Philo 108 Notes (LE 1) PDF

PHILO 108 INTRO-MODULE 1 AGE OF METAPHYSICS (LONG EXAM 1) Three Concepts of Philosophy - Armando F. Bonifacio - Each person has a philosophy of their own–affects his mode of relating or dealing with environment - We have our own internalized fundamental values and rules of life tha...

PHILO 108 INTRO-MODULE 1 AGE OF METAPHYSICS (LONG EXAM 1) Three Concepts of Philosophy - Armando F. Bonifacio - Each person has a philosophy of their own–affects his mode of relating or dealing with environment - We have our own internalized fundamental values and rules of life that influence decisions, beliefs, etc. - Some values we have come into play of our judgments - Metaphysical (metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality) and epistemological (the theory of knowledge) notions–determine real from the unreal - underlying ethical, metaphysical and epistemological notions make up an individual’s personal philosophy - philosophy does not, as a rule, surface to the person’s consciousness, but just the same, it provides shape and directions to his beliefs, actions and expectations. - Analysis - engage in reconstruction of another/reflection finds broader meaning (proper perspective) - The true philosophers are those who can go beyond the confines of a particular discipline. THREE CONCEPTS OF PHILOSOPHY 1. fundamental beliefs, assumptions, and values ➔ Metaphysical: Beliefs about reality (e.g. We are just brains in a vat and the world as we know it is just an illusion.) ➔ Epistemological: Assumptions about the nature knowledge (e.g. True knowledge is whatever is scientifically verifiable) ➔ Ethical: Moral values that govern how we live and treat other people (e.g. All people are inherently equal) 2. systematic activity of analyzing the foundations of the ^^ - Analyze (examine in detail the structure of something to be able to explain or interpret it) 3. development of a systematic treatise and comprehensive view of the universe - Organize knowledge about universal truths and principles Philosophy (Problem-Oriented Approach) 1. General (for all truths; against specificity) 2. Fundamental (big or central questions at the core of the fields) 3. Abstract (contrasted against concreteness 4. Controversial (philosophy is speculative; does not provide final answers) Conceptual analysis also involves making distinctions, drawing logical connections, synthesizing related concepts, improving our understanding of concepts, etc. AGE OF METAPHYSICS (“What is the nature of ultimate reality?”) Classical Greek Times Early World View: no defined boundaries between different fields of knowledge, Early civilizations combined natural explanations of phenomena with supernatural ones. Conclusions should not be based on authority, faith, or myth-making, but on careful reasoning and logical argument. - Pre-Socratics: ultimate reality is made of matter - Plato: ultimate reality exists in the realm of forms - Aristotle: ultimate reality consists of both matter and form - Medieval philosophers: rational methods employed with tools of faith and divine revelation to understand nature of ultimate reality (God’s reality) First philosophers view: material kind as the first principles of all things Material Monists: explained the nature of reality by rejecting supernatural explanations of the world in favor of material ones (hoi physikoi); predict patterns of nature through understanding the material it’s made of (primordial matter) PRE-SOCRATICS: Early Ionian Philosophers 1. Thales of Miletus (earth is superimposed upon water; flat floating disc) - Everything is composed of water; due to observance of all things having moist or with the heat being generated by moist; moist keeps things alive (principle of all things) and water is the origin of moist - Things as varying forms of one primary and ultimate element (water) - Another concept: all things are full of gods, that the magnet has a soul because it moves iron (promotes primitive animism; anima-phantasma) transition from myth to science and philosophy - Water is vital for all forms of life 2. Anaximander of Miletus (the primary element, the Urstoff, is indeterminate) - Prose-work philosophical theories; primary element cannot be water because it is one of the “opposites” - If everythings is in reality water, other elements could have also been long absorbed by water - Urstoff, indeterminate, Apeiron (boundless, infinite, formless gaseous substance), “being that out of which they come, and that into which they pass away”; the material cause (nature different; a substance without limits; eternal and ageless) - Indeterminate infinite (which all things come) and how world evolved from this primary element - Everything is always coming into and going out of being, so there must be an infinite source from which everything is made. 3. Anaximenes of Miletus - Also assigns a determinate element as the Urstoff which is Air (because humans breathe)  - “Being air, holds us together, so do breath and air encompasses the world”; he introduced the concepts if condensation and rarefaction (air in itself is invisible, but becomes visible in different processes) - Air in rarefaction>fire, air in condensation> solid (ait taking different forms) - Soul, which is air, holds us together so the whole universe is surrounded by wind and air 4. Heraclitus (world is an ever-living fire) - World made up of heat, energy, and change - Nothing is stable, but the only constant thing is change and flux - Reality is full of opposition, conflict, and change 5. Parmenides (nature of being itself) meets a goddess who will teach him about reality - Use of reason over senses (what you are philosophizing exists or does not exist); but unthinkable to refer to something that doesn't exist; connection between thinking and being (if you can think of it, or utter it, it might exist at some point) - What is, and not what is not therefore (it is impossible to think about nothing or what is not), creation cannot come from nothing; nor something to become non-being (destruction); cannot think of creation nor destruction - No new properties, there is no change - Nothing ever changes, it is impossible, and cannot possibly exist - According to Parmenides, for change to occur, something must come into existence (from "being") or pass out of existence (into "non-being"). However, he rejects the idea that something can come from nothing or go into nothing, since "non-being" does not and cannot exist. Therefore, any change implies something moving into or out of non-existence, which he argues is impossible. Ionians raised questions about the ultimate nature of things through assumptions; dogmatic materialists because they tried explaining the origin of everything from a material element, and that they assumed we could know things as they are THE ATOMISTS - All nature is composed of indivisible particles and the void - world described by reason and philosophy differed greatly from the world accessed by common sense and sense experience (appearance diff from reality) - Democritus: Atoms/Atomos (indivisible and beyond naked eye); objects can be broken down into atoms which exist only in void (no certain properties of atoms such as color or texture, which make our sense perceptions as “bastard judgments”) (trust reason rather than sense)  - Matter of convention (ex: you see the apple as red, but a classmate sees it as green only perceiving it red due to conditions) no proof that these are actual properties of these things themselves - Agree with Heraclitus that there is change (movement of atoms and changes we perceive in physical world) PROTAGORAS - Man is the measure of all things - Agreed with Democritus that different objects can be perceived differently by diff people; but appearance is reality - Moral relativist (no set of morals or laws is more true or correct than any other, but to a community) - No ultimate/absolute truth (definite for everyone; against law of non-contradiction) SOPHISTS (sophia/wisdom; teachers for hire) - Public speakers and persuasive rhetoricians (claimed expertises in diff fields like mathematics, astronomy, music, literature) - They charged fees for writings, sharing of techniques of arguments, or for performing in public occasions - Most famous and influential philosophers in ancient world but Socrates was against them - Manner of speaking rather than the content or substance SOCRATES (never wrote anything of his own) SOCRATES DOES NOT APOLOGIZE but this is his defense speech Plato's *Apology* is a philosophical text that presents the speech Socrates gave in his defense at his trial in 399 BCE, where he was accused of corrupting the youth of Athens and impiety (not believing in the gods of the city). The text offers significant insights into Socratic philosophy and the values of justice, wisdom, and morality. Here are the key points: 1. Socratic Ignorance (Awareness of One’s Own Ignorance)**: - Socrates famously claims that he is wise only in that he knows that he knows nothing. He distinguishes himself from others who claim to have knowledge but do not. 2. The Unexamined Life**: - Socrates argues that “the unexamined life is not worth living.” He believes the purpose of life is to question and reflect on one’s values, beliefs, and actions in the pursuit of truth and wisdom. 3. Defense Against Charges**: - **Corrupting the youth**: Socrates defends himself by questioning whether anyone would intentionally harm others, knowing that doing so would bring harm upon oneself. He suggests that if he did harm the youth, it must have been unintentional, and unintentional acts should not be punishable. - **Impiety**: Socrates argues that he does believe in gods, though not in the traditional sense. He also mentions that his mission to question and challenge people’s wisdom was divinely inspired by the Oracle of Delphi. He reasons that just like the gods, they want us to follow in doing the good and encouraging others to do the same (based on our understanding on what to care about and how to behave. Offends olympian gods, his associates were malfeasants in Athens’s defeat in Peloponnesian War 4. Role of the Philosopher**: - Socrates portrays the philosopher’s role as a gadfly, whose purpose is to stimulate critical thinking and moral reflection in society. He likens himself to a gadfly stinging the sluggish horse of Athens, provoking people to think and not become complacent. 5. Refusal to Compromise**: - Socrates rejects the idea of avoiding death by compromising his principles. He argues that it would be dishonorable to give up his philosophical mission for the sake of survival or public approval. 6. Socrates and Death**: - Socrates is not afraid of death because he does not claim to know whether it is good or bad. He suggests that death could either be a peaceful state of nothingness or a transition to an afterlife where he could continue philosophizing. 7. Proposed Penalty**: - After being found guilty, Socrates is asked to propose a punishment. He jokingly suggests that he should be rewarded for his service to the city by being given free meals. When the court rejects this, he refuses to propose exile and ultimately suggests a small fine, leading the jury to sentence him to death. 8. Final Words**: - Socrates’ parting words to the jury reflect his belief that they have harmed themselves more than they have harmed him by sentencing him to death. He remains calm and believes that justice will prevail, either in this life or in the next. Overall, Plato's *Apology* portrays Socrates as a champion of free inquiry, integrity, and philosophical pursuit, standing firm in his beliefs despite the consequences. - The Oracle of Delphi (fortune teller/religious institution): no living man was wiser than Socrates; that’s why he wanders and engages with sophists to find someone wiser than him who later resulted in powerful enemies - Shift from cosmological questions (origin of the universe) to ethical questions about how men ought to live, and his virtues (justice, courage, love) - Later on charged with two crimes, 1) corrupting the youth, 2) impiety (not worshiping gods); He died through drinking hemlock - Socratic Ignorance: “know nothing” sense of aporia (ignorance, puzzlement, doubt); common beliefs and answers and wrong; skeptic about truth which leads to expose of faulty reasoning (understanding what something is not) - “Socratic Elenchus” - he elicits additionals beliefs based on the answer (he would question more via showing their beliefs are inconsistent, therefore causing realizations on the respondents); shares their ignorance and recommend a renewed search (he won’t really tell you the answer because having wisdom means you do not know anything) - Never offers constructive questions of his own; never answers constructively - He was skeptic of truth, and always finds faults on other people’s answers (doesn’t really use jargons thus he was very understandable, using everyday common sense and logic) common beliefs and answers are wrong - Definitions: first to make use of these to seek for a single, unified definition to arrive at a priori (knowledge that is independent of experience) through reason alone; requirements: he looks for the essence of the things 1. General: cover all instances of a word - Eg: what is virtue? Meno gave a definition each for a man and woman, but socrates would prefer a definition applicable for the general 2. Unitary: should be agreed upon by all and should be consistent (should cater to all’s perspectives) - Eg: Euthyphro says piety is “whatever is pleasing to the gods” but isnt true because some actions are loved by gods, and others also hate them 3. Explanatory: explain the object being investigated (why is something the case) - Eg: piety is “Whatever is loved by all the gods” while impiety is “Whatever is hated by all the gods”. Doesn’t really tell what piety is but rather just gives an example how to show piety ❖ Socratic Intellectualism (connects knowledge and good): knowing justice, piety, virtue not only for wisdom but for the good (you live those virtues by knowing them) Attain true wisdom because it’s necessary and sufficient condition for the good life If one knows what good is, one will not fail in pursuing it (know what’s right, you should do what’s right) still metaphysics because he still figures out what these are such us what is just Turned away from cosmological matters because GOOD (true reality) can be found via ethical matters (better for one to suffer injustice than commit to it) The Apology was for defending Socrates: socrates was given an opportunity to defend himself (501 judges and he lost his trial although he was close to being acquitted) he believes wisdom is very important that he was willing to die for it ❖ Socrates’ Death - Socrates’ final words: “Crito, we owe a cock to Asclepius. Please don’t forget to pay the debt.” sacrificing to the god of medicine because he believes death is not the end of life but it is the cure (especially if there is an afterlife which cannot be much worse) if there is an afterlife, he would like to talk to homer (he looks forward to death) DEATH=CURE/RELEASE (f u guys hdhsaha)  PLATO The Allegory of the Cave: Plato, Republic - Theory of Forms: account of a realm of abstract reality–realm above and beyond the ordinary world of objects we perceive by the senses (in relation to theory of knowledge) - Form of the good is the source of intelligibility and reality of the forms - In Divided LineL ordinary everyday objects stand in the same relationship to the forms as shadows do to their originals; gradual ascent of mind towards the forms with a journey from darkness to light - Chained prisoners watching shadows thrown by fire; opinions are second-hand, manipulated, and controlled by others although even if we get freedom to roam around the cave, we only see the ordinary visible world unless we go outside the cave into higher world of universals not only perceived by sense but also by our intellect - Ultimate source of truth=Form of the Good - Prisoners (uneducated/hoi polloi) have been there since childhood and they had always been chained (cannot turn around and see whats behind them, so they only see shadows which they THOUGHT were real) the hooded figures making deceptions (were the sophists) through imagery (shadows and sounds) - If the prisoners were released, they’d walk up to light (doing this in pain; truth=painful) this is miserable for them because they still couldn’t believe that what they are NOW SEEING is the truth (they’d rather believe the shadows they saw before were truer) he might be also annoyed being dragged outside - Outside the cave, he;d make out the shadows, reflections, and the objects themselves, lastly, HEAVEN, and the SUN (being a source of light) - Last thing to be seen is the idea of the good (eidos) = cause of all that is right and fair in everything - Going back to the cave will results in infection of darkness, and others from the cave might not even believe him about what he saw outside the cave (exposing truth but others still deny it) - See the good, and go up to that ascent (responsibility of philosopher-kings in guiding and leading the hoi polloi) - Sense of perception (prisoners) vs Reason - Plato was a student of Socrates, who went around Athens and engaged the wisest men of Athens in philosophical dialogue. - If everything is changing, true and certain knowledge is not possible - The Republic is Plato’s work on justice, and his agenda was to outline the structure of an ideal republic by understanding justice. Plato claimed that citizens should be divided into three classes: common people or hoi polloi (merchants, craftsmen, artisans, etc.), soldiers, and guardians (philosophers) who are fit to rule the city-state. Anti-democracy xa tska anti-dictatorship he believes in aristocracy (group of elites/educated ruling)  REALITY - Metaphysical theory: hierarchy and different levels of reality - Shadows: poor imitations and projections but prisoners were deceived to believe theyre real because they are limited to sense-perception (trust what they only feel, hear, and see) - Marionettes (puppets): not real but just replications of objects outside the cave - Actual physical objects outside the cave like trees: they exist but NOT TRUE ALSO: imitations of forms/EIDOS (something even more real) FORMS/ESSENCE (as abstractions): not social constructs but mental objects you grasp In Plato's philosophy, "Forms" (also called "Ideas") are perfect, unchanging concepts or ideals that exist in a realm beyond our physical world. According to Plato, everything we see around us in the physical world is just an imperfect copy of these perfect Forms. For example, when we see a tree, it's not the perfect "Form of a Tree," but just a version of it. The Form of a Tree exists in a higher, non-physical realm, and every tree in the world is an imperfect reflection of this perfect Form. Plato believed that true knowledge comes from understanding these Forms, not just observing things in the physical world, which can change and decay. - Nature of reality is not material: - Perfect paradigms (templates); ideal, and abstract (not physical objects) - Mind and language-independent (objective); Exist with or without humans, discovered - Stable, eternal, pure, UNCHANGING; form is already there it’s just a matter of being uncovered - Living beings, objects, and abstract concepts have forms - You cannot access them by sense-perception but through careful and intelligent reflection (philosophy) you see an image through sense of perception but you understand the concept through reason - They provide true and certain knowledge (things are only changing or in flux in the physical world but the forms are the unchanging, stable, pure) The Form of the Good (highest form and source of all other forms) = The Sun - Gives being and intelligibility to other forms so without it, nothing else could exist; christianity was patterned after the concept of the good (logos) through the notion of God - there are objective and unchanging truths - Unreachable but christianity changed this notion to fit their narrative (form of the good=god=flesh=he came down to humans) The "Form of the Good" is one of the highest and most important ideas in Plato's philosophy. It represents the ultimate source of truth, knowledge, and reality. According to Plato, the Form of the Good is like the sun in our physical world—it illuminates everything, allowing us to understand and perceive all other Forms. Without the Good, we wouldn't be able to comprehend anything. ARISTOTLE Aristotle established the Lyceum the first scientist - Four Types of Explanation: Fourfold Structure (Four Becauses) maps out ways which we use to answer the question, “why”? 1) Material Cause - explanation in terms of component parts; which a thing comes to be and which persists 2) Formal Cause - explanation in terms of form, definition, or essential properties 3) Efficient Cause - explanation in terms of what initiated or produced the relevant movement or change; the primary source of something’s changing (or remaining as it is) is a cause.  4) Final Cause - the explanation ‘that for the sake of which’ something is done (finis=end goal) Views much of the natural world as operating in terms of final causes, or (to use the more common expression nowadays) ‘teleologically’; telos = end/goal - Each step would be for the sake of next The School of Athens a painting where you can see some differences between Plato and Aristotle (Plato points his finger up, while Aristotle has his palm facing down) Metaphysics of Plato vs. Aristotle Plato believes in the world of forms (true reality exists); for him, forms are discovered, not invented. For Aristotle, the form exists in the object itself. He’d challenge Plato’s physical world is not real - He agreed with Plato, form of something is what makes it is what it is; objects have essence - But he disagrees that forms are other-worldly, transcendent; but they’re in the objects themselves - For Plato, everyday world is an illusion because reality is in world of forms but for Aristotle, things we encounter through sense perception and experience are the most real - Everyday objects=primary substances (do not depend on anything); secondary substance (like rationality depend on primary substances to exist) Aristotle's Theory of Causality Aristotle believes in the existence of primary substances and secondary substances. For Aristotle, secondary substances depend on primary substances (e.g., rationality can't exist without humans or rational beings), as opposed to Plato who believed that forms are eternal and don't depend on others' existence. Aristotle is like Plato but with common sense. The four distinct causes only exist in primary substances. Aristotle combines the ideas of Pre-Socratics (materials) and Plato (forms) and adds his own. There is only one final cause and it is static (i.e., unchanging). It is not affected by human opinion. Telos final cause end of an object is its function (ergon); final cause determines an object as material or or formal teleological thinking= view that everything has an ultimate good, purpose, or goal, the more it fulfills its good, the more it lives up to its nature  destiny ≠ telos Aristotle believed in Fit (living up to your nature or telos) over Freedom Aquinas utilizes a lot of teleological thinking. For example, the telos of sex is procreation and not pleasure; that's why some believe that sex should not be done for pleasure. Aristotle’s idea of the **final cause** or **telos** refers to the purpose or goal of something. According to Aristotle, everything in nature has a reason for its existence, and it naturally moves toward fulfilling that purpose. Aristotle believed that there are four causes (or explanations) for why things are the way they are: 1. **Material cause**: What something is made of (e.g., a table is made of wood). 2. **Efficient cause**: How something is made or what brings it into existence (e.g., a carpenter making the table). 3. **Formal cause**: The shape or design of something (e.g., the table’s specific shape and structure). 4. **Final cause (telos)**: The purpose or end goal for which something exists (e.g., the table’s purpose is to hold things). The **final cause** (telos) is the most important in Aristotle's thinking. It’s the "why" behind something’s existence. For example: - A seed’s **telos** is to grow into a fully developed plant. - A knife’s **telos** is to cut things. - A human being's **telos**, according to Aristotle, is to achieve **eudaimonia**, which means flourishing or living a fulfilling, virtuous life. In simple terms, the final cause or telos is the reason something exists—its goal or purpose. Everything, in Aristotle's view, naturally aims to fulfill its telos, which explains its function or behavior. Problem of Universals - Universals: form (redness, etc.) particulars (specific, individual object) - Universals are possessed by particulars (all horses have universal property of horseness) - Problem: they deny universals’s existence ex: horses can be seen but their horseness cannot realism vs nominalism realism -> the world is a certain way, it's the job of language to identify it nominalism: only particular things exist (nothing general except names if objects) language (names) determines how the world is  Aristotle’s Solution: universals exist but there are no uninstantiated universals - Universals exist because how can there be similarities among particulars without them - Particular objects exist before universals; and universals exist through ir are anchored by particulars Aristotle rejected nominalism because forms exist - Forms are not out these in some transcendent reality, but they are already immanent or in particular objects - You cannot imagine a form independent from its object THE AGE OF FAITH (MEDIEVAL PHILOSOPHY) - Explaining nature of reality but enriched and united ancient metaphysics with the Christian Doctrine - 2 new sources of philosophical knowledge: faith and divine revelation St. Augustine of Hippo - The Confessions: 13 books (stages of his life as his spiritual journey.>conversion) - Search for Truth (even joined Manichaeism) - Sin and Grace (sins and moral failings like theft, pride, and sexual indulgence) - Conversion to Christianity (Romans 13:13-14) - Influenced by Platonism and Neoplatonism (understand immaterial reality and nature of God) - Concerned with existence of evil and understanding its relation to God and creation - According to Manichaeism: reality is conflict between light and darkness (evil was a distinct substance) - On his conversion, he met Neo-Platonists and Bishop AMbrose and learned Christianity as the true philosophy - His childhood experiences made him ponder evil (theft>sense of justice) where he stole pears and fed them to pigs (only for pleasure) and also (lust) carnal concupiscence; kust’s darkness Problem of Evil (Reformulated as Epicurus Trilemma) - Inconsistent statements 1) God Exists > omnipotent (unlimited power), omniscient (knows everything), and omnibenevolent (perfectly just and merciful) > With these powers, but why does he not eradicate evil > He could’ve also designed humans as more morally good 2) Evil exists > Natural evils: earthquakes > Moral evils: Actions committed by humans (murder)  Neoplatonic doctrine: evil is “privation” or non-being - Either corruption does not harm (not possible), or all things corrupted suffer privation from some good AND if they were to be deprived of good, they would not exist at all - Evil is not a positive substance, it is a corruption, bastardization, or loss of being (1) If God is unable to prevent evil, then He is not all-powerful. (2) If God is not willing to prevent evil, then He is not all-good. (3) If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist? Either you say God does not or you defend that evil does not exist You cannot solve Problem of Evil by claiming that God created Evil Everything that God created is good. Now, he has to prove that evil is not created by God. He puts the blame on the humans. (1) All that God created is good. (2) Suffering is punishment for original sin. (3) Evil exists because humans misuse free will. God could have created a world where humans do not commit evil BUT - No free will = no moral good possible - world with humans possessing free will is better than in a world where they do not - World which humans possess free will entails the possibility of evil Free Will Defense: God has reasons to permit existence of evil (price that needs to be paid for greater good to exist) Moral Good is brought through free will So no free will, no moral good; it’s like a gamble if we are all designed to do good, God would have been rigging in the game John Hick’s Objections: 1. Scientific: evil is inherent to the structure of the world (natural evils existed before humans) 2. Moral: morally unfair for God to punish everyone for original sin (evil cannot be the punishment for it); evil is not a punishment, but a necessary ingredient for growth 3. Logical: if everything God created is inherently good, first humans were perfect, how can they create evil from nothing? Man was created flawed from the beginning Hick’s Irenaean Theodicy (theo+dike = account of God’s justice) - Imperfect world, moral choices will be called for, which would allow for development of moral personality  - World is for “soul-making” where man is born at a distance from God and he has to overcome evil to find him or be close to him - If god always intervened to save us from evil, we’ll never be worthy of communion with him - Contra Augustine, God deliberately created evil because it enables soul-making in the world So Augustine believes that evil is not created by God, but it was due to corruption of the Good (which God created) and what caused this is humans’ abuse of free will. But John Hick objects by stating that evil is actually inherent in the world and it allows us to grow ourselves and morality (not a punishment) in a world where we could create and improve our souls (to be worthy of God) St. Anselm Ontological argument: the argument that God, being defined as most great or perfect, must exist, since a God who exists is greater than a God who does not. - fides quaerens intellectum or “faith seeking understanding”. - Monologion and Proslogion (not rejecting importance of reason over faith) to achieve reason’s full potential, you need to have faith - No conflict between reason (epistemological state knowing through philosophical insight) and faith (volitional state or will to believe in God) - BUR faith comes first before reason - Works in convincing non-believers because through reason, we accept the existence of god Monologion: - one supreme good through which all good things have their goodness - There are degrees of goodness (God is at the maximum level) - In a scale of goodness, only one thing at the highest degree of goodness= single highest good is the greatest thing but should have the ff: > all good attributes; must be self-existent, invulnerable to suffering, merciful, eternal, non-physical (divine attribute-generating machine) where any good-making attribute belongs to the highest possible good Proslogion: - it is one thing for an object to exist in the understanding, and another to understand that the object exists. - That than which nothing greater can be thought: if it exists in the understanding, it is existing in reality (exists in both) - God is a being than which none greater can be imagined: “God at the highest> implies limit” - Existing in reality is better than being not necessarily existing  - if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God. - BUT there is no one greater than God - So, if God exists in mind, then he also necessarily exists in reality Descartes uses reductio ad absurdum - God is defined as a supremely perfect being (one with all perfections). - Existence is a perfection—something that adds to the greatness of a being. - If God is supremely perfect, He must have all perfections, including existence. - Therefore, God must exist, because a perfect being without existence wouldn’t be truly perfect. Google’s Ontological Argument - Positive properties: Gödel assumes there is a set of properties that are "positive" (like goodness, omniscience, omnipotence, etc.), and these properties are intrinsically good. - God has all positive properties: God, by definition, possesses every positive property. - Necessarily existing: One of these positive properties is necessary existence. In other words, if God exists, God must exist necessarily (it’s impossible for God not to exist). - It’s possible for a maximally great being to exist: Gödel argues that it is logically possible for such a being to exist. - If it’s possible, then it must exist: In modal logic, if something necessarily exists and it's possible, then it must exist in reality. The Perfect Island Objection Guanilo’s Perfect Island Objection is meant to show that just because we can conceive of something as perfect, it doesn’t mean it must exist. He argues that Anselm’s argument could be used to "prove" the existence of all sorts of imaginary things, like perfect islands, but this clearly doesn't work in reality. - Using Anselm’s logic, you can define anything into existence where: > idea of supremely perfect island > existence is perfection > therefore, a supremely perfect island exists - Idea of perfect island, but something better than it is a perfect island in reality - But Anselm claims this only applies to God because God is that than which nothing greater can still be conceived - Thinking of something more perfect than a perfect island= which is God Kant: existence is not an attribute or a predicate at all - treated existence as a property (or predicate) that could be attributed to a being - existence is the condition for the concept to apply in reality - God has all good-making attributed raised to max level (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent)  - These are predicates or properties; BUT existence is not a predicate/property as same level as these divine attributes (it is a second-order attribute) which makes it possible to have first-order attributes; existence is only a quantifier SO In the ontological argument, philosophers like Anselm and Descartes treat existence as a "great-making" property. They argue that a God who exists is greater than a God who only exists in the mind. Kant’s point, however, is that you can’t treat existence as a property or perfection in the same way as other qualities (like power, wisdom, or goodness). It doesn’t make a being greater to say it exists—it just means that it exists in reality rather than being just an idea. Therefore, Kant concludes that ontological arguments fail because they wrongly assume that existence is something that can be "added" to a concept (like God) to make it greater. In Kant's view, existence doesn't function this way. A Faulty A Priori Method A Priori - before/independently of experience A Posteriori - after experience - Aquinas’ criticisms on Anselm: we cannot deduce existence of God based on concept of God Alone because people have different concepts of God - Or even if everyone has the same concept of God as that than which no greater being can be imagined, it only exists mentally (existence is proven through experience, not just a concept) - We do not what it is actually to be a being than which none greater can be imagined, because we are finite and imperfect; does not really give us an idea of what God is like - Reject a priori, abd embrace a posteriori > God’s existence is not self-evident to human beings. > Not everyone has the same concept of God, so the argument isn’t convincing to all. > We must prove God’s existence through experience and reason, not just by thinking about the concept of God. THOMAS AQUINAS - Influential, his views were adopted by the Church (abortion) - Influenced by Aristotle (concepts and terms) - Summa Theologica (five arguments to prove that God exists) these are a posteriori The Five Ways: 1. Motion Things are moving and changing; shift from potentiality to actuality If something is moving, it can't be its mover (kapag may nasusunog na kahoy, hindi naman pwede na yung kahoy ang nagsunog sa kanya)  ○ There has to be an ultimate mover to which it is always moving (God: pure actuality) because something cannot be both a mover or moved at the same time ○ Always in action and never be in potential motion. Problem in argument: Newtonian modern Science - first law of motion. An object at rest stays at rest. An object in motion stays in motion. ○ In the beginning, there was nothing. Then there came the light. ○ Why is there a beginning when universe could have always existed ○ How something at rest, which should be staying at rest, becomes in motion? So, if universe is in motion, it has always been in motion and did not begin from a state of start ○ Walang first mover, rather movement. World was always in motion. 2. Efficient Cause What puts form in matter: which caused something to become like that Who then caused the first humans? To put an end to the infinite regress, it must have an uncaused cause (causa sui), which is God. He is pure causality. Argument: If we accept the fact that there is uncaused cause, then why do we label it as God? Schopenhauer - who caused God? You can't infer that the chain of causality has end and the end is God. The physical universe may be was an uncaused cause, and universe and laws of nature could have just existed as brute facts Causes only exist in physical world, but God is outside of this world so God cannot be considered the cause 3. Dependency Necessary being/Necessity - they must exist. Not possible for it to not exist. ○ Ex. Necessity of the triangle should be three sides Contingent being/Contingency - something that could have not existed, they are dependent on others (require something to bring them to existence) ○ I couldn't have been born if my parents decided not to have a child ○ My parents couldn't have existed if my grandparents decided not to have a child We cannot have chain of dependent things, because there’s no explanation on what created them so there MUST BE A NECESSARY being that does not depend on others to exist Our universe can't be all contingent. One must be a necessity which is God. Objections: difference between explaining one occurrence and an entire group: fallacy of composition (ex: every human had a biological mother but not everyone actually has a mother) 4. Degrees Scale of goodness, the higher you go, the more you are good Humans who are capable of morality have more goodness than objects  If there is a Great Chain of Being (something has more good), then there is something through which exists at the highest degree (God) Objections: goodness only applies to moral quality, only applying to moral agents. ○ Ex. Comparing rock and Hitler. There is no grounds for comparison since they don't have something in common sinnce we treat inanimate objects as not able to do moral good. ○ Ex. How can we measure goodness of different things? How to measure whether rock is better than sticks? Why is God the end of the degree? It can also be other deities It implies that there is a chain of evil. It can be used to any attributes and you can create polytheism arguments since there is a god of goodness, god of smartness 5. Order and Design Teleological argument Everything has some perfect design and order and works towards an end William Paley: Ex. The world is a watch and every part (people) has its purpose. There must be a watchmaker. If there's this beauty and order, there must be a great architect who built it. Unlikely that it is a result of mere luck and chance (against probability). Grand or Divine Architect=God Could explain theism in everything Objections: - Problem of evil suggests no intelligent design (God could have created a better design of a world) - natural selection as a result of the design of things (evolutionary theory) ○ Survival of the fittest might explain the design of things. - Other deities could have created the universe aside from God - Order is vague and arbitrary (humans can impose order on anything) Age of Epistemology: from “What is the nature of ultimate reality?” to “How does one know whether certain claims are true?”