reason = logic (only modified in the late 19th century). - Logic – the way in which we think about the relationships between the categories. - We can say four things about the relations between two categories, e.g. 1) All students are smart; 2) No students are smart; 3) Some students are smart; 4) Some students are not smart. - Such statements can be combined to form arguments—use a set of statements (premises) to provide reasons for believing in another statement (conclusion). - Known for syllogism. Syllogism - the most basic argument structure Was invented by Aristotle. - Premise: All people are mortal - Premise: Socrates is a person Conclusion: Socrates is mortal Structure must be valid - Identifies different valid structures - = know that these syllogisms deliver true new information (if the premises are true) First principles? - But, not all knowledge can be deduced—we have to start somewhere (with necessarily true premisses) - = First premises from which we can deduce knowledge – formed by means of induction (rejects Plato’s inherent knowledge) - Induction = with experience, we systematically become award of the universal characteristics of the world (universals) - How do we know first principles are right? - E.g. 2 +2 = 4; “All metals expand when heated”; “All mammals are warm-blooded and nurse their young”  - 1) Intuition (we simply ‘see’ them) (recognition); 2) the laws of logic Intuition Experience → Universal characteristics → Universals (eg dog, iPhone) → Generalisation to fundamental universals (substance, relation, etc.) → First principles. Problem of Induction (Hume-18th century) - P: The swan is white → this is repeated many many times → C: All swans are white. But all swans are not white - our experience is limited and therefore not necessarily true. Laws of logic 1. Law of non-contradiction 2. Law of the excluded middle 3. Law of identity First principles + logical laws = certain knowledge Was he right? - Unclear - Recent attempts to teach computers in this way have been unsuccessful; experiments show that people probably have inherent cognitive structures. - Language does not simply reflect reality; it partly also creates our reality (e.g. complex concepts such as “justice” and values such as “moral”/”immoral”). - In the end, much of Aristotle’s science was disproven (2000 years later). Tuesday, 20-08-2024 Metaphysics Criticises Plato’s Forms - Useless – double the amount of things that need explaining. - Still doesn’t explain why and how things that we experience change (and it is important to understand change so that we can understand the world). - Cannot be the essence of things - separate, they are in a completely different world. - Unclear how relate to Forms (“participate”?). - What in the particular corresponds to Form? - Third man argument. - The Forms cannot be the ultimate explanation of the world - they themselves need explanation.  - The Forms must have the same characteristics as the items which resemble it. The Form of a pen must also be a pen. → There must be another Form which accounts for the Form of pen since this form is just another example of a pen → endless chain. Plato's Forms (capital F) - Aristotle's forms (lower case f) Aristotle’s Universals (forms) - Still believes in universals. - Still objective. - Still the essence of things. - Make knowledge and language possible. - Can only understand reality through universals (forms). Aristotle’s answer - Forms are not transcendent, but immanent. - Can only cause and explain things if part of things. Only one reality (substance) - Collection of substances that we experience = fundamental units of reality. - Other properties in the world (bald, cold, black) cannot exist independently from substances. - Can only understand reality if we understand substances. - Must understand two things: 1) What it is, and 2) what makes it unique. - Thus, 1) What? = number of characteristics that allows us to identify something (E.g. bald, pot-bellied, rational, Greek and a philosopher = Socrates) - But other people/things share these characteristics. What makes Socrates unique? - 2) Uniqueness = The specific piece of matter that exists at a specific time and place (“Thisness”) - Individual substance – unique collection of properties (forms) and specific piece of matter. Substance - the most important out of 10 categories The other 9 categories are things we can tie to substances This is what substance looks like. It has matter, which gives it individuality - makes it a thing, and form which gives it identity - specifies what thing it is. - Form - = Essence of something. - Related to function - eg coffee cup. - Thus does not simply refer to physical form (e.g. story vs. legal document). - Related to function (can entail more than one characteristic) - In living things form = soul - Can be better or worse at fulfilling it – allows us to understand things and - also to judge them (including human beings). - Matter - Can take on different forms (potential). All substances have the potential to change form - to change into something else. - E.g. from bookcase to firewood. You can also take a water bottle, put flowers in it and it becomes a vase - the identity of the object (the form) has changed. - Substance indivisible – cannot separate form and matter. - Criticism: What about abstract concepts such as justice, laws and ‘right’ and ‘wrong’? - Aristotle says that abstract entities also have form and matter (e.g. Justice = category/form + specific instance in world ("Matter") Problems of change - Plato’s explanation insufficient – only metaphysical, but not specific. - A explains possibility of change by means of ‘potentiality’ and ‘actuality’. - We don’t understand the world if we don’t understand how and why it changes. Potentiality and actuality - Acorn as example – we do not understand acorns if we only focus on form. - Form = actuality = acorn. - Matter = potentiality = oak.  - Part of the identity of objects are the forms that they can take up. - Explains why chicken eggs only hatch chickens. Also explains why humans develop the way in which they do (baby, toddler, teenager, adult). Thursday, 22-08-2024 But what causes change? - 4 causes: Material, Efficient, Formal, Final. - Material cause - Matter something is made of (e.g. bronze) - Efficient cause - origin of process that forms object (e.g. sculptor) - Formal cause - essence/form of object (e.g. sculpture that sculptor has in mind) - Final cause - goal of object (e.g. to be a likeness of someone) Broader conception of ‘cause’ - Explains why things are the way they are and do what they do. - = Different aspects that explain the existence of anything. Everything strives towards excellence – goal/final cause - When potensiality is reached – achieves excellence Teleology - Everything in cosmos has goal-oriented structure. - “Telos” = goal - Explains the dynamics of the cosmos. Entelechy - End stage of the process of teleology - when something achieves the ultimate goal. - Full actualisation of an object’s potentiality. - But where does telos come from? Origin of telos and change? - Argues - Matter has potential but is motionless - Cosmos not created (infinite) - Where does motion/telos come from? - There must be a final cause. - But cannot move itself (otherwise something must cause the motion and sustain it) Monday, 26-08-2024 Unmoved mover - What is it? - Infinite process – everything strives to be like the unmoved mover. - Causes cosmos to move; origin of teleology. - Unmoved mover – pure actuality (entails rational thought) - Cannot move (final cause), hence pure actuality. - Causes movement in that everything strives towards it (strive for actuality) (cannot be an efficient cause) - Thus, the final cause – source of teleology in the world - Can not be affected by anything else (does not “know” that the world exists) - Is eternal!! Not ‘God’ - Is referred to as ‘God’ but not personal anthropomorphic divinity. - Highest reality/pure actuality – highest form of rational thought (the most valuable sort of activity) - “God” cannot think about particulars – otherwise it is influenced by the world. - We are the particulars. “God” cannot think about/care about us because that would change “God”. It would influence what happened. - Thinks of itself! Influence - Neoplatonists - Islamic philosophers (especially Ibn Rushd) - Thomas Aquinas (13th century) - Will reconcile Unmoved Mover and Christian God. Ethics Balance - Nicomachean Ethics – first systematic work on ethics. - Objective knowledge – science of correct conduct. - Leads us to our goal – human excellence (finally eudaimonia) - Does not deviate much from existing Greek ethics (“common sense”) – has certain disadvantages. - Formulates the ethical principles that we need to apply. - But less radical than Plato. - Human beings and circumstances are too complex. - Ethics more of an art than a science—focus on character rather than rules. Argument - Like all actions in the cosmos, our aimed at goal (teleological) - Ultimately – final goal – desire for own sake = eudaimonia What does eudaimonia entail? Eudamonia - Translates as ‘happiness’ / ‘well-being’ / ‘to flourish’ → Is the final cause of human action. This is the final stage, what we strive towards. - Different opinions about happiness = wrong - Function of object = true nature (essence/form) = excellence - → Applies to human beings. How do we reach eudamonia? - We need a basic level of pleasure, friends, health and a basic income. - But our overall goal is to fulfil our nature. Our unique nature / function? → Essence given to us by nature = reason, applied to our lives. - We are also beings who feel, desire and act. - Hence, must use reason to determine right life principles and subject desires, etc. - Need 2 things: intellectual virtue (excellence of intelligence) and moral virtue (excellence of character). - Intellectual virtue - 1. Philosophical wisdom: theoretical knowledge of reality - 2. Practical wisdom: Rational understanding; how to act - Can be taught! - Moral virtue - State of character: ability to balance our emotions and desires - Must be “practised” - = Choose mean Virtue (or human excellence) is: “a state of character concerned with choice, lying in the mean, i.e. relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle by which the man of practical wisdom would determine it.” (NE 2.6) The mean - Rationally determined - Relative to our situation - The action that lies in between two extremes. Moderation = rational - Some actions are inherently evil and do not fall within this scheme (e.g. cruelty, envy, adultery, murder, theft) - Furthermore, the mean will not be exactly the same thing for everyone (e.g. “courage” for small boy as opposed to a soldier) Practical wisdom - How do we know what is right/rational in specific circumstances? - Practical reason – reason correctly on how to achieve goals in our particular circumstances. - Based on experience Rationality - Thus, our teleology is to be rational. - Reason (philosophical and practical) + good character based on practise = virtue (excellence) - Leads to the Good Life (eudaimonia) Influence Worldview - Metaphysics dominant for 2300 years. - Influenced Christianity, Islam and Judaism. - Ibn Rushd/Averroes: “Culmination of human intellect”.  - Established and dominated science until 17th century. - Ethical theory is still influential (virtue ethics). - Established and dominated logic (until 19th cent) and is still influential Established and dominated literary theory! Tuesday, 27-08-2024 Post-Aristotelian Philosophy Greek timeline - 2900 BC – 2900-2000 BC: The Bronze Age when Early Aegean cultures start to emerge - 1200 BC – The Trojan War and the destruction of Troy (Ilium) - 500 BC – 500-323 BC - The Greek Classical Period - 505 BC – Cleisthenes introduces democracy in Athens - 461 BC – 461-446 BC: The Peloponnesian Wars begins between Sparta and Athens - 431 BC – Second of the Peloponnesian Wars between Sparta and Athens - 399 BC – Socrates is executed - 386 BC – Plato founds the Academy - 384 BC – Aristotle is born - 359 BC – Philip II becomes the king of the Greeks - 356 BC – Alexander the Great, son of King Philip II, is born - 333 BC – Alexander the Great defeats the Persians at Issus and is given Egypt by the Persian Satrap whe - 323 BC – Alexander the Great dies at Babylon - 323 BC – 323 -31 BC: The Hellenistic Period - 200 BC – 200 - 196 BC: First Roman victory over Greece - 86 BC – The Roman General Sulla captures Athens - 33 AD – Crucifixion of Jesus and the origin of Christianity Background - Hellenic period ends with death of Alexander the Great 323 BCE. - Hellenistic (Quasi-Greek) period follows (Greek culture mixes with that of Egypt and the Near East). - Roman period follows (from 31 BCE); adopts Greek philosophy. - Very little development – practical, individualistic approach to philosophy (ataraxia - tranquility) Periods in classical philosophy - Cosmological - characteristics of nature/reality, 585-5th cent BCE - Anthropological - human-centred issues, 5th cent - 399 BCE - Systematic - comprehensive philosophical system, 399-322 BCE  - Post-Aristotelian - individualistic / practical Philosophical schools - Cynicism - Epicureanism - Stoicism - Scepticism Roman Empire Plotinus and Neoplatonism Plotinus 205-270 CE - Last vestiges of Greek thought in Roman Empire - Later integrated into new religion - Christianity New world view - Tumultuous period (“The Age of Anxiety”) - Greek ‘good life’ not enough (attainable?); need hope for a better life - Find it in mystical revival of Plato (also other “salvation cults”) Neoplatonism - A philosophical religion - Plotinus: Egyptian; studied philosophy in Alexandria - Here Greek culture and Eastern mysticism mix (influences from Egypt, India, and Persia) - Plotinus opens school in Rome – influential philosophy-religion (boundaries blur in this period) - Also elements of Pythagoras, Aristotle and Stoicism. - Also influenced by Judaism. - Beginning of the synthesis of Plato (and elements of Aristotle) with Christian and Islamic thought - Develops into a fully fledged religion. - With its own complete worldview, including a cosmology. - Later St Augustine would use it in his Christian theological work - One of the main reasons why Plato was preserved for us Plato’s influence on Neoplatonism Cosmology - Timaeus (He calls his cosmology a ‘likely story’) - His most influential work—Influenced Jewish, Christian and Islamic scholars through the centuries. - Develops and "intelligent design" theory of the origin of the universe. - Supreme cause = “god”/Demiurge (Craftsman) (dêmiourgos) - Creates universe out of pre-existing material (Receptacle) - In accordance with the Forms (“Blueprint”) - Universe has also has a ‘soul’ - Gives the universe its purposeful nature (teleological explanation) - Mediates between the Demiurge and the Realm of Ideas on the one hand, and the material world on the other; continues with the process of creation. Necessity - Result of a permanent, irrational element in the universe – blind chance - As a result of the nature of matter - Necessity = irrationality in the universe - Three implications: 1. It was impossible for the Demiurge to create a perfect universe. 2. Explains why we cannot understand the universe, despite our rational faculties. 3. It explains why there is evil in the world, despite the fact that the Demiurge is good. Adapts Plato’s cosmology - The four main entities in the universe according to Neoplatonism ↓ The One (from ”The Good” in the Republic) - Highest being because it has the most unity (is the most real entity) (Like Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover") - Transcendent – unthinkable, unknowable, cannot understand it (has no properties – does not even think) - Source of everything – world necessarily flows from it (uses Plato's metaphor of the sun) - Also called “God”, “the Good”, “First Existent”, “Infinite, the Father” ↓ The Intellect (Nous) - The Intellect (Nous, Divine Mind, Spirit) first emanation from the 'sun' (Like Plato's Demiurge). - Indivisible, but contains/knows Platonic forms.  - Not only forms of universals, but also of individuals (each person). - Thus, every individual has eternal value for the Nous. ↓ The Soul - Flows from Intellect – also eternal and non-physical (like Plato's world soul). - Mediates between Intellect/spiritual world and sensible world – replicates Forms in world. - Principle of life, growth, order and movement in world – identified with Nature. - Generates the physical, sensible world – corresponds to the forms. - Individual human souls are part of World Soul. - Higher element belongs to the realm of the Intellect; lower element belongs to the body. - Must rise above the material by means of philosophical study in order to be reunited with the world soul and finally with the One. ↓ The Material world - Trinity of One, Intellect and Soul form primary reality (like Plato’s realm of Ideas). - Soul generates matter, but is dim copy of Reality – matter corrupts (like Plato’s sensible world). - Leads to the problem of evil. The Problem of Evil - Evil – difficult to explain if the world, source/creator of it is seen as good in itself. - Plotinus’ answer: Matter – source of evil (Plato's explanation for the imperfection of the physical realm) BUT matter also created. - Why did the One not create it without evil? 1. Material world is furthest from the source of the good (The One) but still shares in that goodness – hence, “best kind of world” (with “degrees” of goodness). 2. World – as much goodness as possible in a material realm = only the One is perfect (The One cannot be blamed for evil). 3. The One (‘God’) uses bad parts for good ends unintelligible to us. 4. Soul not meant to be in body (fell to earth accidently as a result of our own willfulness). Significance - Very influential for further 3½ centuries—taught throughout the Roman Empire. - Formed thought of Christian philosophers during Middle Ages (Origen, Augustine, Boethius) and Islamic philosophers (Avicenna) - Origen = orders Holy Trinity into a hierarchy and speaks of the “fall of man” due to sin.  - St. Augustine based his philosophy on Plotinus—in this way Plato is absorbed into Christian thought. - Avicenna (Ibn Sina)—The world necessarily emanates from God out of necessity and he was not free in creating it. Hence the world is also necessary and eternal. Neoplatonism - Islamic Philosophers (after 800 CE) - Mistakenly think that works by Plotinus and Proclus are by Aristotle - Influences their metaphysics (e.g. Ibn Sina/Avicenna) Pseudo-Dionysius - 500 CE book by “Dionysius” appears, apparently one of the Apostle Paul’s followers - Actually written by a 6th century Neoplatonist (hence, now called “Pseudo-Dionysius”) - However, influences Medieval theologian who did not know it was a forgery – another important source of Neoplatonism in Christian and Muslim thought. - Justinian closes all pagan schools of philosophy in Athens. - Greek philosophy persists in Church doctrine and in the Eastern parts of the former Roman Empire. Thursday, 29-08-2024 Mediaeval Philosophy “Here is a recipe for producing medieval philosophy: Combine classical pagan philosophy, mainly Greek but also in its Roman versions, with the new Christian religion. Season with a variety of flavourings from the Jewish and Islamic intellectual heritages. Stir and simmer for 1300 years or more, until done” Paul Vincent, SEP. Context: Development of Christian Thought - Overlaps with fall of Roman Empire and GrecoRoman philosophy. - Develops from Judaism (± 2000 BCE) – very different from Greco-Roman tradition. Differences Greek and Judeo-Christian (and Islamic) religions - Greek polytheistic ←→ J+C-monotheistic - Greek gods not omnipotent ←→ J+C-God omnipotent - Greek impersonal 1st principle ←→ J+C-personal God - Greek thought ←→ J+C-revelation - Greek Logos (order in the universe) ←→ J+C- understand history in terms of sin, grace, salvation, eternal life (Bible: Logos = God)  - Greek philosophical speculation with truth as its aim ←→ J+C-personal salvation as aim - Christian religion penetrates Roman upper classes by 2nd cent. – intellectual interest - They were schooled in Greek thought = leads to apologetics (defense) - Wanted to make their belief intellectually respectable and also expand and evangelise. - Also uses Greek thought to make Christianity conceptually consistent and create a systematic world view. - And to fight heresy (many alternative versions of Christian teaching during this time) Problem of faith and reason - Judaism = faith - Greeks = reason - Christianity = ? Problem - 2 sources of information: reason and revelation - Question: Christianity reasonable? → What if they come to conflicting conclusions? Faith and reason? - There are also similarities between Greek and Christian thought, which makes it attractive to supplement the Christian worldview. - But also important differences. Similarities - Socrates & Plato = soul immortal + moral development important. - Soul more important than the body. - Aristotle provides argument for existence of God and holds that everything has a goal. Differences - Individuals obtain fulfilment from thinking logically rather than salvation. - Plato believed in reincarnation. - Aristotle’s system does not allow for individual immortality. - Greek “divinities” = impersonal → Early Christian thinkers try to resolve this problem. E.g. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. Countering heresy - Gnosticism: Mixture of Babylonian astrology, Egyptian cults, Persian religion, Neopythagorianism, Stoicism, Judaism, and Christianity. - See the God of the Old Testament as an evil God (“Demiurge”) who is a rival to the God of Light. - Creates a dark and evil kingdom and creates man to capture portions of the divine spirit--foiled by Christ. - Manichean heresy: Established by an Iranian prophet, Mani; (Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus and Mani were its prophets) - God of Darkness and God of Light locked in battle for eternity = metaphysical dualism. - Explains why there is evil in the world. - Matter is evil and must be overcome with asceticism. Conceptually consistent: Clarifying orthodoxy - 4th century – nature of God—How is the Trinity possible? - Possible contradiction: one God, but also Trinity (three divine persons -- Father, Son, Holy Spirit) - Athanasius – all three share in same divine substance; Arius – separate entities (both use Greek philosophical categories, e.g. “substance”) - Constantine assembles council of Bishops in 325 in Nicea; vote for Athanasius = the Nicene creed. - 5th century – free will and sin - Pelagius questions the doctrine of original sin (comes from Irenaeus in 2nd century and St. Augustine) - As a result of Adam human beings are inherently sinful and can only be saved by God’s grace. - Problem: Why should we be moral if salvation is only obtainable through the grace of God? Where does moral responsibility fit into the picture? (see Augustine) A Christian-Philosophical Synthesis - Philosophers (theologians) during Middle Ages try to answer these questions. - And also develop a comprehensive epistemology, metaphysics, cosmology and ethics. - Initially, largely uses Plato and Neoplatonism; later, Aristotle. Monday, 02-09-2024 Fill in… Tuesday, 03-09-2024 Early mediaeval philosophy Background - Middle Ages: ± 476-1500 - Early Middle Ages (Dark Ages) until ±1000 – politically unstable - Western Roman Empire falls 476 CE The Church - Only institution that survives in the West. - Only universal institution (in former Roman Empire) - Structured like monarchy (Pope reigns) - Takes over functions of civil government. - Most important: Education (limited to clergy) - Otherwise: “Dark Ages” Elsewhere in Europe and Middle East - Byzantine Empire does not decline. (eastern europe, orthodox christianity) - Islamic Empires are established. (middle east, Islam) Byzantine Empire - Inherit centres of learning: Athens and Alexandria. - But Christians persecute ‘pagans’ and their thought (such as Ancient Greek Philosophy) (e.g. Hypatia) - Scholars manage to preserve texts of Plato, Aristotle and Neoplatonism Works available - Plato: Timaeus - Aristotle: Logic and the introduction to the Categories (actually written by Neoplatonist Porphyry). - A few dialogues by Cicero, essays by Seneca and Lucretius’ poem, De rerum natura Islamic Empires (8th century) - Eastern part of former Roman Empire – Christian Schools and sects preserved and translated Ancient Greek texts - Areas become Muslim (from 7th century) - ±800 – Muslim scholars translate Greek philosophy to Arabic and write commentaries. - While western europe had their dark age this empire had a golden age - advanced technology, and knowledge in general. Islamic Philosophers - Avicenna (Ibn Sina), 980-1037 - Al-Ghazali, 1058-1111  - Averroës (Ibn Rushd), 1126-1198 - Want to reconcile Aristotle with Qur’an. - Also influenced by Neoplatonism (thought it was the work of Aristotle) - Led to Neoplatonic interpretation of Aristotle - Also tried to reconcile faith and reason. Avicenna (Ibn Sina), 980-1037 - Persian; physician and government official. - Writes 160 influential books; also about Aristotle. - Uses Aristotle’s first Arabic translator, Al-Farabi’s, interpretation as template. - Aristotle’s metaphysics adapted to Islamic worldview. - God exists because existence is part of his essence (actualized). - Also, everything else must have a cause = God (only necessary being). - Influences Maimonides (Jewish thinker) and Thomas Aquinas. - Controversial: Neoplatonic idea that God had to create the universe necessarily - World necessarily emanates from God and is eternal = God creates it eternally Al-Ghazali, 1058-1111 - Persian = antagonistic towards philosophy - “The incoherence of the Philosophers” - Uses logic to show that philosophers contradict the Qur'an, each other and themselves. - Logic useful but cannot say anything about metaphysics. - Public should not have access to philosophy. - E.g. Avicenna does not allow for miracles (necessary order to the universe). - Al-Ghazali argues that there is no logical connection between cause and effect. - No logical necessity between events - God can make anything happen. - Hence, miracles are possible for God. Averroës (Ibn Rushd), 1126-1198 - From Spain - Judge, doctor, astronomer, philosopher - “The Destruction of the Destruction”  - “The Commentator” - one of the most important commentators on Aristotle’s work. - Reconciles Aristotle and Qur’an. - “Truth cannot conflict with truth” - Aristotle- culmination of human intellect. - Theologians = metaphorical truth; philosophers = literal truth - same truth. - Can use the world + Aristotle to prove God’s existence and demonstrate his nature, e.g. “Unmoved mover” argument - Philosophical conclusions may appear as if they contradict the Qur'an, but the difference is only superficial - Also, determinism. - World is eternal - No personal immortality - Implication was that philosophy ultimately determines truth. - Very influential in Christian west. - But in Spain his books were burned. Thursday, 05-09-2024 High and Late mediaeval philosophy Aristotle “rediscovered" - Contact between Christian and Muslim worlds (crusades) – Ancient Greek knowledge again available in West. - 1210-1225 – Aristotle’s works translated from Arabic to Latin - sensation. Preservation of Aristotle - Christian West only had fragments of Plato and Aristotle. - Thanks to Islamic philosophers that works were later reintroduced to West, with their commentary → leads to Scholasticism. - First banned from curriculum (e.g. Paris) - Later central 11th and 12th centuries - 1000 CE cultural and social revival in Europe. - Most important cultural development: universities – revival in knowledge. - Brought scholars together and developed new knowledge. Scholasticism - Scholars who devoted their academics to reconcile faith and reason. - Intellectual project: integrate faith and reason. - Theology was the “Queen of the Sciences” and philosophy was her handmaiden. St. Thomas of Aquino - 1225 - 1274 - Official philosopher of the Roman Catholic Church - Also, significant influence on Protestants Defender of Aristotle - Aristotle's – intellectually attractive, but contradicts doctrine = Aquinas develops a synthesis. - Platonic Christianity did not keep pace with cultural change in 13th century. - Need doctrine that also speaks to involvement in culture, politics, science and bodily existence. - Aquinas uses Aristotle to this end. - Faith and reason entail two realms of knowledge. 1. truth known through revelation; 2. truth known through reason. - Aquino - faith in human intellect. Complementary Role of Aristotle - There are theological questions that reason cannot address: E.g. Trinity, original sin, creation of the world (truth through revelation). - And philosophical questions that only reason can answer (e.g. how the heart works)—uses Aristotle. - And theological questions that reason can answer: The existence of God; his essential characteristics the existence of the soul; immortality. - Where they overlap, both methods will reach the same answer. Aristotle - Aquinas develops a metaphysics in terms of actuality and potentiality. - World consists of substances. - Prime matter = potentiality; God = actuality - Everything else = degrees of actuality "Great chain of being" God - Uses arguments of Aristotle and Jewish and Islamic commentators on him to try and prove the existence of God through reason. - "Unmoved mover" (pure actuality), but, among other things, adds Plato's creationist argument that the first cause must be an intelligent being. Moral philosophy - Christian adaptation of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. - Teleological – everything in nature happens because it is aimed at a given end/telos (actuality). - Everything has one essence/function that determines its telos. - Makes value judgements possible. - What is morally good corresponds with our natural (God-given) end. - Can determine this through attending to “natural law”. - Ultimate end goal of our actions – acquaintance with God – afterlife (= perfect happiness) The synthesis unravels (1300-1500) - The Church loses power and authority. - Secular kingdoms form. - Aristotle undermines aspects of Christian doctrine. - Dissension within the church and more wealth in Europe lead to new political powers outside of the church. - The rediscovery of Aristotle led to the idea that the state is a natural entity and does not need the backing of the Church. - The Medieval hierarchy and unity started to crumble. - Within philosophy the unity that Aquinas established between faith and reason also started to crumble. - Begin to question Scholasticism. - Think philosophy does not benefit theology. - = God cannot be understood or explained through reason. William of Ockham 1. Omnipotence means God does not need to keep to logical necessities. 2. Purely empiricist – “Ockham’s razor” (explain using the least number of principles possible) - Thus, we should not try to explain the world in terms of what underlies it or lies beyond it. - Cannot experience it; reason doesn’t help. - Critique of Aristotle's science; but also Aquinas Scholasticism. - = Radical distinction between faith and reason. - We do not experience God and can explain the world independently of him. - We cannot know anything about God and cannot prove his existence. - We can only have faith in his existence. Influence - Unravels Medieval synthesis between faith and reason. - Here the split between philosophy and theology starts (the process that the Ancient Greeks started with) - Opens the way for independent science as we know it today. - Influences Reformation. Monday, 16-09-2024 Admin info: - Tuts start in week 3 since Tuesday next week is heritage day - no class. - A2 is friday 8 Nov What is Morality? - Moral philosophy is the study of what morality is and what it requires of us. - Two parts: the factual (what is morality) and what it requires from us. - Normative ground - “How we ought to live” and WHY - Contemporary ethical theories - What makes something right or wrong? - Are you a moral person? The problem of definition - Moral philosophy is the study of what morality is and what it requires of us - But what is morality (moral)? Examples of moral issues “Baby Teresa” – anencephaly - Arguments and principles involved: - “Yes” – The Benefits Argument - (1)If we can benefit someone without harming anyone else, we ought to do so. (2)Transplanting the organs would benefit the other children without harming Baby Theresa. (3)Therefore, we ought to transplant the organs. - Argument sound? - An argument is sound if its assumptions are true and the conclusion follows logically from them - “No” – B. The Argument That We Should Not Use People as Means - P1 - It is wrong to use people as means to other people’s ends. - P2 - Taking Theresa’s organs would be using her to benefit the other children - → C - Therefore, it should not be done. - “No” – C. The Argument from the Wrongness of Killing.  - P1 - It is wrong to kill one person to save another. - P2 - Taking Theresa’s organs would be killing her to save others. - → C - Therefore, taking the organs would be wrong. - Donate organs before death? Jodie and Mary - The argument that we should save as many as we can vs. The argument from the sanctity of human life. - Conjoined twins. If there is no operation to separate them they both will die within 6 months. If operated upon only the stronger one will die. The parents said no, they don’t want to do the operation but rather let nature take its course. The hospital and the doctors were upset and took the case to court, where the court ruled that the operation had to happen. Tracy Latimer - The argument from the wrongness of discriminating against the disabled AND the slippery slope argument vs. Argument for ending suffering. - Twelve year old who had a disease that caused her to have severe pain that couldn’t be cured AND had the mental state of a 3 months old - so she couldn’t articulate how much pain she was in NOR could she tell anyone her wishes. The doctor decided to let her die and was sentenced for murder. Tuesday, 17-09-2024 The problem of definition, continued - “Minimum conception of morality” - …is a core that every moral theory should accept, at least as a starting point. What have we learned so far about morality? - Moral judgements must be backed by good reasons - Morality requires us to be impartial Moral reasoning - Need to be addressed through reason - Why is reasoning so important? - The morally right thing to do is always the thing best supported by the arguments - This is how moral issues differ from issues of personal taste. 1. Facts of the specific case - Problems: lack of information; complexity; human prejudice (confirmation bias) 2. Moral principles - We must ask whether the principles are justified and being applied correctly: there are good and bad arguments and we need to distinguish between them  - How? (Logic!) 3. Requirement of impartiality - We must treat everyone alike: no one gets special treatment - Characteristics of particular individuals are considered only if are relevant (if there are good reasons for treating them differently) - Question: Are there any situations in which morality requires us to be partial? Emotion? - Moral issues evoke strong emotions, but our emotions can be irrational (products of selfishness, prejudice, or cultural conditioning) - People’s feelings also vary