I. WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY?

As you are reading these pages, the chances are that you have enrolled in a philosophy course or are thinking of taking one. Or perhaps you are just browsing out of curiosity. In either case you may be wondering, "What on earth is philosophy, anyway?" Unfortunately, this question is not an easy one to answer. Attempts to provide one-sentence answers are generally unilluminating and misleading. Our approach to answering the question will be as follows: We will talk about some of the chief aims or tasks of philosophy. In so doing, we hope not only to answer the question, Why study philosophy? but also the question, What is philosophy? The answer will be that philosophy is the enterprise which seeks to fulfill those aims or tasks.

A Let us begin, then, by talking about some of the chief aims of philosophy. Among them let us consider five which are relevant to ordinary people as well as professional philosophers. These are (1) the critical scrutiny of our beliefs and convictions; (2) the bringing to light of our hidden assumptions or presuppositions; (3) the quest for a genuinely worthwhile life (4) the effort to keep alive our sense of wonder about the world; and (5) the posing of certain questions which are not dealt with by other disciplines, and the attempt to answer them. We maintain that pursuing these aims constitutes a good reason both for philosophizing and for pursuing or studying philosophy. (These two activities are interconnected, for as you will see, you cannot adequately study philosophy without doing some philosophizing.)

1. Let us first consider some popular and widely held beliefs:

     

Nice guys finish last. (So never give a sucker an even break. Or, don't be a fool.) If you can't see it, touch it, kick it, or walk around it, it isn't there. (Or at any rate it isn't worth bothering about.) Education is good for only one thing: getting a good job. If it doesn't do that (and maybe even if it does), it is a waste of time and money. The only or best measure of happiness is your socioeconomic status and your annual financial statement. Nonconformity is abnormal or immoral. Everything that happens is willed by God and thus is ultimately for the best.

There is no doubt that these are pervasive beliefs. Perhaps most or all of them are held by the proverbial man (or woman) on the street. Similarly, there are many other beliefs which could be added to the list. Generally, these are held in a rather naive and unquestioning manner. Indeed, many of their advocates are quite dogmatic in their adherence to such beliefs. But the ordinary person isn't the only one who is dogmatic. There are people with some degree of sophistication and learning who hold just as tenaciously to certain other beliefs. Let us consider some of these:

   

Human beings are nothing but complex physical and chemical systems, so their behavior is, in theory explainable by the same laws that explain the behavior of billiard balls. Science and technology hold the keys to reality and to all human problems. All of our beliefs, values, and behaviors are products of our genes, our toilet training, our conditioning, our sexual fantasies, or all of the above. Capitalism is the best economic system ever invented and the one which is most in accord with human nature.

 

Pure science is morally neutral; and since technology can be used for both good and ill, it is neither good nor bad in itself. Scientists are just after the truth; they cannot and should not take moral stands on issues except when they are wearing their "ordinary citizen" hats.

You may be wondering, "What does all this have to do with philosophy? The answer is, "A great deal." For in reflecting on such claims as these, on what they mean, on whether they are true or false (or nonsensical), on what their implications are, on what life would be like if they were true (or if we believed them), we are already beginning to philosophize. Indeed, to a large extent this is what the activity of philosophizing consists of the articulation, examination, and critical appraisal of our

most cherished beliefs and convictions. Of course, there are some people who find such an enterprise threatening. This is one reason why philosophers have not always been popular. They engage in what the nineteenth-century German philosopher Nietzsche called untimely meditations. By this he meant reflections and thoughts which go against the cultural values and ideals of one's own time. To be sure, this may be unsettling. Nevertheless, such meditations can be healthy for both oneself and one's culture even if, in the end, one accepts one's culture's values and beliefs (as most of us do, at least to some extent). For as John Stuart Mill (a nineteenth-century British philosopher) said, believing what happens to be true, if you are dogmatic and closed minded about it, is worse than believing what happens to be false, as long as you are open minded and willing to discuss your beliefs and change them in the light of evidence, discussion, and criticism. Here, then, is one good reason for philosophizing.

2. We turn now to another. Philosophers have not only been concerned with the task of examining our naive beliefs and convictions. They have also tried to bring to light and make us aware of our assumptions or presuppositions. What does this mean? An assumption or presupposition is a belief which is taken for granted and hence, of which we may not be conscious. Now, some of our assumptions are ordinary, commonsense beliefs example: and, hence, beliefs which we hold consciously. For

  

The sun will rise tomorrow. (In winter), spring will follow. If I drink a fifth of gin in a half-hour, I will get drunk. Etc.

But there are other assumptions which often lie behind these ordinary beliefs, assumptions to which we often appeal in order to justify these ordinary beliefs. These are the ones we refer to when we say that philosophers have tried to make us aware of our assumptions or presuppositions. For example, suppose you were to ask a friend to justify his or her belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. Your friend would probably do so by answering, "Because it's always been that way." Here we have reached a basic assumption, namely, that what has held in the past will continue to hold in the future. It is important to recognize that this is merely an assumption, not a proved fact. If you think otherwise, ask yourself, "How would I prove it?" By saying, "Well, it has always held in the past?" That would be merely repeating the assumption.

Consider some other assumptions which underlie various beliefs. There are some people who believe that criminals should be punished or even condemned. What is the assumption which underlies this belief? It is that human beings are free agents, that they are always capable of freely choosing to do or not do something, and hence that they are responsible for their actions. Or consider another case. There are some people who believe that the universe must have been created. What is the assumption which underlies this belief? It is that nothing can exist without a cause (and, hence, that the universe must have had a cause). Part of what philosophers try to do, then, is to make us aware of our basic assumptions or presuppositions. Why is this important? Because as long as we are unaware of our assumptions we are not intellectually free. For if we are unaware of them, we are enslaved to them and to all of the consequences they entail. We are not free in our thinking because all that we think is confined to the limits which are set by our unrecognized assumptions. We must, then, first, become aware of them, and second, examine them critically. This is not to say that we must necessarily dismiss them. We undoubtedly will continue to hold many of them. But the manner in which they are held will be different. Here, then, is another good reason for philosophizing.

3. Let us turn to another. Consider the following claim: It is better to suffer an injustice than to do an injustice to another person, since acting unjustly corrupts one and makes one worse, whereas suffering an injustice does not. The man who said this was Socrates, a philosopher of ancient Greece, whose own "untimely meditations" were thought to be aimed at turning the world upside down and therefore cost him his life. For Socrates, the only worthwhile life for a human being is what he called the examined life. The unexamined life is not worth living, he said. This does not mean that if you are not a philosopher you should hang yourself. It means that a human being needs more than bed and bread in order not merely to survive but to live well. In short, what Socrates meant is this: A human being who has and acts on ideas, beliefs, and values, and has only a relatively short life span, would do well to think seriously about what to be; about what to do with his or her life; about what things are most important. All this is especially true today, when so many of us are searching for values and purposes to guide our lives in the face of general dissatisfaction with events around us. It is also true in an age pervaded by a never-ending series of crises and dilemmas: abortion, starvation, economic setbacks, political strife, nuclear accidents, and so on. Having a well-developed sense of values and purpose is more important today than ever. This is especially true if we recall that we live in a society where manipulation of information and public opinion, and emphasis on the faddish and the superficial, are the rule rather than the exception. Being dissatisfied with the status quo is not enough. We must, each and every one of us, set our own priorities in order that our society, as well as our own lives, be straightened out. The obvious place to begin such philosophizing is with the question, What do I want to be/do with my life? Too many of us get caught up in the "rat race" too early in life. We live in a society governed by certain assumptions and standards about human happiness and the good life which all too often are taken up unreflectively. We are taught that success" and "happiness" can be measured in monetary terms, or in terms of socioeconomic status, or in terms of how many college degrees one has, and so on. Materialistic values come to be the measure of everything. We view our own well-being in

comparison with that of others and take our bearings by reference to social standards that we often don't even think twice about. Perhaps this is the wrong way to proceed. Perhaps we ought, each of us, to look inward, to find out what we want, what we value most, what kind of person we want to be, and what sort of life we aspire to. At the social level, too, it may be that our values and priorities need reordering. Do we really value electric gadgets so much that we are willing to risk nuclear disaster or increased risk of cancer to have more nuclear power plants? What, as a society, are our real values? It may well be that underlying all of these individual and social values is the belief that happiness consists in the unlimited search for more and more material wealth. If so, it may also be true that such a view of happiness is an illusion: The more we have, the more we want and the less satisfied we are. This is why Socrates believed that the best life comes from the realization that self-control, and not insatiable desires, is the source of happiness. Whether he was right or wrong, he was raising issues that are worth thinking about; for the answers we give them will bear on the way we live. Here, then, is another good reason for philosophizing.

4. But there is still another. Most of us, as human beings, are naturally curious. There are certain things which we encounter and various experiences which we have that make us wonder. Something may strike us as odd or strange or mysterious or difficult to comprehend, for example, the vastness of space. This sense of wonder and the desire to learn, to know to contemplate the mysteries of life and the universe have given rise to philosophy, science, religion, art, and culture. Surely such activity makes us what we are human beings, not mere animals. It does not matter if our wonder cannot always be

satisfied. Indeed, it may be the case that our recognition of how little we know and how much there is to learn is precisely what makes life so interesting. In our age of science and technology, with its continuous knowledge explosion (which makes the bits of information we learn by rote as outdated as last week's newspapers), it is important to keep this sense of wonder alive. We must appreciate how important it is to nurture our curiosity, not just to appreciate the significance of new breakthroughs in science but to help us recapture our sense of wonder about everyday life and experience. All too often we tend to leave it to experts to tell us what it all means. And all too often the experts are interested only in the practical dimensions of new discoveries in science, technology, medicine, and so on. But this is not enough. We want to keep in touch with these developments and connect them with our own search for meaning and understanding. We have to learn how to learn: how to adapt our beliefs and values in the presence of continuing changes in our understanding of things. It is only by doing this that we can avoid feeling alienated from developments in science and technology. And it is only by valuing the human need to ask basic questions about the cosmos and our place in it that we can preserve our sense of balance and our human qualities of curiosity and interest in the world around us. Once again, it will be helpful to be a bit more specific. We live in an age governed by science and technology. The knowledge we receive from the sciences is often taken to be the highest or the only form of knowledge, capable in principle of answering all our questions and solving all our problems. Political decisions, our educational system, our personal outlooks, and our self understanding all are governed by what has been called scientism, or the view that science is the measure of everything. Politically, this amounts to the idea that "'experts" must make all decisions because only they have

the knowledge to do so. Should we build a neutron bomb or more nuclear power plants? Should we engage in recombinantDNA research and develop techniques for applying genetics to change society? What becomes of democracy in a technological age? And what about education? Is the only knowledge worth having connected with the sciences? Is all learning just the memorization of isolated and all too often useless bits of information? Does this view of learning even help us understand science and the curiosity of scientists about nature? In short, while human curiosity has given us science, do we now live in a society in which the dominance of science actually stifles human curiosity and creativity, and in which education is more like training than it is an adventure in ideas? Obviously, these are complex and difficult issues; and they only scratch the surface in terms of the impact of science and technology on our society, our educational system, our individual lives and outlooks, and the issues of what knowledge and learning are and how best to nurture and satisfy our natural curiosity. One can only hope that this curiosity will continue to flourish, even if this requires us to rethink our basic assumptions about knowledge, science, and learning. So here we have another good reason for philosophizing.

5. Philosophy has had yet another aim or task, namely, attempting to provide answers to certain questions

questions

which are very different from most other kinds of questions. First, they differ from everyday questions, which can be answered by simple observation, such as "Is there beer in the refrigerator?" Second, they differ from scientific questions, which can be answered by experimental procedures, such as "What is the specific gravity of lead?" Third, they differ from still other questions, which can be answered by formal or linguistic determinations, such as "What is the square root of 9?" What are some of the main features of philosophical questions? Isaiah Berlin has called attention to some of them: (1) They are often very general. (2) They may have little practical utility (or if they do it is not always clear just what it is). (3) They are such that there are no obvious and standard procedures or techniques for answering them. It is perhaps the case that many philosophical questions possess all three of these characteristics. For example, consider this question: Are there any propositions which can be known to be true by thinking alone and which do not require any appeal to experience in order to justify them? This question possesses all three of the features just noted. However, there are other questions which are generally held to be philosophical but do not have all three features, for example, Are there any circumstances in which abortion can be justified? Certainly this question may at least have enormous practical consequences. Similarly, there are many moral questions which are quite specific rather than general. Hence, there are at least some philosophical questions which do not possess the first and/or second of the features mentioned by Berlin. However, the third feature does seem to be characteristic of almost all or at least many philosophical questions. They are such that there is no obvious or standard way to answer them. Indeed, this is why many people find that there is, at first, something very peculiar about philosophical questions. And this is why some find that the study of philosophy is a very perplexing enterprise. Let us turn to some examples which illustrate this point. Consider this question: Are walleyed pike found in Illinois? We know right off how to answer this question, namely, by observation, either our own or that of a naturalist. But now consider this question: Are there any entities in the universe which do not exist in either space or time? First, someone who has not

had some exposure to philosophy may not understand just what is meant by this question. But second, even if the question is clarified, it remains the case that there seems to be no ordinary or standard procedure by which to attempt to answer it. Similarly, consider this question: Did the campaigns of Alexander the Great occur in the fourth century B.C.? We cannot, of course, observe Alexander's military ventures ourselves. But we at least know how to look for the relevant evidence, pro or con, by which to provide an answer to the question. But now consider this question: Did the universe have a beginning in time? In this case not only do we not have the relevant evidence, whether from our own observation or from that of someone else, but it is not entirely clear how we would go about looking for what would constitute relevant evidence. Let us take another example. If you were asked, "Are you quite certain that George Bush knows you? you could answer the question easily. But suppose someone asked, "Can you be certain about what goes on in anyone else s mind? Here the answer cannot be given so readily. In the preceding examples we have contrasted some simple empirical or factual questions with philosophical ones. As we have seen, there are some standard procedures for finding answers to the former. Let us now turn to some examples of a different sort. Consider this question: How many positive roots are there of the equation x2 = 4? Anyone with a knowledge of elementary mathematics can answer this question. But now consider this question: Do numbers (not numerals) exist? This question is much more difficult to answer. Indeed, it is not clear just how one would attempt to answer it. Similarly, consider these questions: What is the exact meaning of the word oculist? This can easily be answered. But contrast it with, What is the exact meaning of the word person (or living)? A precise and simple answer is not always available. In these examples we again find that there is a generally agreed-upon procedure for answering the first question of each pair. To be sure, in these cases the procedure is a formal (or definitional or verbal) one rather than an empirical one. Nevertheless, it is a simple procedure. But this is not so for the second question of each pair. To summarize: we have considered several pairs of questions. For the first member of each pair there is some well-attested, generally accepted, straightforward method of discovering the answer. The method differs, de pending on whether the question involves primarily empirical or primarily formal procedures. But this is not so for the second member of each pair. Here we seem to run into an obstacle. Furthermore, the first question of each pair can be settled "once and for all," or at least with a high degree of probability. The second member of each pair cannot, or at least it is not immediately apparent how it could be. Questions of the second sort are those with which philosophy is concerned. They include questions like these: Do minds exist as well as bodies? Are humans free agents? What is humanity s highest goal? What is the purpose of life? Does God exist? These questions are neither empirical nor formal. They cannot be answered solely by observing or running simple empirical tests. Nor can they be answered solely by formal procedures such as calculating meanings of words. In both western and Eastern civilizations since a time many centuries b.c., it has been-and still is-the task of philosophy to deal with such questions. And they are still with us, for the reason given earlier. They have no simple answers. There are no purely empirical or formal means by which to answer them-or even attempt to answer them. or by merely knowing the

How then, does one try to answer them? Through critical analysis and argument. One must first make the necessary distinctions in order to be sure we know precisely what we are asking. And then one must consider the arguments, pro and con, which have been given (or which we ourselves provide), weigh them, and critically evaluate them. There is no other way by which philosophical questions can be settled. It should be apparent that the most important questions which we all face are philosophical questions. This is why the study of philosophy is of great value for everyone. And this is why as a member you have an obligation to wrestle with such questions. The pursuit of these questions won t be easy. Nothing of value is. But we hope that you will be one of many who have found that pursuit to be exciting, provocative, and of enduring value. We have shown that philosophical questions fall into a unique category in that: (1) They cannot be answered solely on the basis of simple, straightforward empirical procedures (such as opening the door and looking to see if there is beer in the refrigerator). (2) They cannot be answered solely on the basis of some formal procedure or by getting clear on the meaning of words (such as finding the sum of two numbers). It should be noted that it is not only philosophical questions that possess these two features. Many of the questions that are dealt with by the more advanced or theoretical sciences also have these features. Consider for example questions which occur within the theory of evolution. One of them is the question of whether, over all of time, organisms always gradually change due to natural selection. Of course factual evidence gathered by paleontologists has some bearing on the answer. But it isn't clear what the evidence establishes. And in fact biologists differ in the answers they give to the question. Or consider questions in physics in the area of quantum mechanics. According to one interpretation what we call the world is subjective. It is not out there independently of us. It is tied intimately to observers in a subjective fashion. Its state of existence depends on how we perceive it. According to another interpretation, the world is objective. It is out there independently of us. It goes on even if we do not perceive it. Which answer is correct? Physicists disagree. We have given two examples (and there are many more) of questions found in the sciences which are such that: (1) they cannot be answered solely by any simple empirical test; and (2) they cannot be answered solely by some formal or linguistic procedure. To that extent they are similar to philosophical questions. What difference, if any, is there, then, between philosophical and scientific questions? To the extent that scientific questions meet (1) and (2), they are indistinguishable from philosophical questions. And indeed many of the great philosophers were also scientists (e.g., Leibniz and Descartes, who lived in the seventeenth century), and many great scientists were also philosophers (e.g., Einstein). Of course, many other sorts of questions in the sciences do not meet those criteria and are more properly conceived as being strictly matters of science. Furthermore, many of the questions philosophy is concerned with have a sense of urgency about them and may have a bearing on our everyday lives in terms of what we think and do. That is generally not the case with the philosophical questions found in the sciences. Knowing which of the interpretations of quantum mechanics in physics is true probably would not have any impact on your life-your innermost convictions, your concerns, your goals, and your mode of living. On the other hand, knowing whether or not God exists, or whether we have

free will, or whether there are any objective moral standards may have a crucial bearing on your life in thought and action. As someone once put it, in science, we ask questions; in philosophy, we find ourselves questioned.

B Why study philosophy? We have tried to answer this question by discussing five of the main aims or tasks of philosophy: the critical scrutiny of our naive, cherished beliefs and convictions; the bringing to light of our assumptions or presuppositions; the quest for a worthwhile life (the examined life); the keeping alive of our sense of wonder about the world; and the attempt to answer certain vexing but important questions. We would maintain that the achievement of these aims provides us with an answer to the question, Why study philosophy? It also provides us with at least a partial answer to the question, what is philosophy? -namely, philosophy is that enterprise which seeks to fulfill those aims or tasks. And while this doesn't cover everything which comes under the heading of "philosophy," it does pertain to a good deal. It is clear from what we have said so far that the pursuit of philosophy involves asking a lot of questions. This holds for all of the tasks of philosophy. Again, there are no easy answers to these questions; in some cases there may be none at all (or at least none which are obvious). But sometimes asking questions is more important than finding the answers to them. For we tend to think of answers as bits of information, and furthermore as useful information, as information that can solve a given problem in science, technology, or practical affairs. (For example: What is the most efficient way of getting X, whatever X is and regardless of the value or disvalue of X?) This view, too, is part of the legacy of our scientific culture and, hence, part of the belief system, which requires philosophical investigation and scrutiny. Objectively speaking, we are infinitesimally minute specks of a gigantic universe. This is no cause for despair. For we have certain capacities which make us qualitatively different from other specks: consciousness, thought and appreciation. The more we ask questions, the more we extend and benefit from the capacities with which we are endowed. We need to step back from our immediate concerns in order to reflect on our personal and cultural beliefs and values, even though we have no guarantee as to the outcome. Perhaps, as John Maynard Keynes said, in the long run we ll all be dead. But then, for us it is the short run that counts. So why not make the most of it? It may be an exaggeration to say, with John Stuart Mill, that it is better to be a Socrates unsatisfied than a pig satisfied. But it is no exaggeration to say that the good life involves more than bread, beer, sex, and money. If you don t think so now, perhaps you will after you have read, digested, and discussed the readings we are going to have. And if after reading philosophy still don't agree, you won t be any worse off for having given it a try. And in order to give it a fair try you must be prepared to step back and reflect, to try to understand yourself and others, to examine your beliefs and values and those of others. You need to exercise your ability to be skeptical of those various beliefs and values, to ask for evidence or reasons for them, to dig out their assumptions and implications, and to look at them with a critical eye. (This does not mean that you must reject them.) We urge you to take seriously the idea that learning (and reading) are not the same us memorizing bits of information but involve posing difficult and fundamental questions about the meaning, truth, and implications of our most cherished and "obvious" beliefs and values. Again, this involves the ability to understand and take seriously beliefs which you don't agree with; it involves understanding and being true to yourself.

You may be thinking, "It sounds as if the pursuit of philosophy involves, an awful lot of hard work. We will not deny that philosophy and the study of philosophy involve a good deal of effort. Is it worth it? We believe so. In the words of a contemporary philosopher, W. T. Jones, "Philosophy is the eternal search for truth, a search, which inevitably fails and yet is never defeated; which continually eludes us, but which always guides us. This free, intellectual life of the mind is the noblest inheritance of the Western World; it is also the hope of our future."

II. WHAT PHILOSOPHY IS ABOUT Most of the main problems or questions with which philosophy is concerned may be thought of as falling into three main areas: problems pertaining to reality, problems pertaining to knowledge, and problems pertaining to value. We shall discuss each of these broad areas and note some of the main problems of each of them. The three areas are: metaphysics (or ontology), epistemology, and axiology.

A. Metaphysics: What Is Real? Let us begin with a discussion of what is meant by the term 'reality' in the philosophical sense. In one very broad sense of the term, 'reality' may mean whatever is. But in this loose sense, of course,anything is-a ghost as well as a tree, an object of illusion as well as an object of veridical perception. In the philosophical sense of the term, 'reality' designates what is real, not necessarily or merely as opposed to what is unreal, but rather whatever is real in the sense of being ultimately real. It is difficult to explicate this meaning of the term 'reality' to anyone who has no familiarity with philosophical works. Its meaning can best be apprehended by examples, that is, by reading philosophical works in which philosophers distinguish, and give grounds for the distinction, between those kinds of things which merely have a surface reality from those which have a more fundamental or underlying reality. But as a start, one might say that in the philosophical sense, the term 'reality' refers to whatever is real rather than whatever is merely apparent. In fact, this problem ofappearance versus reality has often been considered as one of the main problems of philosophy. The area of philosophy which deals with the nature of reality is known as metaphysics. Let us consider some of the main problems (or questions) which fall under this division of philosophy.

1. The problem of the external world. Very briefly, this problem is constituted by such questions as: Is there a world (or realm of objects) which exists external to our minds (for example, a world of matter)? Or are there any good reasons for believing that such a world exists?

The beginning student might wonder: Why on earth would anyone worry about questions like these? Of course such a world exists. We encounter it every day of our lives. How can we possibly doubt its reality? in response we can only say: Some philosophers have found reasons for taking these questions seriously. And many have provided arguments which attempt to prove either that no such world exists or if it does, we have no conclusive evidence for thinking that it does. Others have attempted to support our commonsensical belief that such a world does exist.

2. The problem of the self (or mind, or soul). The main questions here are:

Does the self exist in any real, substantial way, as a unitary continuous entity? If so, is it a special mental, non-material substance? Or is what I call my self identical with my body or some part of my body, for example, my brain?

Most of us think of our selves as having a substantial (although not material) reality. That is, each of us thinks of his/her self as a unitary entity, having a duration through time. Are there any good reasons for these beliefs?

3. The problem of freedom versus determinism. The main questions here are:

Are human beings genuinely free agents? That is, can they freely choose among alternatives? Or are their choices and actions determined? If the latter, what is meant here by determined ? What bearing do the answers do these questions have with regard to human responsibility? What bearing do they have on practical issues such as the punishment of criminals?

4. The problem of immortality or survival after death. The main questions here are: Does the human self continue to exist after the death of the body? If so, does it continue to exist forever? (Is it immortal?)

5. The problem of a god (or gods). Here we are concerned with such questions as: Is there any being whose existence transcends the natural universe-an eternal, divine being? (Or is there even more than one god?) If so, what is the nature of this being? (Is it infinite or finite, for example? Is it all-powerful? All-knowing? Supremely good?)

Many have held that such a being exists. Some philosophers have tried to prove that such a being must exist in order to explain such things as how the universe came into being. Others have examined these arguments and found them to be defective.

6. The problem of evil.

By many conceptions, God is held to be (among other things) omnipotent (al1-powerful) and supremely good. But there is much evil in the world. This leads to a vexing problem: Is the existence of evil in the world compatible with the existence of an all-powerful and supremely benevolent God? If so, how?

The preceding problems fall into three main categories: problems pertaining to the natural world in general, problems pertaining to human beings, and problems pertaining to a being beyond the natural universe. Thus, we may distinguish various sub-categories of metaphysics. There are many ways in which this might be done. A rough way of distinguishing them might be: general metaphysics (or ontology), philosophical anthropology, and philosophy of religion. Ontology is concerned with broad questions such as, "What kinds of things are real? Is there a real material world?" Philosophical anthropology deals with issues having to do with the nature of human selves. Philosophy of religion (or philosophical theology) has to do with problems about the existence and nature of a god or gods.

B. Epistemology: What Is Knowledge? Let us turn now to a consideration of what is meant by the term 'knowledge' in the philosophical sense. The philosophical sense of the term has its roots in the ordinary sense of the term but is a refinement of it. We commonly contrast knowledge with ignorance. And we commonly think of knowledge as possessing some characteristics, whatever they may be, which are lacking in mere opinion or belief. Philosophers accept and insist upon these distinctions. However, with regard to the province of knowledge, as opposed to belief, they also ask further questions and make further distinctions. Some of these are: knowledge which is absolutely certain as opposed to probable knowledge; knowledge which is significant and informative as opposed to knowledge which is trivial (such as 'A is A'). The area of philosophy which pertains to the investigation of knowledge is known as epistemology. Let us consider some of the main epistemological problems

1. The problem of the criterion of knowledge. The main questions here are: What constitutes genuine knowledge-as opposed to opinion or belief? What is the criterion for knowledge?

2. The problem of the possibility of knowledge. Once we have defined what genuine knowledge is, then the question arises: Is any genuine knowledge attainable? Or is everything we claim to know merely an opinion or belief? If so, what are the limits (if any) within which such knowledge is possible?

3. The problem of the sources of knowledge. If we claim to have knowledge of reality (even within limits), then the question may be raised:

What are the sources or origins of such knowledge? (How does it arise? Where does it come from?)

4. The problem of the grounds of knowledge. Let us suppose that we claim to have genuine knowledge and that we have indicated its sources, then an even more important question must be raised: What are the grounds for our claims to have knowledge (as opposed to opinion)? That is, how can we justify our knowledge claims?

5. The problem of the right to believe. It is an obvious fact that we all hold many beliefs, some of which may be items of knowledge. The main question which arises with regard to belief is: When do we have a right to believe something?

In answer to the questions of epistemology-especially numbers 3 and 4-two main movements have arisen which hold competing and conflicting views. These are:

Empiricism: All of our knowledge of the world comes to us via sensory experience and must be justified by appealing to such experience. The only "knowledge" we have which requires no such empirical justification is purely verbal and hence trivial and uninformative, for example, 'Uncles are males'.

Rationalism: We can have some genuine knowledge of the world which can be justified without appealing to experience. Such knowledge can be justified by thinking as well as by our understanding of language. Such knowledge is not trivial or uninformative, but is significant. Since much of our knowledge is found in the sciences, some or all of the preceding questions can be formulated with respect to science, along with many other related issues. These constitute the subject matter of a subdivision of epistemology known as philosophy of science. Much of what we know or claim to know is based on inferences from other things which we know or claim to know. Thus another subdivision of epistemology is logic, which is concerned with criteria for making such inferences.

C. Axiology: What Is of Value? The term 'value' in philosophy also has its roots in the ordinary sense of the term. However, philosophers often make further distinctions and refinements by asking such questions as: Are any values more ultimate than others (the latter being merely apparent or on-the-surface)? Are any values of greater importance to human life than others? If so, what are they? The best way to approach the study of value is through a consideration of value judgments, or evaluative statements. Consider the following sets of statements:

A 1. Jones is six feet tall. 2. The atomic bomb has killed many people. 3. Most people keep promises. 4. Murder is seldom committed. B 1. Jones is a good man. 2. The atomic bomb is a bad thing to have. 3. Promise-keeping is right. 4. Murder is wrong.

Consider the statements in group (A). Although they differ from each other, they all have something in common. They assert a fact, specific or general, without making any evaluations. They merely state that something is (or is the case). Let us call them descriptive statements. But now consider those in group (B). All of these make some evaluation; they do not merely state that something is. They appraise certain things, specific or general. They state that something is good or bad, right or wrong. Let us call them evaluative statements. When we reflect upon these two kinds of statements, certain questions arise. Some of these are: Are the two kinds really different? Or might they be essentially the same (or at least very similar)? Granted that (A) statements assert facts about the natural world. What about (B) statements? Do they also assert some facts, or are they unique? That is, are (B) statements also descriptive? Suppose one answered "No" to the latter question. Then another question arises: Why are (B) statements not descriptive? What makes them different from (A) statements? Or suppose that one answered "Yes" to that question and maintained that (B) statements are also descriptive. Then further questions arise: What do they describe? Do they describe objective facts, that is, facts which are the case apart from the person who utters such statements? Or do they merely describe or express certain subjective attitudes and feelings on the part of the person who utters them? Some of the statements in group (B) are general in character, or at least they purport to be. For example, 'Murder is wrong.' Is the claim that, for example, murder is wrong something absolute? Or is it relative to historical eras, societies, individuals, or whatever? The same applies to other general (B) statements. These sorts of questions and concerns give rise to two main problems concerning evaluative assertions. These are:

1. The problem of objectivism versus subjectivism. Are evaluative statements descriptive?

If so, do they describe objective facts? Or do they merely describe or express our subjective attitudes, feelings, and tastes?

2. The problem of absolutism versus relativism. Are any evaluative statements applicable to all persons at all times and places? Or are they relative to cultures or eras?

The division of philosophy which deals with these sorts of questions is known as axiology, or theory of value, which has two main subdivisions: ethics and aesthetics. Axiology is concerned not only with the above questions, which pertain to the nature of value judgments, but also with certain questions which are specifically ethical in character, some which are specifically aesthetic in character, and some which apply to both. Roughly, aesthetics is concerned with problems pertaining to the arts, and hence is often referred to as philosophy of art; ethics is concerned with issues pertaining to morality and conduct. Among the chief problems of ethics are the following:

1. What is the good? Or what is the good life? That is, what is man's highest good? 2. Among our moral values, which of them are intrinsically good (good in themselves) as opposed to instrumentally good (good as means to ends)? 3. How if at all, can we distinguish between right and wrong? Between what we ought to do and what we ought not to do? What is the correct standard of conduct? 4. Are the judgments we make about good, bad, etc., objective or subjective? Absolute or relative?

There are various other problems which pertain to ethics in a somewhat wider sense. These constitute what may be considered to be a third subdivision of axiology commonly known as social and political philosophy. We shall not attempt to list all of these problems. However, two of these are the subject of much contemporary interest. One is sometimes known as the problem of law versus liberty, or liberty versus autonomy. The law or the state which imposes laws is sometimes conceived as being a guardian of our liberties. On the other hand, by governing certain kinds of behavior or by imposing duties or requirements upon us, the law or state also restricts our liberties. A central question then arises: To what extent, if at all, and in what circumstances is the law or state justified in limiting or restricting our liberties? Another way of saying this is: We seem to have a conflict between authority and autonomy. How, if at all, can this conflict be resolved? The second is the problem of theories of society. Which form of society is best? For example, in the world at present there is tension between capitalism and communism and socialism. Is one of these more defensible? If so, on what grounds? Finally, there is one problem which is both a question of reality and of value. This is the problem of themeaning of life.

The main questions of concern here are:

Does life have any objective purpose or meaning?

If so, what is it, and how can it be realized?

If not, does life have any meaning or purpose?