Sie sind auf Seite 1von 33

What is Philosophy?

-from Greek (PHILO-SOPHIA) Philos/Philo (love/to love) and Sophos/Sophia


(Wisdom)
-As used originally by the ancient Greeks, the term "philosophy" meant the pursuit of knowledge for
its own sake, and comprised ALL areas of speculative thought, including the arts, sciences and
religion.
-The term was probably coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 c. 495 BC). Pythagoras was said to have
been the first man to call himself a philosopher; in fact, the world is indebted to him for the word
philosopher. It is said that when Leon, the tyrant of Philius, asked him of who he was, he said, a
Philosopher and he likened the Philosopher to spectators at ancient games.
-Before that time the wise men had called themselves a sage, which was interpreted to mean those
who know. Pythagoras was more modest. He coined the word philosopher, which he defined as one
who is attempting to find out. According to him, men and women of the world could be classified into
3 groups: 1. those that love pleasure 2. those that love activity and 3. those that love wisdom.
-Latin Definition: COGNITIO RERUM PER ALTISSIMAS CAUSAS SOLA RATIONE LUMINIS
COMPARATA (Knowledge of all things through their ultimate cause in the light of reason alone.)
-Improved Definition: Philosophy is the (1) science that (2) studies all things to its (3) ultimate
cause through the use of (4) reason.
*(1) Science
It is called science because the investigation is systematic. It follows certain steps or it employs
certain procedures. In other words, it is an organized body of knowledge just like any other sciences
*(2) Study of All Things
This sets the distinction between philosophy from others sciences. All other sciences concern
themselves with a particular object of investigation; whereas, a philosopher studies human beings,
society, religion, language, God, and even plants
*(3) Ultimate Cause/Highest Principle
A principle is that from which something proceeds in any manner whatsoever.
The First Principles:
a. Principle of Identity
Whatever is is; and whatever is not is not; everything is what it is. Everything is its own being,
and not being is not being.
b. Principle of Non-Contradiction
It is impossible for a thing to be and not to be at the same time, and at the same respect
c. Principle of Excluded Middle
A thing is either is or is not; everything must be either be or not; between being and not-being,
there is no middle ground possible.
d. Principle of Sufficient Reason
Nothing exists without a sufficient reason for its being and existence.
*(4) Natural Light of Reason
Philosophy investigates things, not by using any other laboratory instrument or investigative tools,
neither on the basis of supernatural revelation, otherwise it becomes theology; instead, the
philosopher uses his natural capacity to think or simply, human reason alone or the so-called unaided
reason.

MAIN DIVISIONS OF PHILOSOHY


1. METAPHYSICS
- The branch of Philosophy that studies the nature of reality
- It is an extension of a fundamental and necessary drive in every human being to know what is
real
- It asks the question WHAT IS THE NATURE LOOK LIKE
- It gives an understanding about the fundamental nature of the world, of the universe, and of
Being.
2. EPISTEMOLOGY
- The branch of Philosophy that studies the nature and scope of knowledge.
- It deals with nature, sources, limitations, and validity of knowledge.
- It explains: (1) how we know what we claim to know; (2) how we can find out what we wish to
know; and (3) how we can differentiate truth from falsehood.
- Is the world really what I think it is?
3. VALUE THEORY
3.1. ETHICS
- The branch of Philosophy that studies and evaluates human conduct
- Asks the question HOW SHOULD I LIVE?
- It studies also the nature of moral judgments
- It explores the nature of moral virtue and evaluates human conduct.
3.2. AESTHETICS
- The branch of Philosophy that studies the nature of beauty
- Asks the question WHAT IS BEAUTIFUL?
- It is the science of the beautiful in its various manifestations-including the sublime,
comic, tragic, pathetic, and ugly.

THE PHILOSOPHERS TOOL BOX


LOGIC
It is the systematic study of the rules for the correct use of these supporting reasons, rules we
can use to distinguish good arguments from bad ones. Most of the great philosophers from Aristotle
to the present have been convinced that logic permeates all other branches of philosophy. The ability
to test arguments for logical consistency, understand the logical consequences of certain
assumptions, and distinguish the kind of evidence a philosopher is using are essential for doing
philosophy. The term logic comes from the Greek word logike and was coined by Zeno, the Stoic
(c. 340-256 BC). Etymologically, it means a treatise on matters pertaining to the human thought.

PHILOSOPHYS MORTAL ENEMY (ESP. LOGIC)


FALLACY
A failure in reasoning or flawed reasoning that leads to an invalid or unsound argument.

HOW TO UNDERSTAND AND EVALUATE WORLD VIEWS


(1) TRY TO UNDERSTAND
- Get inside an Idea
- Principle of Charity: Always try to understand the strongest and most persuasive version of an
argument.
(2) CRITICAL EVALUATION
- Always challenge your ideas, perspectives, opinions, and point of views in life.

The success of Philosophy is you know how to THINK and REASON OUT validly.
ORIGINS OF PHILOSOPHY IN ANCIENT GREECE

-At the beginning, between the 6th and 5th C. B.C., the term philosophy had a rather generic
meaning. It meant the intellectual activity which gave rise to culture as a rhetorical and literary
phenomenon.
-Before philosophy, the ancient Greeks were so engrossed with their myths about their gods and
goddesses to such an extent that in order to please the gods and grant their wishes, they would offer
some token whenever they needed some favor from these gods.
-Before the emergence of philosophy as a discipline, any investigation regarding the nature of things
would be labeled as phusis or nature in the English language. Back then, there was no distinction
between science, philosophy, or religion. Thus, any investigation regarding the nature of things in
general falls under phusis.
-Greek notion of Philosophy
1. It refers to method
-Philosophy is a purely rational explanation of the totality of reality.
-A philosopher does not merely observe reality; he inquires into its causes and principles-into
its first cause and ultimate principles since it is reality taken as a whole that constitutes the object of
this study.
-Aristotle: Wisdom must always deal with the first causes and principles of things
2. It refers to its end
-Philosophy has an exclusively speculative and contemplative end
-Aristotle: Philosophy is, therefore, a free science, inasmuch as it does not pursue any
utilitarian end. It seeks no other goal but that of knowledge for its own sake, and derives its stimulus
from no other source but the natural desire of all men to know. All men, by their very nature, have a
desire to know

GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN OF PHILOSOPHY IN ANCIENT GREECE


-Geographically, philosophy was born along the coast of Asia Minor, in the Greek colonies of Ionia.
-Why Ionia of all places? It is difficult to give a clear and precise answer to this question. What is
certain, however, is that favorable social and economic conditions existed in Ionia at the time for the
birth of philosophy: an atmosphere of freedom was fostered by existing political institutions, and
material well-being was sustained by thriving commerce, thus making it possible for artistic and
scientific endeavors to flourish. From Ionia, the geographic center of philosophy transferred to other
Greek colonies and to Athens.
-In the Greek colonies of Ionia, the first philosophers were born-Thales, Anaximander, and
Anaximenes who were from Miletus. These philosophers wanted to understand reality as a whole;
consequently, they sought to discover the first cause or unifying principle of everything. According to
Aristotle, the Ionian philosophers were preceded in their search for the underlying explanation of the
universe by the poet-theologians, like Homer, Hesiod, and the Orphic poets. The explanations of the
universe given by the poet-theologians were of a mythological nature, however. The explanations of
the Ionians, on the other hand, while containing some element of myth and fables, were essentially a
rational attempt to unravel the mysteries of reality.

DIVISION IN GREEK PHILOSOPHY


a. The pre-Socratic period. During this period, philosophical thought revolved around the
cosmological problem: What is the principle of all things?, Where did the universe come
from?, How did it emerge?. Aristotle called the philosophers of this period the physical or
natural philosophers. They included the Ionians, the Pythagoreans, the Eleatic, and the
Pluralists.
b. With the sophists, the problem of the cosmos recedes to the background, and gives way to
man himself. Man now becomes the focus of attention. Socrates belongs to this period of
humanism.
c. With Plato and Aristotle, philosophy makes significant progress, not only because of the depth
of their thought, but also because of the breadth of their speculative inquiries. The division of
philosophy into different branches is given definitive shape during this period
d. The Hellenistic period with its three main philosophical schools-Stoicism, Epicureanism, and
Skepticism, along with a marked tendency towards Eclecticism.
e. The period of Neo-Platonism, which resulted from the confluence of various philosophies-
Middle Platonism, neo-Pythagoreanism, and above all the school of Alexandria, which had
strong religious coloring.

THE PRE-SOCRATICS
1. The Milesians
-They were the first ones who tried to give a unifying and coherent explanation of the nature of
reality. They were also considered as the doctrine that all matter has life hylozoist from the
root word hylo or stuff; and zoe or life because they believe that the universe is alive or
animate and material.
a. THALES OF MILETUS
-Father of Western Philosophy
-As early as 630 B.C., He was already doing philosophy.
-He also excelled in politics, mathematics, and astronomy.
-Thales did not commit his thought to writing, and the little we know about him as a
philosopher comes mainly from Aristotle.
-Two basic philosophical ideas of Thales according to Aristotle:
1. Water is the first absolute principle
-The underlying substance that reality is made because it is everywhere. It can change
into solid, liquid, or gas, it is observed as dew in the morning, it was even believed that the
sea was farther of all things. He may have given a very simplistic answer when he claimed
that reality is water. However, the more important point to emphasize here is that a
man has dared to go against tradition for the first time, and assumed that it is within
mans rational ability to abstract and explain reality.
-the first from which all things come to bethe last into which all things are
resolvedeven the Earth floats upon water. Hence, Water is the material cause of all
things. He neglected substantial change in the universe-he thought that there was only
accidental change.
2. The soul is the principal motor
-the soul is a motive force: the magnet has a soul in it because it moves the iron
(Thales basis for saying that the soul is a motive force)
-the soul is intermingled in the whole universe.all things are full of gods.
-What does Thales mean when he says that all things are full of gods? Does this have
anything to do with his notion of the soul as a motor principle? Based on what Thales says
about the magnet, it seems logical to conclude with Aristotle that, for Thales, the soul is the
principle of life and movement. Not only magnetic stones are endowed with souls:
everything else, the whole universe, is impregnated with life. For Thales, this vital force is
divine in nature, and affects even those things which appear inanimate.

b. ANAXIMANDER
-born around the year 611 B.C.
-A disciple of Thales
-wrote a book entitled On Nature
-For Him, it was not water but the peiron-the infinite or the unlimited-which constituted
the first principle.
The peiron
-For Anaximander, it is not only a material principle of infinite extension; it is also a principle
characterized by the absence of any formal determination. It has no positive identity: it is
neither water, nor air, nor any one of the known elements. It can be likened either to the
material cause or to the divinity, depending on which aspects are given prominence.
-All things proceed necessarily from it by means of the separation of contraries, and return
to it in a necessary manner as well.
1. The peiron as a material cause
-It is not one of the elements. It is of an indeterminate nature, and hence, is
different from, and naturally prior to, all the other existing substances.
2. The peiron as a divine principle
-Aristotle: There cannot be a source of the infinitebut it is rather (the infinite)
which is held to be the principle of other things; it is what encompasses all and governs
allMoreover, the infinite is divine because it is immortal and imperishable.
-It encompasses and governs all things as a divine, immortal and indestructible
principle. It must possess these attributes. Because it is unlimited, it is unaffected by the
limiting factors of all earthly realities, such as death and corruption.

c. ANAXIMINES
-Born at the beginning of the 6th C. B.C., and died towards the end of the same century.

Air as the first principle


-has the following characteristic: it is infinite, it encompasses all things, and it is in
constant movement.
-Why air? He was probably led to this conclusion because living beings need air for
respiration. And since he thought that the entire universe was composed of living beings, it
appeared logical to choose air as the first principle.
-According to him, the substance of the universe was air. Everything evolved from air
by means of condensation and rarefication. The Primary of everything was
DETERMINATE (AIR). For man and all other things could not live without air. He
introduced the idea of CONDENSATION and RAREFACTION

CONDENSATION-When AIR condensed-wind, cloud, water, earth, and finally stones.


RAREFACTION-When AIR condensed-wind, cloud, water, earth, and finally stones and
when rarefied can become FIRE.

d. Heraclitus
-born in the middle of the 6th C. B.C., and died around 480 B.C.
-came from Miletus and belonged to the aristocracy
-the last of the Ionian philosopher who remained in his country
-He was known as Weeping Philosopher and the obscure one
-Plato and Aristotle described his philosophy simply as an exaggerated relativism.
-
Universal Change
-He affirmed that everything in constant flux: panta rei, everything changes.
-Heraclituss philosophy developed out of pessimistic observations regarding change. He
saw the world as existing in a state of perpetual change. Nothing could last, and nothing
could stay the same forever.
-All things change and that nothing is at rest.
-His most quoted words are You cant step in the same river twice (i.e. it will change from
moment to moment) and Everything changes, only becoming remains constant
throughout.

2. The Pythagoreans
-Greek philosopher and mathematician who discovered the Pythagorean Theorem.
-they sought the first principle of all things in a different order, viz., in mathematics.
-Number, the principle of all things
-They concluded that number and its elements constituted the principle of all things:
number constituted the essence and substance of all that was real.
-Even-Odd; Limited-Unlimited
-This means that every number can always be divided into even and odd
elements. It follows from this that even and odd elements constitute the universal elements
of number, and hence, of all things as well. But since the even is identified with the
unlimited and the odd with the limited, everything must be composed of this pair of
contrasts.
-Hence, every reality was composed of an unlimited element and a limited
element.
-Aristotles criticism on the Pythagoreans: In all this, they are not seeking for theories and
causes to account for observed facts, but rather forcing their observation and trying to
accommodate them to certain theories and opinions of their own.

3. The Eleatics

Parmenides
-He was born in Elea (now the modern city of Velia in Italy), possibly in the second half
of the 6th century B.C.
-He espoused a complex doctrine involving ontology-the question of what things must
exist by necessity, what things cannot possibly exist, and in what ways things can exist.
-His thought continues the tradition of his predecessors because his central problem
remains the same-nature and its first principle.
-The Way of Truth
-Two questions have to be answered to understand the mind of Parmenides:
What does he mean by being? Why did he see being as the unifying principle of everything
real?
-Parmenides notion of being is univocal. It does not refer to any concrete
sensible reality but only to being as such, to the being which everything possesses since all of
them exist. This is the being which encompasses everything-the mobile and immobile, the
simple and complex, what is light and what is heavy; everything that exists belongs to being.
-Being is only apprehended by the intellect. The senses grasp the multiplicity of
the sensible; but the intelligence sees beyond the appearances, and knows that behind them
lies only one reality: being.
-For Parmenides, therefore, being and thought are correlative terms since
being only reveals itself to thought, and it is this revelation that constitutes the
truthBeing is unbegotten and incorruptible. On one hand, it cannot come from non-being,
because non-being is nothing, and from nothing nothing comes. On the other hand, it cannot
come from being because being exists, and what already exists need not be brought into
existence. Being, therefore has no beginning and no end. It is immutable, perfect,
complete, with no need for anything.
-Being underlies everything, and constitutes their profound reality. Being is
and always will be what it is. Things can change; they come to be and they die, they grow and
they wane, but being itself always remains one and the same.
-The being of Parmenides cannot be a principle because nothing can
proceed from it.
-The Problem in Parmenides thought
-For the Ionians, the first principle is the origin of all things through the many
changes it undergoes; but for Parmenides, being remains unchanged and always the same.
The problem, therefore, naturally arises: what reality does Parmenides attribute to the sensible
and multiple? What relation does it have with being?
-The Way of Opinion
-If Heraclitus conceives reality as perpetual becoming, Parmenides sees it as
immutable being; if the former defends universal movement as the result of the permanent
opposition of contraries, the latter claims that movement is only an appearance because every
opposition would entail the real duality of being and non-being; if Heraclitus is the philosopher
of becoming, Parmenides is the philosopher of absolute stability.

4. The Pluralists
-This group refuted the Milesians theories and argued that matter was made of many different
substances.

Empedocles (?-440 BCE)


-born in Agrigento, Sicily, in the beginning of the 5th Century B.C.
-The first philosopher to attempt a reconciliation of the being of Parmenides with
the testimony of the senses.
-His thought is found in two of his works: On Nature and The Purifications

Philosophy-Works-Purifications, On Nature
1. Held that things were ultimately made of four roots-earth, fire, air, and water, which
eternal and intrinsically immutable.
2. He sought to substantiate in this theory the doctrine of Parmenides. Change in the
universe was a running through of the roots (or elements).
3. He found for the first time the sign of an external efficient cause.

Particles of roots were set in motion by Love and Hate (Strife)-Love brings things together, and
therefore, is at the origin of the generation of things. On the other hand, Hate is divisive and
brings about corruption. Love and Hate are two forces that are constantly at odds with each
otherThey acted according to no law, so everything seemed governed by chance and the
survival of the fittest.

Empedocles Four stages in universal change


1. Four elements were indiscriminately mixed together. The force of love was within the
sphere and strife without.
2. Strife began to enter the sphere; love to leave, and now the four elements began to
separate out and form combinations.
3. Strife was entirely within the sphere; love entirely without. Now the elements were entirely
separated and the likes were united to likes.
4. Love began to re-enter; strife to leave. Different combinations were formed and other
worlds were formed.
On Knowledge
-The principle of knowledge lies in a material likeness between the sensible object and our
senses.
-Sensible knowledge is therefore the result of the contact between the elements of things and
the elements of the senses. He claimed that there is a constant effusion of elements from things, and
when this comes in contact with the senses, sensible knowledge is produced.

Theory of Life
-Everything was pure chance; survival of the fittest
-There was no distinction between sensation and reasoning.
-He held that there was an infinite number of things, but four varieties only. Particles were
immutable, but they moved locally. To explain this, he brought in the first external efficient cause; in
fact, two-love and strife. The universe was purely mechanistic, devoid of all finality.

Anaxagoras (ca. 500-428 B.C.E)


-He was born in Clazomenae, near Miletus, around the year 500 B.C.
-He was the first philosopher to introduce the notion of mind as the efficient cause of
motion.
-For him, beings are strictly speaking immutable, indestructible, and indivisible. They
give rise to the multiplicity of things according to the way they mix and combine with one another.

The Homeomeries
-The multiplicity of substances lead Anaxagoras to conclude that the first principle must, in a
way, embody all things in itself.
-He affirmed that the first principle was a confused mixture of infinitesimally small elements
which are inert, unchangeable, eternal, and qualitatively different from one another. They are the
seeds of all things. Aristotle called them homeomeries, or things which remain qualitatively the
same even if they are divided into smaller and smaller parts.
-Everything is found in everything
-The qualitative differences of all things are found in every being, though some elements may
be minimally represented in the nature.

The Intelligence
-Intelligence is separated to the matter
-Nous (the mind or the intellect; for Informal British, common sense; practical intelligence)
-the Nous functions only as the origin of movement. Since the seeds of all things are eternal,
the Intelligence merely starts the cosmic movement whereby things begin to differentiate themselves
from one another, and take on their particular characteristics.

The Atomists: Leicippus and Democritus


-The atomist school represents another effort to reconcile the unity of being with the
multiplicity of the physical world.
-The atomist, for their part, while admitting the plurality of the first principle with
Empedocles and Anaxagoras, deny any qualitative difference among them. They say that everything
is composed of atoms, and that these atoms are characterized by the same features as the being of
Parmenides, or better still, the being of Melissus: they are indivisible, full, solid, compact, qualitatively
identical with one another, and unchangeable.

Atoms and the Vacuum


-For the atomists, everything, every qualitative difference in things, is derived from a
number of qualitatively identical but geometrically distinct principles.
-Weakness: For the Atomists, generation and corruption do not take place properly
speaking since these phenomena are nothing but the result of the coming together or separation of
atoms.
-The diversity of things is caused by the movement of atoms in a vacuum. This
vacuum is a reality which exists. Now, when the atoms come together, they bring about generation;
when they separate from one another, they bring about corruption.
-The vacuum is just as real as the atoms are. Every corporeal being, therefore, is
composed of several atoms separated from one another by a vacuum.
-the cause of movement of atoms is nothing but the very instability of their nature: they
are, by nature, in constant motion.

Knowledge
-For the atomists, knowledge, whether sensible or intellectual, is caused by the contact
of atoms.

THE SOPHISTS (GREEK HUMANISM)


-Man comes to the forefront of philosophical discussion
-It is not only made man its subject of investigation; it also catered to mans needs, offering him no
longer speculative but practical knowledge: it had one concrete goal-mans education.

Protagoras
-He rejects Parmenides being
-Man determines the truth of the object, and he determines it according to his own knowledges
-Knowledge for Protagoras is based exclusively on the senses which are constantly subject to
change
-Man is the measure of all things-things which exist insofar as they exist, and things which do
not exist insofar as they do not exist
-Wisdom for him not only meant skillful rhetoric but above all the ability to discern what is good
and evil in every circumstance and in each thing.

Gorgias
-disciple of Empedocles
-born in Sicily around the year 483 B.C.
-The philosophy of Gorgias was the exact opposite of Eleatism, and is summarized in three
theses:
First: nothing exists. Second: if anything existed, it cannot be known by man. Third: if it can
be known, it cannot be transmitted and explained to others.
-Gorgias rejects both the reality of being and that of non-being.
-Nothing exists, and there is no such reality as truth.
-Since we cannot speak of being, neither can we speak of any correspondence between
being and thought, or being and truth.
-Even if being were thinkable, it could not be communicated to others:
the word is not the object which really exists. Therefore, what we tell our neighbor is
not an existing reality but a simple word. Now a word is really different from its object.
-He not only divorces thought from being, he also cuts the link between our words and the
realities our words are meant to expressAlthough the word has no truth content, it can be used to
control minds and manipulate people: it is a great tool for domination; being so small and invisible, it
is yet capable of accomplishing feats only the gods can do.
SOCRATES, PLATO, AND ARISTOTLE

SOCRATES
-Gifted thinker of ancient Athens who helped lay the foundation of western philosophy
-Born in Athens in 469 BCE, Socrates was the son of a stonemason and a midwife.
-As a young man he is believed to have studied natural philosophy, looking at the various explanations of the
nature of the universe.
-He then became involved in the politics of the city-state and concerned with more down-to-earth ethical
issues, such as the nature of justice.
-His primary concern in philosophy was: How should we live? However, he was not interested in winning
arguments, or arguing for the sake of making moneya charge that was leveled at many of his
contemporaries. Nor was he seeking answers or explanationshe was simply examining the basis of the
concepts we apply to ourselves (such as good, bad, and just), for he believed that understanding what we
are is the first task of philosophy.

The Socratic Method


-Method of elenchus (i.e. rigorous questioning technique)
-Designed to sting people into realizing their own ignorance
-Provoke genuine intellectual curiosity
-True knowledge gained only by constantly questioning assumptions that underlies all we do
-To achieve truth is to engage in a permanent state of critical thinking
-DIALECTIC: A method of seeking truth through a series of questions and answers.

PLATO
-Socrates Student
-Founded the Academy: First institution for higher education
-First Western philosopher whose writings have survived
-Most of what we know about Socrates comes from Plato's writings
-The idealist or utopian or dreamer
-Born into a wealthy family in the second year of the Peloponnesian War
-Name means high forehead
-Left Athens when Socrates died but returned to open a school called the Academy in 385 BCE
Wrote 20 books, many in the dialectic style (a story which attempts to teach a specific concept) with Socrates
as the main character
Key works
c.399387 BCE Apology, Crito, Giorgias, Hippias Major, Meno, Protagoras (early dialogues)
c.380360 BCE Phaedo, Phaedrus, Republic, Symposium (middle dialogues)
c.360355 BCE Parmenides, Sophist, Theaetetus (late dialogues)

Platos Theory of Ideas


Reality can be divided into two realms:
The Visible World
Forms - Ideas

The Visible World


Lower - Imperfect
World experienced by our senses
Physical
Bound by Space and Time
Always changing
Always becoming

Realm of Forms-Ideas
Higher - Perfect
ULTIMATE REALITY
Not accessible to our senses
Non-Physical
Not Bound by Space and Time
Never Changing
Always is
ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE

The Allegory of the Cave, in which knowledge of the world is limited to mere shadows of reality and
truth, is used by Plato to explain his idea of a world of perfect Forms, or Ideas. To illustrate his theory,
Plato presents what has become known as the Allegory of the Cave. He asks us to imagine a cave
in which people have been imprisoned since birth, tied up facing the back wall in the darkness. They
can only face straight ahead. Behind the prisoners is a bright fire, which casts shadows onto the wall
they are facing. There is also a rampart between the fire and the prisoners along which people walk
and hold up various objects from time to time, so that the shadows of these objects are cast on the
wall. These shadows are all the prisoners know of the other of what Plato considers to be reality, also
solves the problem of finding constants in an apparently changing world.

There are 3 sources of knowledge:


Knowledge
Opinion
Knowledge through mind or wisdom

Knowledge is obtained from senses i.e. knowledge of objects, colours, taste, touch etc. But Plato
does not consider this as real knowledge.

An opinion regarding any object, but this knowledge cannot be relied upon as the views of every
person differs regarding the same object.

Two types of Opinions:


1. Eikasia (illusion, or imagination)-considered as the lower type in Platos Allegory. This is
represented by the shadows seen by the prisoners.
2. Pistis (Belief or conviction)-commonsensical view about the world.
Knowledge through mind or wisdom it is the highest degree of knowledge which includes virtues
like truth, goodness and beauty. This knowledge is idealistic and is based on original thinking. The
characteristic of knowledge is that it is found in the form of universal truth.

Two types:
1. Noesis (reason)-higher knowledge that deals with grasping of complete or perfect knowledge
of the forms and ideas, especially the idea of the Good in the world of Forms and Ideas using
contemplation.
2. Dianoia (understanding)-lower type of knowledge associated with mathematical, abstract, or
scientific understanding. It relies on some assumptions, hypothesis, and imaginary from
physical or sensible world.

*Before achieving full or complete knowledge, the person has to go through the process of
recognizing his own ignorance or aporia.

ARISTOTLE
-Born at Stagira in northern Greece in 384 BC.
-367 347 BC Student at Platos Academy.
-Was not named head of Academy when Plato died; so, left Athens.
-Went to Macedonia and became tutor of the Alexander the Great when Alexander was 12
(343 BC).
-After Alexander became Emperor of all Greece, returned to Athens and founded his own
school, the Lyceum in 335 BC.
-After Alexander died (323 BC), anti-Macedonian feelings in Athens forced Aristotle to leave,
as he did not wish to suffer Socrates fate.
-Died one year later in Chalcis.
-Only about one fourth of Aristotles writings have survived. Most were lost when the Romans,
accidentally, burned down the great library of Alexandria, Egypt in 47 BC.
-All the works Aristotle had polished for publication were destroyed, including many dialogues
in the style of Plato but said to be infinitely superior in literary and philosophical quality.
-The works we have left are, essentially, the lecture notes Aristotle used for teaching at the
Lyceum.
-Still, in the Middle Ages, Aristotle was called, simply, The Philosopher.
-In his Divine Comedy, Dante christened Aristotle The Master of All Who Know.

Aristotles Critique of Plato


The Problem of Chorismos
Chorismos is Greek for separation.
In Platos metaphysics, there is too much of a separation between the Forms and
sensible objects for the Forms to be the sources of material objects.
Platos attempts at explaining the relationship between the Forms and sensible objects
are merely empty words and poetical metaphors.
The Problem of Change
Plato maintained that there is change in the World of Becoming.
Plato, however, did NOT explain how this change occurs.
Indeed, why should there be change in the World of Becoming anyway, since its
supposed to be a copy of the changeless World of Being?
Hylomorphic Composition
From two Greek words
hyle, meaning matter
morphe, meaning form
There is only one world, the world of substances.
Substance: A fundamental entity. It results from the union of matter and form.
Matter: That which gets organized and structured.
Form: That which organizes and structures.
Plato maintained that the Forms are transcendent realities.
Aristotle maintained that form is immanent in particular substances.
Stuffed animal analogy
Matter is like the stuffing.
Form is like the outer skin.
Matter and form are distinct but indivisible.
Neither pure form nor pure matter exists. They exist only united to one another in particular
substances.
E. g. tableness does NOT exist apart from particular tables in some fantastic World of Being.
Tableness exists only in particular tables.
While they are indivisible, matter and form are distinct because, if they were not,
substantial change would be impossible.
Aristotles 10 Categories

Substance: a being or nature that carries existential reality by itself, and not as modifier of
another thing. (e.g., man, horse)
Quantity: modification of the material element of a being as to the effect of having massive
and measurable parts. Because the parts are massive they are also incomprenetrable, and
hence we also have the effect of dimension or extension. Mensurability may be gauged
according to mass, or dimension. (e.g., four-foot, five-foot)
Quality: a secondary formal feature of a being. By designating quality as secondary formal
feature, we denote that it does not specify or constitute the substantial nature, but is
accessional to it. (e.g., white, grammatical)
Relation: accessional reference of one being to another. (e.g., double, half)
Place: circumstantial determination as to a point in space, or on an area, below a surface, or in
a circumscribing body. (e.g., in the Lyceum, in the market-place)
Date: circumstantial determination as to time, i.e., a point, or a portion of certain duration.
(e.g., yesterday, last year)
Posture: secondary modification as regards placement of parts. (e.g., is lying, is sitting)
State: accessional determination as to external apparel. (e.g., has shoes on, has armor on)
Action: motion originating from a being and commonly including some change in another
being. (e.g., cutting, burning)
Passion: reception or result of an active influence from an agent. It should not be taken in the
narrow sense of damage or harm, but in the wider sense given. (e.g., being cut, being burned)

Substantial Change
Substantial change is the corruption (destruction) of one substance and the generation
(production) of another.
E. g. the formation of a water molecule.
In uniting, two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen cease to be hydrogen and
oxygen.
These separate substances cease to be and a new substance, the water molecule, is
generated (i. e. it starts to be.)
In uniting, the matter of the hydrogen atoms and of the oxygen atom has been put into a
new form, waterness.
The matters being put into a new form destroys the previous substances, the hydrogen
and oxygen atoms, and generates a new one, the water molecule.
The water molecule is NOT a composite of three parts (two parts hydrogen and one
part oxygen).
The water molecule is one, unified substance.
Direct analogy to biological generation.
When sperm and ovum unite, the result, the zygote, is NOT a composite (one
part sperm and one part ovum).
The zygote is one unified substance. It was generated when the matter of the
sperm and of the ovum was put into a new form, zygoteness.

Accidental Change
Accidents
-They are the modifications that substance undergo, but that do not change the kind of thing that
each substance is.
-Accidents only exist when they are the accidents of some substance.
-All these distinctions are basically logical, but in a sense they reflect the structure of reality. One
never finds any substance that we experience without some accidents, nor an accident that is not the
accident of a substance. Every dog, for instance, has some color, place, size. Nevertheless, it is
obvious that what a dog is is not the same as its color, or its size, etc.
-For Aristotle there are 10 categories into which things naturally fall. They are
Substance, and Nine Accidents:
Quantity, Quality, Relation, Action, Passion, Time, Place, Posture (the arrangement of parts),
and State (whether a thing is dressed or armed, etc.)
-The term "accident" is applied in philosophy to describe a mode of existence of being (an accidental
mode) or of an element in being, and also of a property of being. In the logic of natural language, an
accident means a category of predicates that predicate accidental features of a subject in a sentence.
-Accidents determine the wealth of content in the concrete being. Because of them, particular beings
have a wealth of content and create among themselves definite relations and are subject to definite
determinations (such as magnitude, color, and shape). They occupy a place and exist at a definite
time, undergo something or influence other things, etc..
-Although accidents do not exist independently in the same way as a whole thing, they are not
abstract or non-real. We will never encounter anywhere a color, shape, time, place or activity that
exists on its own, but we encounter trees of a certain color, things with definite shapes, people who
live at a particular time and in a particular place, etc..
-Accidents receive their being and reality from the subject or substance in which they are located; the
presence or absence of an accident affects the modification of the entire being. This modification can
include the being as a whole or merely some aspect of the being.

A substances losing or gaining a characteristic (an accident) while remaining the same
substance.
Dismantling a table and using the wood to make a chair is an example of substantial change.
The matter of the table has been put into a new form.
Painting a brown table red is an example of accidental change. The table both loses an
accident (browness) and gains one (redness) while remaining the same table.

An Important Distinction
Prime Matter: The fundamental stuff out of which substances are generated. Aristotelian
prime matter is not unlike modern physics mass/energy.
Second Matter: The substance(s) from which a new substance is generated when the prime
matter of the original substance(s) is put into a new form, e.g. wood is the second matter of a
wooden table.

The Four Causes


Material Cause: The second matter of a present substance.
Formal Cause: The form the prime matter has taken in a present substance.
Efficient Cause: Whatever generated a present substance.
Final Cause: The purpose for which a present substance was generated.

What are the Four Causes?


A Statue of Socrates
Material Cause: Marble
Formal Cause: Statueness of Socrates
Efficient Cause: Sculptor
Final Cause: To honor Socrates
A Shirt
Material Cause: Fabric
Formal Cause: Shirtness
Efficient Cause: Shirt Maker
Final Cause: To keep someone warm.
A Wig
Material Cause: Real or synthetic hair
Formal Cause: Wigness
Efficient Cause: Wig Maker
Final Cause: To make someone look and/or feel better.
METHODS OF PHILOSOPHIZING

BIAS

Cognitive bias is a limitation in objective thinking that is caused by the tendency for the human brain
to perceive information through a filter of personal experience and preferences. The filtering process
is called heuristics; its a coping mechanism that allows the brain to prioritize and process the vast
amount of input it receives each second. While the mechanism is very effective, its limitations can
cause errors that can be exploited.

It may not be totally possible to eliminate the brains predisposition to take shortcuts, but
understanding that bias exists can be useful when making decisions. A continually evolving list of
cognitive biases has been identified over the last six decades of research on human judgment and
decision-making in cognitive science, social psychology and behavioral economics. They include:

1. Anchoring effect the tendency for the brain to rely too much on the first instance of
information it received when making decisions later on.
2. Availability bias the tendency for the brain to conclude that a known instance is more
representative of the whole than is actually the case.
3. Bandwagon effect the tendency for the brain to conclude that something must be desirable
because other people desire it.
4. Bias blind spot the tendency for the brain to recognize anothers bias but not its own.
5. Clustering illusion the tendency for the brain to want to see a pattern in what is actually a
random sequence of numbers or events.
6. Confirmation bias the tendency for the brain to value new information that supports existing
ideas.
7. Framing effect the tendency of the brain to arrive at different conclusions when reviewing
the same information depending upon how the information is presented.
8. Group think the tendency for the brain to place value on consensus.
9. Negativity bias the tendency for the brain to subconsciously place more significance on
negative events than positive ones. This bias probably evolved as a survival technique.
Assuming the worst of a situation that turns out not to be dangerous is much safer than not
expecting danger that turns out to be present.
10. Recency bias the tendency for the brain to subconsciously place more value on the last
information it received about a topic.
11. Sunk cost effect the tendency for the brain to continue investing in something that clearly
isnt working in order to avoid failure.
12. Survivorship bias the tendency for the brain to focus on positive outcomes in favor of
negative ones. A related phenomenon is the ostrich effect, in which people metaphorically bury
their heads in the sand to avoid bad news.

LOGIC (DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT)

Arguments
Philosophy is the art of constructing and evaluating arguments
Arguments are meant to be convincing
So philosophers must be sensitive to what makes an argument convincing

Thinking Critically
First step: Think Critically
What is the argument trying to say?
Why does the argument succeed, or not?
Whats good, bad, or indifferent?
The form of the argument
Whats the point?
How do we get to the point?
Structure
How do the parts of the argument fit together?

General Structure
In general, arguments consist of:
The thesis or position argued for
The conclusion
The reasons why the conclusion should be accepted
The premises
Usually this is written in standard form:
Premise 1 (Justification)
Premise 2 (Justification)
Therefore, Conclusion (Justification)

Two kinds of argument


In general, there are two kinds of argument:
Deductive Arguments
Inductive Arguments
These arguments work (slightly) differently, so theyre evaluated differently

But lets be more specific


A statement is any unambiguous declarative sentence about a fact (or non-fact) about the
world.
It says that something is (or isnt) the case.
An argument is a series of statements meant to establish a claim.
A claim or conclusion is the statement whose truth an argument is meant to establish.
A statements truth value is either true or false.
All statements have a truth value. A statement is false when what it says about the
world is not actually the case. A statement is true when what it says about the world is
actually the case.
A premise is a statement that is used in an argument to establish a conclusion.
Logic The science of correct reasoning.
Reasoning The drawing of inferences or conclusions from known or assumed facts.
When solving a problem, one must understand the question, gather all pertinent facts, analyze the
problem i.e. compare with previous problems (note similarities and differences), perhaps use pictures
or formulas to solve the problem.

Deductive Reasoning
Starts with a general rule (a premise) which we know to be true. Then, from that rule, we
make a true conclusion about something specific. The process of reasoning from known facts
to conclusions. When you reason deductively, you can say therefore with certainty. If your
facts were firm to begin with, then your conclusions will also be firm.
From vague

To specific

Syllogism: An argument composed of two statements or premises (the major and minor
premises), followed by a conclusion.
For any given set of premises, if the conclusion is guaranteed, the arguments is said to be
valid.
If the conclusion is not guaranteed (at least one instance in which the conclusion does not
follow), the argument is said to be invalid.
BE CARFEUL, DO NOT CONFUSE TRUTH WITH VALIDITY!
A deductive argument is:
VALID if its premises necessarily lead to its conclusion.
That is, if you were to accept that the premises are all true, you must accept that the
conclusion is true.
SOUND if it is valid and you accept that all its premises are true.
A good, convincing argument is sound.
A bad argument is any other kind of argument.
VALIDITY + TRUE PREMISES* = SOUND
*or, at least, accepted premises
Examples
All people are mortal. Socrates is a person. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Sound and Valid
All people are mortal. My dog is mortal. Therefore, my dog is a person.
Invalid, but Sound
All green things make me sick. Oranges are green. Therefore, oranges make me sick.
Valid, but Not sound.
Whales know how to play hockey. Therefore, Canadians like winter.
Invalid and Not Sound
Notice
Validity does not depend on the truth of the premises.
All people are mortal. My dog is mortal. Therefore, my dog is a person.
The premises are true. But the argument is still invalid.
Soundness does not depend on the truth of the conclusion.
An argument can be bad even if the conclusion is obviously true.
Evaluating Deductive Arguments
Good arguments must be sound.
If you want to accept of an argument, you would have to show both validity and
soundness
Bad arguments can be bad in two ways:
Invalid
You can show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises
Unsound
You can show that at least one premise is unacceptable

Inductive Reasoning
The process of going from observations to conclusions.
This type of conclusion is sometimes called an inference.
Observing that something is true many times, then concluding that it will be true in all instances
Using the data to make a prediction

From Specific

To General

Inductive arguments are not truth preserving


Even in a good inductive argument where the premises are true, the conclusion does
not have to be true.
At most, the conclusion is most likely true.
Inductive arguments are meant to make conclusions more likely or more acceptable
An inductive argument is:
STRONG if its premises make the conclusion probable
That is, if you were to accept the premises as true, then you would have to accept that
the conclusion was probably true
COGENT if it is strong and its premises are accepted
A good, convincing argument is cogent.
STRENGTH + TRUE PREMISES* = COGENT
Examples
This cooler contains 30 cans. 25 cans selected at random contained soda. Therefore, all the
cans probably contain soda.
Strong and Cogent
This cooler contains 30 cans. 3 cans selected at random contained soda. Therefore, all the
cans probably contain soda.
Strong, but Weak
Every monkey Ive seen (over 500) has blue teeth. Therefore, the next monkey I see will
probably have blue teeth.
Strong, but not cogent
Notice
Strength admits of degrees.
An argument can be stronger or weaker
Usually, the more evidence available, the stronger the argument
Strength does not depend on the truth of the premises
Evaluating Inductive Arguments
Good arguments must be cogent.
If you want to accept of an argument, you would have to show both strength and
cogency
Bad arguments can be bad in two ways:
Weak
You can show that the premises does not make the conclusion more probable
Not cogent
You can show that at least one premise is unacceptable

Argument by Analogy
One particular kind of inductive argument is an Argument by Analogy
Comparison of two or more things
Concludes that they share characteristic(s)
Because they share other characteristic(s)
Example:
Watches exhibit order, function, and design. They were also created by a
creator. The universe exhibits order, function, and design. Therefore, the
universe probably was created by a creator.
Evaluated like other inductive arguments

Fallacies
A Fallacy is a defect in an argument other than its having false premises. To detect fallacies, it is
required to examine the arguments content.
Fallacies of Reasoning
Here are some of the usually committed errors in reasoning and thus, coming up with false
conclusion and worse, distorting the truth.
a. Appeal to pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)
-A specific kind of appeal to emotion in which someone tries to win support for an argument or
idea by exploiting his or her opponents feelings of pity or guilt
-When it comes to determining the validity or factuality of a claim, any attempt to sway an
argument via emotion, rather than the quality of the logic or evidence, can be considered a
fallacy. This includes in some but not all cases the fallacy argument from adverse
consequences, or scare tactic
e.g.
Bad things will happen to us if you do not agree with my argument.
b. Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
-Whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa.
-The fallacy of appeal to ignorance comes in two forms:
(1) Not knowing that a certain statement is true is taken to be a proof that it is false.
(2) Not knowing that a statement is false is taken to be a proof that it is true.
-The fallacy uses an unjustified attempt to shift the burden of proof. The fallacy is also called
Argument from Ignorance.
e.g.
Nobody has ever proved to me theres a God, so I know there is no God.
c. Equivocation
-This logical chain of reasoning of a term or a word several times, by giving the particular word
a different meaning each time.
-allows a key word or term in an argument to shift its meaning during the course of the
argument. The result is that the conclusion of the argument is not concerned with the same
thing as the premise(s).
e.g.
Human beings have hands; the clock has hands.
He is drinking from the pitcher of water; he is a baseball pitcher.
d. Composition
-This infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the
whole. The reverse of this fallacy is division.
-The composition fallacy occurs when someone mistakenly assumes that a characteristic of
some or all the individuals in a group is also a characteristic of the group itself, the group
composed of those members.
e.g.
Each human cell is very lightweight, so a human being composed of cells is also very
lightweight.
e. Division
-One reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its
parts.
e.g.
The 2nd grade in Jefferson elementary eats a lot of ice cream
Carlos is a 2nd grader in Jefferson elementary
Therefore, Carlos eats a lot of ice cream
f. Against the Person (Argumentum Ad Homine)
-This fallacy attempts to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person
advocating the premise. However, in some instances, questions of personal conduct,
character, motives, etc., are legitimate if relevant to the issue.
e.g.
What she says about Johannes Keplers astronomy of the 1600s must be just so much
garbage. Do you realize shes only fourteen years old?
g. Appeal to force (Argumentum Ad Baculum)
-An argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force, is given as a justification for a
conclusion.
e.g.
If you dont accept X as true, I will hurt you.
h. Appeal to the People (Argumentum Ad Populum)
-An argument that appeals or exploits peoples vanities, desire for esteem, and anchoring on
popularity.
-refers to popular opinion or majority sentiment in order to provide support for a claim. Often
the "common man" or "common sense" provides the basis for the claim.
e.g.
All I can say is that if living together is immoral, then I have plenty of company.
How could you not believe in virgin births? Roughly two billion people believe in them, dont
you think you should reconsider your position?
i. False Cause (Post Hoc)
-Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one. This
fallacy is also referred to as coincidental correlation, or correlation not causation.
-mistakes correlation or association for causation, by assuming that because one thing follows
another it was caused by the other.
e.g.
A black cat crossed Babbs' path yesterday and, sure enough, she was involved in an
automobile accident later that same afternoon.
The introduction of sex education courses at the high school level has resulted in increased
promiscuity among teens. A recent study revealed that the number of reported cases of STDs
(sexually transmitted diseases) was significantly higher for high schools that offered courses in
sex education than for high schools that did not.
j. Hasty Generalization
-One commits errors if one reaches an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence.
The fallacy is commonly based on a broad conclusion upon the statistics of a survey of a small
group that fails to sufficiently represent the whole population.
e.g.
All of those movie stars are really rude. I asked Kevin Costner for his autograph in a restaurant
in Westwood the other evening, and he told me to get lost.
Pit Bulls are actually gentle, sweet dogs. My next door neighbor has one and his dog loves to
romp and play with all the kids in the neighborhood!
k. Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)
-This is a type of fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly
the premise
-entails making an argument, the conclusion of which is based on an unstated or unproven
assumption. In question form, this fallacy is known as a COMPLEX QUESTION.
e.g.
Abortion is murder, since killing a baby is an act of murder.
Paranormal activity is real because I have experienced what can only be described as
paranormal activity.
l. Sweeping Generalization (Dicto Simpliciter)
-assumes that what is true of the whole will also be true of the part, or that what is true in most
instances will be true in all instances.
e.g. Muffin must be rich or have rich parents, because she belongs to ZXQ, and ZXQ is the richest
sorority on campus.
I'd like to hire you, but you're an ex-felon and statistics show that 80% of ex-felons recidivate.
m. Slippery Slop Argument
-This fallacy consists of arguing without good reasons that taking a particular step will
inevitably lead to another, normally catastrophic steps.
Example:
Mom: Those look like bags under your eyes. Are you getting enough sleep?
Jeff: I had a test and stayed up late studying.
Mom: You didnt take any drugs, did you?
Jeff: Just caffeine in my coffee, like I always do.
Mom: Jeff! You know what happens when people take drugs! Pretty soon the caffeine wont be
strong enough. Then you will take something stronger, maybe someones diet pill. Then,
something even stronger. Eventually, you will be doing cocaine. Then you will be a crack
addict! So, dont drink that coffee.
n. Straw Man Fallacy
-You commit the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your
opponent, one that the opponent wouldnt endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily
refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponents actual position.
Example (a debate before the city council):
Opponent: Because of the killing and suffering of Indians that followed Columbuss discovery
of America, the City of Berkeley should declare that Columbus Day will no longer be observed
in our city.
Speaker: This is ridiculous, fellow members of the city council. Its not true that everybody who
ever came to America from another country somehow oppressed the Indians. I say we should
continue to observe Columbus Day, and vote down this resolution that will make the City of
Berkeley the laughing stock of the nation.
*The speaker has twisted what his opponent said; the opponent never said, nor even indirectly
suggested, that everybody who ever came to America from another country somehow
oppressed the Indians.
o. Tautology: (a sub-category of circular argument)
-defining terms or qualifying an argument in such a way that it would be impossible to disprove
the argument. Often, the rationale for the argument is merely a restatement of the conclusion
in different words.
example: The Bible is the word of God. We know this because the Bible itself tells us so.
example: You are a disagreeable person and, if you disagree with me on this, it will only further prove
what a disagreeable person you are.
p. False Dilemma
-Unfairly presenting too few choices and then implying that a choice must be made among this
short menu of choices commits the false dilemma fallacy.
Example:
I want to go to Scotland from London. I overheard McTaggart say there are two roads to
Scotland from London: the high road and the low road. I expect the high road would be too
risky because its through the hills and that means dangerous curves. But its raining now, so
both roads are probably slippery. I dont like either choice, but I guess I should take the low
road and be safer.
*This would be fine reasoning is you were limited to only two roads, but youve falsely gotten
yourself into a dilemma with such reasoning. There are many other ways to get to Scotland.

q. Inconsistency
-The fallacy occurs when we accept an inconsistent set of claims, that is, when we accept a
claim that logically conflicts with other claims we hold.
e.g.
Im not racist. Some of my best friends are white. But I just dont think that white women love
their babies as much as our women do.
*That last remark implies the speaker is a racist, although the speaker doesnt notice the
inconsistency.

Rationalism vs Empiricism
The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent
upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge.
Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained
independently of sense experience.
Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.
The Empiricist View of Knowledge (A posteriori-from the latter)
Empiricists have always claimed that sense experience is the ultimate starting point for all our
knowledge. The senses, they maintain, give us all our raw data about the world, and without this raw
material, there would be no knowledge at all. Perception starts a process, and from this process
come all our beliefs. In its purest form, empiricism holds that sense experience alone gives birth to all
our beliefs and all our knowledge. A classic example of an empiricist is the British philosopher John
Locke (16321704).
John Lockes View of the Human Mind as a Tabula Rasa
John Locke in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding restated the importance of the
experience of the senses over speculation and sets out the case that the human mind at birth is a
complete, but receptive, blank slate (scraped tablet or tabula rasa ) upon which experience imprints
knowledge.
Locke argued that people acquire knowledge from the information about the objects in the world that
our senses bring. People begin with simple ideas and then combine them into more complex ones.
Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper void of all characters, without any ideas.
How comes it to be furnished? Whence comes it by that vast store which the busy and boundless
fancy of man has painted on it with an almost endless variety? Whence has it all the materials of
reason and knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, from EXPERIENCE.

Essay Concerning Human Understanding : Hernnstein & Murray, 1994, p.311


Locke definitely did not believe in powers of intuition or that the human mind is invested with innate
conceptions.

The Rationalist View of Knowledge (A priori-from the earlier)


Rationalists have claimed that the ultimate starting point for all knowledge is not the senses but
reason. They maintain that without prior categories and principles supplied by reason, we couldnt
organize and interpret our sense experience in any way. We would be faced with just one huge,
undifferentiated, kaleidoscopic whirl of sensation, signifying nothing. Rationalism in its purest form
goes so far as to hold that all our rational beliefs, and the entirety of human knowledge, consists in
first principles and innate concepts (concepts that we are just born having) that are somehow
generated and certified by reason, along with anything logically deducible from these first principles.
How can reason supply any mental category or first principle at all? Some rationalists have claimed
that we are born with several fundamental concepts or categories in our minds ready for use. These
give us what the rationalists call innate knowledge.
We have knowledge of some truths in a particular subject as part of our rational nature.
The innateness of our knowledge asserts the existence of knowledge gained a priori,
independently of experience.
Our sense perception is deceptive and does not amount for truth. Opinions could be
misleading and can be called into doubt. Only knowledge gained through inward introspection
in the mind, the journey of the soul is knowledge that could be known for certain.
Our innate knowledge is not learned through either sense experience or intuition and
deduction.
Experiences in the physical world trigger a processes by which we bring this knowledge to
consciousness. Experiences alone does not provide us with the knowledge itself. Knowledge
has been with us all along.
According to some rationalists, we gained the knowledge in an earlier existence. According to
others, God provided us with it at creation. Still others say it is part of our nature through
natural selection.
Experience does not seem to force the concept of causation on us. We just use it to interpret what we
experience. Cause and effect are categories that could never be read out of our experience and must
therefore be brought to that experience by our prior mental disposition to attribute such a connection.
Descartes was a thinker who used skeptical doubt as a prelude to constructing a rationalist
philosophy.
Rene Descartess Methodic Doubt-An Exercise of Skepticism
Ren Descartes, mathematician and physicist, he sought new ways to move beyond Medieval
Aristotelianism and justify the science of his day.
In his Discourse on Method he expresses his disappointment with traditional philosophy and with the
limitations of theology; only logic, geometry and algebra hold his respect, because of the utter
certainty which they can offer us. Unfortunately, because they depend on hypotheses, they cannot tell
us what is real (i.e., what the world is really like).
Therefore Descartes proposes a method of thought incorporating the rigor of mathematics but based
on intuitive truths about what is real, basic knowledge which could not be wrong.
Descartess Method of Systematic Doubt consists in doubting everything that can be doubted until
you arrived at clear and distinct ideas which are non-sensical to doubt. He was convinced that all our
beliefs that are founded on the experience of the external senses could be called into doubt. Once
these are established as indubitable, these would qualify as the starting points of knowledge. Thus,
Descartes went on to prove the existence of the self, as one of the three indubitable premises of
knowledge, in the dictum I think, therefore, I am. (Cogito, Ergo Sum).
The Nature of Knowledge
Stages in the Apprehension of Concepts for Knowledge to Be Possible
1. Perception
This is the first stage, which involves an activity that does not make us different from animals.
Animals also perceive their surroundings, including the thing around them.
Two Types of Perception
External Perception-it happens when we perceive things using our five senses. The result of the
process of external perception is called precept (a mental concept that is developed as a
consequence of the process of perception). Precepts are the immediate product of external
perception.
Internal Perception-it happens when you use your imagination and memory. From these precepts,
you could close your eyes and use your imagination and memory to recreate the precept into an
image (a representation of the external form of a person or thing) or phantasm, which is the product
of this process.
2. Abstraction
This is the second stage that distinguishes us from animals. It involves the use of the intellect where
we grasp what is universal among the different particulars that we have observed from perception.
The result of the process of abstraction or simple apprehension or conception are concepts (an
abstract idea). From the precepts and images, you were able to arrive at the concepts using your
intellect.
Charles Coppens, S. J. described the process of abstraction as a simple apprehension or conception:
Simple apprehension is the act of perceiving the object intellectually, without affirming or denying
anything concerning it. To apprehend is to take hold of the thing as if with the hand; an
apprehension, as an act of the mind, is an intellectual grasping of an object.
It is the mind or the intellect that is responsible for the formation of concepts. Concepts, therefore,
exist in the mind. We perceive only particulars in the world. Our mind has the capacity for
constructing concepts as general terms like your concept of a chair, or even abstract concepts like
love or beauty.
The process is not yet complete. Concepts are said to be the building blocks of knowledge. You
have the blocks, but you need to put the blocks together for knowledge to be possible. They do not
have any truth value at this point. You have not done anything yet to your concept. Concepts could
either be vague or precise, sufficient or insufficient, but they are neither true nor false. Thus,
concepts have no truth value because you have not made any claim regarding your concept. When
words express concepts, they are technically called terms. Consequently, to complete the process of
abstraction, we need a third stage.
3. Judgment
This is the third stage in order to complete the act of the mind. This is where we are going to make a
knowledge claim because we are going to take at least two concepts and put them together in order
to make a statement or a proposition that could either be true or false about the world. You are
therefore affirming or denying something about the concept, or you may be pronouncing an
agreement or disagreement between these two concepts. For example, you take one concept blue
and another concept sky, then you put them together to make the statements: The sky is blue.
This constitutes making a knowledge claim that is either true or false about the world, that is, you
could check whether or not the claim is true depending on the weather that day.
This process is called judgment and the result of this process is a statement or proposition. It
completes the act of the mind for knowledge to become possible. If concepts are considered as the
building blocks of knowledge, you need the statements to cement the together in order to build a
house, in this case, to construct an argument. This reflects the process of reasoning. From this
stage onwards, the accumulation of knowledge and information and the construction of arguments
are now possible.

Sentences and Statements


Sentences
-The concepts that we put together are expressed using sentences.
-Sentences have no truth value
-Sentences are merely uttered as the verbal means of communicating or expressing
commands, questions, emotions like surprise or pleasure, and wishes.

Statements
-Statements expressed through a declarative sentence that has the element of truth or falsity,
since there is a knowledge claim being made in a statement.

Types of Statements
Analytic Statements
-The truth and falsity of the knowledge claim being made could be found within the statement
itself. In other words you do not have to go outside the statement to search whether the claim is true
or false.
-The denial of an analytic statement would lead to absurdity and contradiction. It would be
absurd for us to deny that, The sum of two and three is not five.
-Analytic statements are also known or identified as: truths of language, truths of reason, is of
identity, a priori, matters of logic, or formal statements.

Empirical Statements
-Empirical Statements are different from analytic statements because their truth or falsity
depend on the state of affairs being claimed.
-The knowledge claim being made is not dependent on definitions or tautologous statements
whose truths are contained within itself, but the truth or falsity being claimed by an empirical
statement rests on its correspondence with facts or with the current state of affairs being claimed.
-Its truth depends on the additional information or claim being made. Its truth or falsity of
statement would now depend on whether or not the state of affairs being described actually obtains at
the moment.
-The denial of an empirical statement would not lead to absurdity and contradiction. The
denial of the statement, will not be absurd or contradictory because the state of affairs being
described is one of the possibilities or contingencies happening in the empirical world. In other
words, you are not appealing to definitions in making claim; you are adding to contingent information
in the world. Furthermore, you will not be able to discover the truth of the statement by mere analysis
of the key terms contained. You have to go outside of the statement and to look and see whether the
state of affairs being claimed actually corresponds with the empirical world.
-Empirical Statements are also known or identified as in philosophical literature as truths of
fact, synthetic, matters of fact or a posteriori statements.

Types of Knowledge
Formal Knowledge
-corresponds to knowledge in the formal sciences whose main concern is the validation of their
knowledge claims within the formal system in their respective disciplines.
-systematic
-logical, mathematical, linguistic or any formal system whose method of validation depends entirely
on the particular system being used.

Empirical Knowledge
-It is the general term used to describe the different disciplines in the empirical sciences, ranging from
the hard sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, and others to the soft sciences of sociology, political
science, psychology, and others.
-takes emphasis and makes use of the data or the content from experience and its correspondence
with the state of affairs to establish the truth or falsity of their knowledge claims.
-it gives information about what the world is.

Three Great Theories of Truth


Correspondence Theory
The dominant theory, especially popular with empiricists
Correspondence Theory proposes that a proposition is true if it corresponds to the facts
Example: The apple is sitting on the table can be true only if the apple is in fact
sitting on the table.
Often traced back to Thomas Aquinas version: A judgment is said to be true when it conforms
to the external reality (Summa Theologiae, Q. 16)
Also leaves room for the idea that true may be applied to people (a true friend)
as well as to thoughts
Two main versions of Correspondence Theory: object-based, and fact-based (currently
prominent)

Strengths:
Simplicity
Appeal to common sense
Weaknesses
Difficulties pertaining to linguistics
Falls prey to circular reasoning
Awkwardness in application to mathematics
Leads to skepticism about the external world

Correspondence Theory - Strengths


1. Simplicity
2. Appeal to Common Sense
In order to prove that It is raining today is true, according to the correspondence
theory, all one must do is look out the window and verify that it is in fact raining
According to Descartes, I have never had any doubts about truth, because it
seems a notion so transcendentally clear that nobody can be ignorant of itthe
word truth, in the strict sense, denotes the conformity of thought with its object
(Letter to Mersenne: 16 October 1639, The Philosophical Writings of Descartes,
vol. 3 )
Correspondence Theory Weaknesses
1. Linguistic Issues
How can a word or sentence correspond to things that are nothing like language?
Some philosophers claim that asserting that a word corresponds to an actual
object in reality is rather like comparing apples and oranges
Language is by nature ambiguous a word for an object differs from culture to
culture, and even from person to person
For example, wet, non-frozen precipitation that falls from the sky is
called rain in English, la pluie in French, and regen in German.
In addition, even within a language, one person may call a light rain
a drizzle while another might call it a shower
This ambiguity can cause issues when illustrating how a word corresponds to a
particular object or event
2. Circular Reasoning
Correspondence Theory claims that a proposition is true if it corresponds to the
facts
What is a fact?
A fact is, by definition, a true proposition
So a proposition is true if it corresponds another proposition that is true
The facts must also be proven to be true by showing that they
correspond to other facts
An important rule of writing a definition is that one cannot use the word you are
defining in the definition of the word, which is what Correspondence Theory
does, in a sense
Its rather like defining apple as an apple-like object
3. Mathematical Applications
Correspondence Theory may appear to make sense when it applied to language,
but it runs into difficulty when applied to the truths of mathematics
What factual reality does the proposition 5+2=7 correspond to?
We might point to practical examples, such as 5 pencils plus 2
pencils leaves you with 7 pencils
While that is true, the original proposition says nothing about
pencils and we certainly recognize that there is no such object as
5 or 2 in the real world.
The world of numbers appears to be too theoretical to be accurately explained by
the Correspondence Theory

Coherence Theory
Preferred by many idealists
For idealists, reality is like a collection of beliefs, which makes the coherence
theory particularly attractive
The coherence theory of truth states that if a proposition coheres with all the
other propositions taken to be true, then it is true.
The truth of a belief can only consist in its coherence with other beliefs; truth
comes in degrees
Coherence theorists hold that truth consists in coherence with a set of beliefs or
with a set of propositions held to be true, not just an arbitrary collection of
propositions

Strengths:
Makes sense out of the idea of mathematical truths
Ex: (5+2=7) is true because: 7=7 ; 1+6=7 ; 21/3=(2x3)+1; are all true
Weaknesses
Like the Correspondence theory, the Coherence theory falls prey to circular
reasoning
Ex: Proposition A is true because propositions B and C are true. But how
do you know B is true? Because proposition A and C are true. But what
external evidence is there to support the truth of any of these
propositions?

Pragmatism
William James is considered the father of pragmatism
However, in order to understand James presentation of pragmatism we must draw a
distinction between meaning and truth.
A sentence is meaningful only if believing it would make a practical difference in your
life as opposed to believing some alternative to it.
Example: Proposition A: There is a gaping hole in the middle of the cafeteria.
Would believing this proposition to be true make a practical difference in
your life?
It is safe to assume that one would take a path that avoids the
middle of the cafeteria if one believed that there was a gaping hole
there.
The previous example is an illustration of a meaningful proposition belief in it (or lack thereof)
makes a practical difference in ones life.
What about truth?
Only meaningful sentences can be true or false
James take on both the coherence and correspondence theories of truth is that
they are not competing theories, but rather different tools to be applied to beliefs
to see if those beliefs work
Ideas (which themselves are but parts of our experience) become true just insofar as they
help us to get into satisfactory relations with other parts of our experience,truth in our ideas
means their power to work William James, Pragmatism (49)
The key thing for James and pragmatism is that of an idea working
If believing that there is a gaping hole in the middle of the cafeteria prevents you
from falling and breaking a leg, or making a fool of yourself in front of that cute
boy from chapel, then that belief works. It is true.

Evaluating Opinions

Criteria of Evaluating Opinions


1. Read the opinion in its context
2. Be critical about an opinion
3. Never accept the truth of any statement or belief unless there is adequate evidence for it.
4. Have an attitude of Healthy Skepticism in analyzing and evaluating an opinion
5. Never be afraid to ask question

Existentialism and Phenomenology (Read the book Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human
Person pages 28-30)

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen