Name: D/C Doniel D.

Gom-os Schedule: T-TH 3:00-4:30PM

Course: BSMT-2
Subject: Philo 211
Instructor: Mr. Jason Laure

Socrates (469-399 BCE)

Socrates, an Athenian Greek of the second half of the fifth century BC, wrote no
philosophical works but was uniquely influential in the later history of philosophy. His
philosophical interests were restricted to ethics and the conduct of life, topics which
thereafter became central to philosophy. He discussed these in public places in Athens,
sometimes with other prominent intellectuals or political leaders, sometimes with young men,
who gathered round him in large numbers, and other admirers. Among these young men was
Plato. Socrates' philosophical ideas and - equally important for his philosophical influence -
his personality and methods as a 'teacher' were handed on to posterity in the 'dialogues' that
several of his friends wrote after his death, depicting such discussions. Only those of
Xenophon (Memorabilia, Apology, and Symposium) and the early dialogues of Plato survive
(for example Euthyphro, Apology, Crito). Later Platonic dialogues such as Phaedo,
Symposium and Republic do not present the historical Socrates' ideas; the 'Socrates'
appearing in them is a spokesman for Plato's own ideas. Socrates equated knowledge with
virtue, which ultimately leads to ethical conduct. He believed that the only life worth living
was one that was rigorously examined. He looked for principles and actions that were worth
living by, creating an ethical base upon which decisions should be made. Socrates firmly
believed that knowledge and understanding of virtue, or "the good," was sufficient for
someone to be happy. To him, knowledge of the good was almost akin to an enlightened
state. He believed that no person could willingly choose to do something harmful or negative
if they were fully aware of the value of life.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

The moral philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) involves a merger of at least two
apparently disparate traditions: Aristotelian eudaimonism and Christian theology. On the one
hand, Aquinas follows Aristotle in thinking that an act is good or bad depending on whether
it contributes to or deters us from our proper human end—the telos or final goal at which all
human actions aim. That telos is eudaimonia, or happiness, where “happiness” is understood
in terms of completion, perfection, or well-being. Achieving happiness, however, requires a
range of intellectual and moral virtues that enable us to understand the nature of happiness
and motivate us to seek it in a reliable and consistent way.
On the other hand, Aquinas believes that we can never achieve complete or final happiness in
this life. For him, final happiness consists in beatitude, or supernatural union with God. Such
an end lies far beyond what we through our natural human capacities can attain. For this
reason, we not only need the virtues, we also need God to transform our nature—to perfect or
“deify” it—so that we might be suited to participate in divine beatitude. Moreover, Aquinas
believes that we inherited a propensity to sin from our first parent, Adam. While our nature is
not wholly corrupted by sin, it is nevertheless diminished by sin’s stain, as evidenced by the
fact that our wills are at enmity with God’s. Thus we need God’s help in order to restore the
good of our nature and bring us into conformity with his will. To this end, God imbues us
with his grace which comes in the form of divinely instantiated virtues and gifts.
According to Aquinas’s metaethics, human goodness depends on performing acts that are in
accord with our human nature. Aquinas provides the most comprehensive treatment of this
subject in the second part of the Summa theologiae. There, he explains that reason is
comprised of two powers: one cognitive, the other appetitive. The cognitive power is
the intellect, which enables us to know and understand. The intellect also enables us to
apprehend the goodness a thing has. The appetitive power of reason is called the will.
Aquinas describes the will as a native desire for the understood good.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) is best known for his political thought,
and deservedly so. His vision of the world is strikingly original and still relevant to
contemporary politics. His main concern is the problem of social and political order: how
human beings can live together in peace and avoid the danger and fear of civil conflict. He
poses stark alternatives: we should give our obedience to an unaccountable sovereign (a
person or group empowered to decide every social and political issue). Otherwise what awaits
us is a "state of nature" that closely resembles civil war – a situation of universal insecurity,
where all have reason to fear violent death and where rewarding human cooperation is all but
impossible.

One controversy has dominated interpretations of Hobbes. Does he see human beings as
purely self-interested or egoistic? Several passages support such a reading, leading some to
think that his political conclusions can be avoided if we adopt a more realistic picture of
human nature. However, most scholars now accept that Hobbes himself had a much more
complex view of human motivation. A major theme below will be why the problems he poses
cannot be avoided simply by taking a less "selfish" view of human nature.

Hobbes's moral thought is difficult to disentangle from his politics. On his view, what we
ought to do depends greatly on the situation in which we find ourselves. Where political
authority is lacking (as in his famous natural condition of mankind), our fundamental right
seems to be to save our skins, by whatever means we think fit. Where political authority
exists, our duty seems to be quite straightforward: to obey those in power.