Rene Descartes
-most important figure in modernity/modern era of philosophy
-17th century: 1596-1650
-Descartes considered founder of new scientific, modern philosophic method
-Jesuit
Descartes ambition was to replace Aristotle
-Aristotle’s ideas were adopted by church, became scholastics, prevented expansion
-wanted to write a new manual, new method, etc etc
-to replace logic of schools, petrified (?), scholastics, etc
-”Descartes Conqueror of Aristotle” painting where he’s standing on an Aristotle book
-obsessed with method; believed that is what really mattered
-”Discourse on the Method”
-first philosophical book written in national language, French; before this all learned people wrote in Greek/Latin
-”Meditation of First Philosophy” - proto philosophia, Aristotelean term, metaphysics
-”Principles of Philosophy”
-his philo is also called “philosophy of doubt”
-doubt: a central feeling throughout modernity
-not doubt that leads into skepticism (ie. Never the kind that leads into believing that we never can know)
-cf. Greeks, main sentiment was amazement, astonishment at cosmos
-all sciences like a tree - tree representing all of human knowledge
-roots are metaphysics
-metaphysics - something that comes after physics
-came from Aristotle’s book which came after Physica
-interrogation of first causes, principle things
-”principles of knowledge”
-God, Soul
-the basics, the roots, absolute things
-trunk is physics
-true principles of material things
-branches are the other sciences - medicine, mechanics, morals
-random dream, malicious demon appears, he has an encyclopedia
-another one, he’s reading a poem “What Road in Life Should I follow”
-realized that his mission was to find a new scientific method
-Sciencia Mirabilis (?)
-distinguished four levels of wisdom
1) notions clear in themselves
2) sensory evidence
3) conversing with others
4) reading books
5) Philosophy
-task of philosophy is to search for the first causes
Meditations:
-starts by doubting; radical doubt; looking for something that is absolutely certain
-everything that has ever deceived him just once, he’s going to consider it absolutely wrong
-senses, sensory evidence - but senses don’t deceive us about things that are closer
-madmen? Even madmen aren’t deceived in every single aspect of life
-dreams; in dreams even those things close to us are in doubt - eg we might imagine ourselves clothed when we’re asleep nekkid; in dreams, all sensory evidence is doubtable
-exaggerated metaphysical doubt
-but even in dreams, there are elements of true things - colours for example, those colours are true; something that resists doubt
-all sensory “facts” are false but mathematical truths resist this means of doubt, dreams
-Malicious Demon hypothesis
-omnipotent but evil so that he is always deceiving, even with math
-everything is a lie. 2+3=18, but we think it’s 5 because of the malicious demon
-thus even mathematical truths are doubtful
-”Hyperbolical Doubt”
-at this point, everything is put into doubt
-point of Adhevities (?)
-I am, I exist - Ego sum, ego existo
-who is this I?!
=Cogito - a thing that thinks
-a thing that doubts, affirms, denies, is (un)willing, and also imagines and has sensory perceptions
-thing - res = substance, an essence
-> I think therefore I am.
-immediacy. As soon as one thinks, one knows one exists; ceases once
We no longer think
=> human being, cogito, reason, individual mind becomes the subject, takes on the central role, becomes the root of knowledge; in ancient Greece it was the cosmos = this is what is basically called modernity
-so now there’s Cogito (immaterial) - but there’s also “res extensa” - material world
-God is the third substance
SOURCE
Jankovic, Zoran. Class Lecture on Descartes. University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 26 Mar 2010.
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Notes on Epicurus
-his philosophy is a complete, independent system consisting of ...
-view of the human life's goal (happiness, no physical pain or mental disturbance)
-empiricist theory of knowledge (sensations, perception of pleasure/pain, is truth)
-theory of nature based on atomistic materialism
-dispensed transcendent entities like Forms, disproving the possibility of soul's survival
and punishment in afterlife
-naturalistic account of evolution, from formation of world to human societies
-his philosophy was everything; you don't need much knowledge
-regarded unacknowledged fear of death and punishment as cause of anxiety, which caused irrational desires
-elimination of fears left person free to physical and mental pleasures and to enjoy peace of mind and satisfaction
-account of social evolution helped explain where irrational fears came from
-proposed exercises to assist novice in throwing off habitual thoughts
-advice on things like
-politics (avoid when possible)
-gods (they're not concerned with humans; shouldn't be a problem)
-the role of sex (dubious)
-marriage (also dubious)
-friendship (essential)
Life:
-son of Neocles and Chaerestrata
-moved to Athens in 323
-after death of Alexander, when Athenians were expelled from Samos, he rejoined his father in Colophon (321)
-here, studied philosophy under Nausiphanes, who had skeptical learnings
-in ethics, Nausiphanes had something called "akataplexia" (undauntability), sorta like
Epicurus' "ataraxia" (imperturbability)
-ten years later, moved to Mytilene and then Lampascus, teaching and gathering followers
-returned to Athens in 307/306
-remained there till death in 270, at 70 years age
-in Athens, purchased property that became known as the "Garden" (later used as a name for his school) and began to develop his own school
-number of slanderous stories spread by opponents, but most hold he had a extraordinarily humane disposition
-in will, among other things, he provides for friends' children etc.
Physical Theory:
-atomist: elementary constituents of nature is undifferentiated matter: discrete, solid, indivisible particles - atoms - below perception, and empty space
-four kinds of atoms: breath, heat, air, unnamed
-sensations come from Animus (mind, will, emotions - rational) and anima (sensations - irrational)
Psychology and Ethics:
-everything is made of atoms and void; an incorporeal entity could neither act on or be acted on and moved by bodies (as the soul is seen to do)
-soul atoms are fine and distributed throughout body
-through them, we have sensations, and the experience of pain/pleasure (called "pathe" - a term
used by Aristotle to mean feelings)
-body without soul atoms is unconscious/inert; when body atoms are disarranged so it can no longer contain conscious life, soul atoms are scattered and can not provide sensations
-a part of the soul is concentrated in the chest, seat of higher intellectual power
-in the rational part, error in judgement enter
-sensation is incorrigible because it is a function of the non-rational part which does not modify a perception with opinion of belief
-corporeal nature of soul has two important consequence:
1)soul does not survive death of body
-texture is too delicate to exist independently; connection with body is necessary for
sensation to occur
-therefore, no punishment after death, or regret for lost life
2)soul is responsive to physical impressions from without or within body
-no phenomena are purely mental, disembodied states of objects of pure consciousness
-elementary sensations of pleasure/pain, rather than abstract principles, are the best guides for good and bad
-function of human mind (the part in the chest) is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain = entire objective
-substantial risk is that it might miscalculate, subject to false beliefs
-beliefs occur when certain atoms of something are fine enough to penetrate straight to mind
-misunderstanding is always an incorrect inference of something
-egs centaurs: fine particles of horses and men mixed up getting into our minds
-one barrier to correct thinking is language
-eg. by having a word for "death" may suggest that "death" is something that one can "experience"
-beliefs must be tested against knowledge of world
-hêdonê, algêdôn = pleasure, pain
-death is nothing to fear: while we exist, death does not, and when death comes, we do not exist
-as there is pain, there is also negative mental states: eg. fear, anxiety
-positive mental states as well, also depend on belief (whether true or false
-classification of desires into three parts
-natural desires
-two parts: some unnecessary, and those htat are merely natural
-empty desires
-natural and necessary look to life itself (happiness, physical well-being)
-natural but unnecessary: good things, nice odors, tasty foods, etc.
-empty desires have as their objects things which are empty - eg. immortality which cannot
exist for humans; wealth and fame, etc.
-based on empty belief, therefore can't be satisfied in same way empty fears (eg. of death) can't be alleviated
-atoms move according to fixed laws; what gives us liberty in a mechanistic universe is a minute swerve in the motions of atoms
-met a lot of critique
-offers a breach in any strict predestination
Tetrapharmacos: four-fold antidote for fear, one for each major fear (death, gods, pain, desires)
1) Divine beings have no concerns of its own, and none for others
-Gods are in a state of perfection, ataraxia; therefore, they won't disturb our world, they
don't need anything!
-we should imitate, not fear
2) Death means nothing
-broken down into atoms after death; no body, no soul, no hell
-traditionally, death is separation of body/soul
-for Epicurus: privation of sensation
-death/person can't exist at same time, so how can we possibly fear it?
-man who fears death does not live and enjoy present
-greed, desire for fame, all springs from our fear of death
-fear of death is not for what happens after, but for leaving everyone behind
-main argument against Epicurus, no answer
3) Regulation of Desires
-three types of desires:
1)natural/necessary: (survival) food and drink, (body) shelter, happiness (philo)
2) natural, not necessary: sex, love, friendship
4) Capacity to tolerate severe pain
-either pain is going to finish in a while, or you'll die
-children can't be happy cuz they're not rational; to be happy, you have to be conscious of it
Happiness/Ataraxia VS Cura/Anxiety
Social Theory:
-in beginning, humans were solitary: reproduced randomly, no verbal communication, no social institutions, survived cuz they were strong
-overtime, race softened, partly cuz of discovery of fire, partly cuz of emergence of family, which created gentler people
-put human beings in a position to gather to fend of natural dangers => development of language, agriculture and other technical skills
-alliances and friendships further contributed to collective security
-advantages of early social life:
-scarcity of goods prevented excessive competition (sharing = survival), setting limits on those
unnatural desires which later would give ways to wars etc
-before language developed further, words more accurately conformed to their actual thing; was
less a source of confusion
-gradual accumulation of money => struggle over goods infected social relations => tyrants and autocrats
-tyrants eventually overthrown => state of anarchy till people realized the wisdom of the rule of law
-with law came generalized fear of punishment which is a taint
-religious ideas are brought in; thunder and lightning considered to be wrath of gods; primitive humans may have been odd, but would not have considered it punishment till now
-if not law, what is the motive for living justly?
-where there is law, its best to follow, even in secret affairs, since otherwise you'll be anxious
over detection etc, disturbing mental state
-someone who is incapable of living prudently, honorably and justly cannot live happily, and vice versa
-thus, justice seems pragmatic and selfish
-doesn't go about it the way Plato does, considering, what if there was no possibility of punishment; would there be a reason to be just?
-perhaps a person who knows what is desirable would have no need to accumulate wealth, or hurt other people, cuz he knows how to reason correctly about his needs
The Epicurean Life:
-extremely high value on friendship, or love
-held that a wise man would feel the torture of a friend no less than his own
-would die for a friend rather than betray him; if he did so, his own life would be screwed
-these seem highly altruistic for a philosophy whose objective is to live without
physical pain and mental disturbance
-Epicurus justifies it in the same way he justifies living justly
-only by treating loyalty as a consummate value will one feel secure in ones friends, thus living happily
-his followers thought of themselves as friends
-Epicureans encouraged to form communities, observe certain rituals
-Epicureans paid attention to pedagogy also, trying to think of ways to teach newcomers without discouraging them
-Epicurus understood philosophy first as a therapy for life - philosophy that does not heal the soul is no better than medicine that does not cure the body
-life free of mental anxiety and open to pleasure was a life like the gods'
SOURCES
Jankovic, Zoran. Class Lecture on Epicurus. University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 2010.
"Epicurus." Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy.
<>
-view of the human life's goal (happiness, no physical pain or mental disturbance)
-empiricist theory of knowledge (sensations, perception of pleasure/pain, is truth)
-theory of nature based on atomistic materialism
-dispensed transcendent entities like Forms, disproving the possibility of soul's survival
and punishment in afterlife
-naturalistic account of evolution, from formation of world to human societies
-his philosophy was everything; you don't need much knowledge
-regarded unacknowledged fear of death and punishment as cause of anxiety, which caused irrational desires
-elimination of fears left person free to physical and mental pleasures and to enjoy peace of mind and satisfaction
-account of social evolution helped explain where irrational fears came from
-proposed exercises to assist novice in throwing off habitual thoughts
-advice on things like
-politics (avoid when possible)
-gods (they're not concerned with humans; shouldn't be a problem)
-the role of sex (dubious)
-marriage (also dubious)
-friendship (essential)
Life:
-son of Neocles and Chaerestrata
-moved to Athens in 323
-after death of Alexander, when Athenians were expelled from Samos, he rejoined his father in Colophon (321)
-here, studied philosophy under Nausiphanes, who had skeptical learnings
-in ethics, Nausiphanes had something called "akataplexia" (undauntability), sorta like
Epicurus' "ataraxia" (imperturbability)
-ten years later, moved to Mytilene and then Lampascus, teaching and gathering followers
-returned to Athens in 307/306
-remained there till death in 270, at 70 years age
-in Athens, purchased property that became known as the "Garden" (later used as a name for his school) and began to develop his own school
-number of slanderous stories spread by opponents, but most hold he had a extraordinarily humane disposition
-in will, among other things, he provides for friends' children etc.
Physical Theory:
-atomist: elementary constituents of nature is undifferentiated matter: discrete, solid, indivisible particles - atoms - below perception, and empty space
-four kinds of atoms: breath, heat, air, unnamed
-sensations come from Animus (mind, will, emotions - rational) and anima (sensations - irrational)
Psychology and Ethics:
-everything is made of atoms and void; an incorporeal entity could neither act on or be acted on and moved by bodies (as the soul is seen to do)
-soul atoms are fine and distributed throughout body
-through them, we have sensations, and the experience of pain/pleasure (called "pathe" - a term
used by Aristotle to mean feelings)
-body without soul atoms is unconscious/inert; when body atoms are disarranged so it can no longer contain conscious life, soul atoms are scattered and can not provide sensations
-a part of the soul is concentrated in the chest, seat of higher intellectual power
-in the rational part, error in judgement enter
-sensation is incorrigible because it is a function of the non-rational part which does not modify a perception with opinion of belief
-corporeal nature of soul has two important consequence:
1)soul does not survive death of body
-texture is too delicate to exist independently; connection with body is necessary for
sensation to occur
-therefore, no punishment after death, or regret for lost life
2)soul is responsive to physical impressions from without or within body
-no phenomena are purely mental, disembodied states of objects of pure consciousness
-elementary sensations of pleasure/pain, rather than abstract principles, are the best guides for good and bad
-function of human mind (the part in the chest) is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain = entire objective
-substantial risk is that it might miscalculate, subject to false beliefs
-beliefs occur when certain atoms of something are fine enough to penetrate straight to mind
-misunderstanding is always an incorrect inference of something
-egs centaurs: fine particles of horses and men mixed up getting into our minds
-one barrier to correct thinking is language
-eg. by having a word for "death" may suggest that "death" is something that one can "experience"
-beliefs must be tested against knowledge of world
-hêdonê, algêdôn = pleasure, pain
-death is nothing to fear: while we exist, death does not, and when death comes, we do not exist
-as there is pain, there is also negative mental states: eg. fear, anxiety
-positive mental states as well, also depend on belief (whether true or false
-classification of desires into three parts
-natural desires
-two parts: some unnecessary, and those htat are merely natural
-empty desires
-natural and necessary look to life itself (happiness, physical well-being)
-natural but unnecessary: good things, nice odors, tasty foods, etc.
-empty desires have as their objects things which are empty - eg. immortality which cannot
exist for humans; wealth and fame, etc.
-based on empty belief, therefore can't be satisfied in same way empty fears (eg. of death) can't be alleviated
-atoms move according to fixed laws; what gives us liberty in a mechanistic universe is a minute swerve in the motions of atoms
-met a lot of critique
-offers a breach in any strict predestination
Tetrapharmacos: four-fold antidote for fear, one for each major fear (death, gods, pain, desires)
1) Divine beings have no concerns of its own, and none for others
-Gods are in a state of perfection, ataraxia; therefore, they won't disturb our world, they
don't need anything!
-we should imitate, not fear
2) Death means nothing
-broken down into atoms after death; no body, no soul, no hell
-traditionally, death is separation of body/soul
-for Epicurus: privation of sensation
-death/person can't exist at same time, so how can we possibly fear it?
-man who fears death does not live and enjoy present
-greed, desire for fame, all springs from our fear of death
-fear of death is not for what happens after, but for leaving everyone behind
-main argument against Epicurus, no answer
3) Regulation of Desires
-three types of desires:
1)natural/necessary: (survival) food and drink, (body) shelter, happiness (philo)
2) natural, not necessary: sex, love, friendship
4) Capacity to tolerate severe pain
-either pain is going to finish in a while, or you'll die
-children can't be happy cuz they're not rational; to be happy, you have to be conscious of it
Happiness/Ataraxia VS Cura/Anxiety
Social Theory:
-in beginning, humans were solitary: reproduced randomly, no verbal communication, no social institutions, survived cuz they were strong
-overtime, race softened, partly cuz of discovery of fire, partly cuz of emergence of family, which created gentler people
-put human beings in a position to gather to fend of natural dangers => development of language, agriculture and other technical skills
-alliances and friendships further contributed to collective security
-advantages of early social life:
-scarcity of goods prevented excessive competition (sharing = survival), setting limits on those
unnatural desires which later would give ways to wars etc
-before language developed further, words more accurately conformed to their actual thing; was
less a source of confusion
-gradual accumulation of money => struggle over goods infected social relations => tyrants and autocrats
-tyrants eventually overthrown => state of anarchy till people realized the wisdom of the rule of law
-with law came generalized fear of punishment which is a taint
-religious ideas are brought in; thunder and lightning considered to be wrath of gods; primitive humans may have been odd, but would not have considered it punishment till now
-if not law, what is the motive for living justly?
-where there is law, its best to follow, even in secret affairs, since otherwise you'll be anxious
over detection etc, disturbing mental state
-someone who is incapable of living prudently, honorably and justly cannot live happily, and vice versa
-thus, justice seems pragmatic and selfish
-doesn't go about it the way Plato does, considering, what if there was no possibility of punishment; would there be a reason to be just?
-perhaps a person who knows what is desirable would have no need to accumulate wealth, or hurt other people, cuz he knows how to reason correctly about his needs
The Epicurean Life:
-extremely high value on friendship, or love
-held that a wise man would feel the torture of a friend no less than his own
-would die for a friend rather than betray him; if he did so, his own life would be screwed
-these seem highly altruistic for a philosophy whose objective is to live without
physical pain and mental disturbance
-Epicurus justifies it in the same way he justifies living justly
-only by treating loyalty as a consummate value will one feel secure in ones friends, thus living happily
-his followers thought of themselves as friends
-Epicureans encouraged to form communities, observe certain rituals
-Epicureans paid attention to pedagogy also, trying to think of ways to teach newcomers without discouraging them
-Epicurus understood philosophy first as a therapy for life - philosophy that does not heal the soul is no better than medicine that does not cure the body
-life free of mental anxiety and open to pleasure was a life like the gods'
SOURCES
Jankovic, Zoran. Class Lecture on Epicurus. University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 2010.
"Epicurus." Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy.
<>
Notes on Plato
-Athenian high-status citizen
-displays an absorption of political and intellectual movements of the time
-educated readers of every following age have in some way been influenced by him
-"All philosophy is but a footnote to Plato" - Whitehead, 19th century philosopher
-in almost every age, there are philosophers who consider themselves Platonists
-Socrates had no writings of his own, so we're dealing with the first instance of preserved philosophical writings
-25-27 books accredited to him with certainty; among them:
-Apology of Socrates, Phaedo (Immortality of the Soul), Meno, Gorgias, Sophist, Republic (Justice)
-had a school called 'Academy', was open for centuries
central doctrines:
-associated with a few central doctrines he advocated in writings
-the world that appears to our senses is erroneous and flawed; there is a more real and perfect
realm of "forms" (entities eternal, changeless, and paradigmatic for things in our world)
-egs. goodness, beauty, equality, bigness, likeness unity, being, sameness, difference, change, and changelessness (often capitalized)
-nearly all his works work on the distinction between what is beautiful (just, good, etc)
and what is truly beautiful (just, good, etc.) and from which that which we call beautiful
gets its name and characteristics
-many explore ethical and practical consequences of us conceiving the world
in this twofold way
-urged to transform our values, realize the defectiveness of the observable world
-soul is different object from the body, can exist without it; can grasp the nature of the Forms when it is more detached from the corpus
-many works assert that philosophers - those who can distinguish what is good
(right, beautiful, equal etc) from things that are called good (etc.) - are in a
state to be ethically superior
-to understand what is good and why (and if we're not interested in such questions, how can we become good?) we must investigate the Form of Good
Plato's Puzzles
-often his works exhibit some degree of uncertainty, even towards the Forms
-Forms = "Hypotheses" in Phaedo for example
-in The Republic he says that the Form of Good is a mystery whose nature is elusive and
unknown
-puzzles raised about how any of the Forms can be known and talked about without falling into
contradiction, or about what it is to know anything, or to name anything
=this exploratory approach is what sets him apart from others ranked with him (Aquinas, Kant,
Aristotle) and often makes him the introduction into philosophy
-instead of presenting a set of doctrines, fully developed, he presents a few key ideas
with suggestions and problems about how they are to be interrogated
-readers of Platonic dialogue are drawn into thinking for themselves
Dialogue, Setting, Character
-nearly everything he wrote takes form of dialogue (again, distinguishes him from other philosophers) - one striking acception: his Apology, Socrates speaks in his defense
-philosophical discussions, debates, among a small number of interlocutors, many identified as
historical figures
-often begin with a depiction of the setting - visit to a prison, wealthy man's house, celebration
over drinks, a festival, visit to gym, stroll outside city walls, etc.
-as a group, they form a portrait of a social world - not purely intellectual exchanges between
characterless or socially unmarked speakers
-some exceptions where the speakers are quite characterless
-in many (though not all), he not only makes a philosophical discussion, but comments on social
world and specific characters
Socrates
-features in practically all his dialogues, except one Laws (his role is also small in others)
-appears in other peoples' works as well: Aristophanes' Cloud; Xenophon also wrote an
Apology, an account of the trial, and other works; fragment of other writers' works
-so when Plato wrote, he was contributing to a genre; also taking part in a literary debate on the kind of person Socrates was and the value of his intellectual debates
-Aristophanes' comedy is a bitter critique of Socrates and other leading figures, but from the rest of the "Socratic Discourses" (Aristotle's word for it), we get positive portrayals
-evidently Socrates inspired people, but the portraits by Plato, Aristophanes and Xenophon must
play the part of telling us today what he was like
-Clouds has the least value: not intended as a philosophical work; may contain a few lines of
characterization of features unique to Soc, for the most part, its an attack on the philosophical
type: long-haired, unwashed, amoral investigator into empirical issues
-Xenophon's works generally thought to lack the philosophical subtlety of Plato's; no one really
considers Xenophon a philosophical person
-not easy to see where he drew the line between himself and his teacher
-his use of "Socrates" in his dialogues should not be taken to mean that he is merely preserving
his teacher's words
Plato's Indirectness
-he never speaks through his own voice;
-while he writes speeches, discussions, etc, they are all made by other characters; therefore he himself never affirms, doubt, etc.
-never engaged in the popular genre of philosophical treatises
-can we attribute any philosophical doctrine to him?
-do we violate what he intended with his dialogues in associating him with philosophical doctrines?
-other important questions: ie. the importance of Socrates? why does he play such a large role
in some dialogues, but such a small role, or none, in others?
-we are tempted to read cautiously; eg. Plato's Republic; what is justice? ends with others agreeing with Socrates' view. - perhaps we should end there and not inquire further - minimalist approach; we don't attempt to delve into the mind of the author, and read only for the philosophical value
-but then we fail to understand what Plato intended. does he mean for us to agree with a character, or to see what he says as foolish; Plato wrote, therefore he is reaching out to a readership, what is he trying to convey?
-dialogues have certain characteristics that make them seem like they are trying to convince of
something (Forms, Immortality of Soul, etc.); eg. oen speaker may dominate and perservere with an idea, often meeting resistance at first, but finally convincing on the basis of arguments
-in one work Laws main speaker - visitor from Athens - proposes that laws are accompanied by "preludes" explaining their philosophical basis - ie. advocating for written texts as an educative tool
-does not mean he expects the works themselves to make people wise; they're intended to spur conversation and debate; in one of his works, Socrates warns against relying solely on books
Socrates as the Dominant Speaker
-if we take it that Plato is attempting to persuade us of the conclusions arrived at by his principal interlocuters, its easy to see why he chooses Socrates
-presumably, his readership consisted of many Soc-admirers; therefore would be predisposed to
believe that a character thus named has all the intellectual brilliance and moral passion of real Soc
-Plato makes efforts to make Socrates life-like (references to his trial and famous traits)
-aura of Socrates would give his words persuasive power
-perhaps also, Plato felt indebted to Soc for his own philosophical ideas and techniques
-shows that he shares in some ideas on important topics: presocratics all about nature; soc and
Plato all about politics, people, ethics
Links between the Dialogues
-continuity seen
-ie. sometimes some dialogue refers to another
-sometimes, the works build on eachother; Plato expects that his readers have referred to other
works
-eg. Socrates continually brings up Forms
-suggests that Plato is endorsing a doctrine
Plato and Politics
-he is essentially a political philosopher
-although he expresses the desire to shed one's body and live in the incorporeal world of forms
he devotes a lot of his works as well to practical matters, understanding our world, appreciating
its limited beauty and improving it
-Socrates, in Apology, appears to be a man not with his head in the clouds (cf. Aristophanes' Clouds); does not want to escape from everyday world but make it better; true art of politics
-Socrates in Republic devotes talk to ordinary social institutions: family, private property, etc.
-Laws all about voting, punishment, education, legislation, etc etc.
-in Republic he shows an antipathy to rule by the many; in Laws, he seems to advocate putting
power in the hands of people who aren't philosophers - has he changed his mind?
Why Dialogues?
-use of character and conversation enlivens work, awakes interest of readership, reaches further
-Dia (true) logos (reason)
-more dynamic, both sides presented, Plato likes being challenged, sees it as more enlightening
-prefers speech over writing - "written word is without father"
-when something is spoken, it can be responded to
What is Justice? (Republic)
-4 Virtues believed in in Greek times: Justice, temperance, wisdom, courage
-presents other stands on justice before his own
1) Simonides
-one must pay his debts; the traditional view
-Plato challenges it: suppose you let me borrow an AK-47, but then you get mad
at me; is it morally justified for me to give it back? you might harm someone!
=> leads to, we should help our friends and harm our enemies
2) Thrasymacus
-today we think he is a historical, rather than fictional, character, a sophist
-justice is the interest of the stronger; what is proclaimed by the law, since the stronger people make the laws
-in greek culture, laws = morality; laws set them apart from the animals
3) Glaucon
-also believed to exist
-injustice is the law of nature; to do injustice = good; to suffer it = bad
-"by nature" - as they should be
-human nature always inclines toward injustice; injustice is more free, and this
is how it should be
-tells Soc a myth: Gaias has a ring to make him invisible; soon becomes very
powerful, gets a good career, seduces queen
-we are all like Gaias, prefer to do injustice
-consider two people: perfectly just, perfectly unjust
-unjust guy will be happier
-now imagine every act according to nature; everyone is unjust; therefore there is
overall, more suffering than joy
=> creation of laws to prevent this situation
-law is nothing but convention/contract
4) Callicles
-justice should be a function of the strongest; strongest should rule
-but rules are made by the weak gathering to prevent domination by the strongest
-laws demanded by the weak
-all of these views are different faces of Greek social justice
-Socrates: to do injustice is more shameful than the suffer it.
-Glaucon asks Soc, "What's justice"; Socrates ensues to compare the justice of the state vs the justice in the individual soul
-method of answering = psychological method
State Justice vs Individual Justice
-Plato supposes the state is a big individual; psychological method explains
certain characteristics of the state as characteristics of the individual and vice
versa
-defines political justice as harmony in a structured political body
-ideal society has three main classes:
1) artisans (fishers, hunters, craftsmen, cultivators, producers)
2) Soldiers and guardians
-need courage and edu
3) Rulers (smallest class)
-society is just when relations between these three are right
-each class must perform its appropriate function and only that; each must be in
the right position of power in relation to the others
-Rulers rule, auxiliaries uphold rules, artisans must exercise nature-granted gifts
-chosen on basis of natural dispositions and education
-tries to show that the individual is like the state
-has three parts: rational part (seeks truth, responsible for philosophical
inclinations), spirited part (desires honour, is responsible for our anger and indignation), appetitive part (lusts after all sorts of things, money most of all)
-just individual is like a just society
-rational part rules, spirited part supports rule, appetitive part must
submit to rules
-in a just individual, entire soul aims at fulfilling desires of rationality
-relates to temperance: master of the better over the worse
-other similarities
-each of the state-class is dominated by each of the three parts of soul
-producers are spurred by their appetites, want for money;
warriors by their spirits, making them courageous,
rulers should be dominated by reason and wisdom
-in ideal state, rulers = philosophers
=three races: Bronze, silver, gold.
Three Analogies/Allegories (of the sun, the line, the cave)
-world is divided into two realms: visible (sensual) and intelligible (only grasped with minds)
-intelligible world consists of The Forms which exist in permanent relation to visible world,
and make it possible
-eg. Apple is red and sweet because of the existence of the invisible forms Redness and
Sweetness
-only philosophers, trained to grasp the Forms, can know anything (making them apt rulers); to be able rulers, they must know the Form of the Good (the source of all other forms)
-Plato can't describe Good directly, but says it is to the intelligible world, what the sun is to the visible world
-using cave allegory, Plato depicts philosopher's soul going through stages of cognition (represented by line) through visible into intelligible realm, finally grasping the Good-Form
-aim of edu is to put desire in the soul for truth, so that it aims to move into the intelligible world, to the Form of the Good
-philosophers = most able rulers since they, more than any other man, are ruled by their rationality; they have the most knowledge and are the most just
-cf the worst kind of ruler: tyrant, ruled entirely by non-rational appetite
-justice is worthwhile for its own sake
-presents a psychological portrait of the tyrant; argues that a just soul is happy and calm while
an unjust one is a tortured psyche
-also, while each of the three types (money-loving, honour-loving, truth-loving) believes his own life to be the more pleasant life, his own goals to be the most worthwhile, only philosopher can judge since he has experienced all three; therefore others should see that philosophical life is the best, more pleasurable and that therefore, to be just is most pleasurable
-end Republic with banning poets
-his political system is called "Utopia"
-merit-based monarchy/aristocracy, not based on genes; philosophers rule
-predicts that one day it will fall into "Themocracy" - guardians ruling, desire for honour rules
-Oligarchy: small group of rich people; desire for money rules
-Democracy: desire for freedom of choice rules
-to Plato, this means all desires are allowed and exist; a collection of all constitutions; chaos.
-political structure reflects on citizens
-if state is in chaos, man is in chaos.
-Tyranny: opposite of ideal state
-World of Forms
-eternal, immutable, immaterial, Only One.
-Greeks: if everything is changing, there can be no knowledge
-math is constant; Plato liked math for this reason
-Allegory of the Cave
-prisoners in a cave, everything chained, facing wall; fire behind them; have been seeing nothing but shadows since birth
-one day, one guy is released; he goes out, sees the fire, slowly starts to realize things, wanting
to go back; then goes out of the cave, starts to see other things; starts small; finally he sees things in moonlight, and then the sun!
-goes back to free and tell the other prisoners; they'll probably think he's crazy and kill him
-thought to be a reference to Socrates
SOURCES
Jankovic, Zoran. Class Lecture on Plato. PHI1104: Great Philosophers. University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
"Plato." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. <>
-displays an absorption of political and intellectual movements of the time
-educated readers of every following age have in some way been influenced by him
-"All philosophy is but a footnote to Plato" - Whitehead, 19th century philosopher
-in almost every age, there are philosophers who consider themselves Platonists
-Socrates had no writings of his own, so we're dealing with the first instance of preserved philosophical writings
-25-27 books accredited to him with certainty; among them:
-Apology of Socrates, Phaedo (Immortality of the Soul), Meno, Gorgias, Sophist, Republic (Justice)
-had a school called 'Academy', was open for centuries
central doctrines:
-associated with a few central doctrines he advocated in writings
-the world that appears to our senses is erroneous and flawed; there is a more real and perfect
realm of "forms" (entities eternal, changeless, and paradigmatic for things in our world)
-egs. goodness, beauty, equality, bigness, likeness unity, being, sameness, difference, change, and changelessness (often capitalized)
-nearly all his works work on the distinction between what is beautiful (just, good, etc)
and what is truly beautiful (just, good, etc.) and from which that which we call beautiful
gets its name and characteristics
-many explore ethical and practical consequences of us conceiving the world
in this twofold way
-urged to transform our values, realize the defectiveness of the observable world
-soul is different object from the body, can exist without it; can grasp the nature of the Forms when it is more detached from the corpus
-many works assert that philosophers - those who can distinguish what is good
(right, beautiful, equal etc) from things that are called good (etc.) - are in a
state to be ethically superior
-to understand what is good and why (and if we're not interested in such questions, how can we become good?) we must investigate the Form of Good
Plato's Puzzles
-often his works exhibit some degree of uncertainty, even towards the Forms
-Forms = "Hypotheses" in Phaedo for example
-in The Republic he says that the Form of Good is a mystery whose nature is elusive and
unknown
-puzzles raised about how any of the Forms can be known and talked about without falling into
contradiction, or about what it is to know anything, or to name anything
=this exploratory approach is what sets him apart from others ranked with him (Aquinas, Kant,
Aristotle) and often makes him the introduction into philosophy
-instead of presenting a set of doctrines, fully developed, he presents a few key ideas
with suggestions and problems about how they are to be interrogated
-readers of Platonic dialogue are drawn into thinking for themselves
Dialogue, Setting, Character
-nearly everything he wrote takes form of dialogue (again, distinguishes him from other philosophers) - one striking acception: his Apology, Socrates speaks in his defense
-philosophical discussions, debates, among a small number of interlocutors, many identified as
historical figures
-often begin with a depiction of the setting - visit to a prison, wealthy man's house, celebration
over drinks, a festival, visit to gym, stroll outside city walls, etc.
-as a group, they form a portrait of a social world - not purely intellectual exchanges between
characterless or socially unmarked speakers
-some exceptions where the speakers are quite characterless
-in many (though not all), he not only makes a philosophical discussion, but comments on social
world and specific characters
Socrates
-features in practically all his dialogues, except one Laws (his role is also small in others)
-appears in other peoples' works as well: Aristophanes' Cloud; Xenophon also wrote an
Apology, an account of the trial, and other works; fragment of other writers' works
-so when Plato wrote, he was contributing to a genre; also taking part in a literary debate on the kind of person Socrates was and the value of his intellectual debates
-Aristophanes' comedy is a bitter critique of Socrates and other leading figures, but from the rest of the "Socratic Discourses" (Aristotle's word for it), we get positive portrayals
-evidently Socrates inspired people, but the portraits by Plato, Aristophanes and Xenophon must
play the part of telling us today what he was like
-Clouds has the least value: not intended as a philosophical work; may contain a few lines of
characterization of features unique to Soc, for the most part, its an attack on the philosophical
type: long-haired, unwashed, amoral investigator into empirical issues
-Xenophon's works generally thought to lack the philosophical subtlety of Plato's; no one really
considers Xenophon a philosophical person
-not easy to see where he drew the line between himself and his teacher
-his use of "Socrates" in his dialogues should not be taken to mean that he is merely preserving
his teacher's words
Plato's Indirectness
-he never speaks through his own voice;
-while he writes speeches, discussions, etc, they are all made by other characters; therefore he himself never affirms, doubt, etc.
-never engaged in the popular genre of philosophical treatises
-can we attribute any philosophical doctrine to him?
-do we violate what he intended with his dialogues in associating him with philosophical doctrines?
-other important questions: ie. the importance of Socrates? why does he play such a large role
in some dialogues, but such a small role, or none, in others?
-we are tempted to read cautiously; eg. Plato's Republic; what is justice? ends with others agreeing with Socrates' view. - perhaps we should end there and not inquire further - minimalist approach; we don't attempt to delve into the mind of the author, and read only for the philosophical value
-but then we fail to understand what Plato intended. does he mean for us to agree with a character, or to see what he says as foolish; Plato wrote, therefore he is reaching out to a readership, what is he trying to convey?
-dialogues have certain characteristics that make them seem like they are trying to convince of
something (Forms, Immortality of Soul, etc.); eg. oen speaker may dominate and perservere with an idea, often meeting resistance at first, but finally convincing on the basis of arguments
-in one work Laws main speaker - visitor from Athens - proposes that laws are accompanied by "preludes" explaining their philosophical basis - ie. advocating for written texts as an educative tool
-does not mean he expects the works themselves to make people wise; they're intended to spur conversation and debate; in one of his works, Socrates warns against relying solely on books
Socrates as the Dominant Speaker
-if we take it that Plato is attempting to persuade us of the conclusions arrived at by his principal interlocuters, its easy to see why he chooses Socrates
-presumably, his readership consisted of many Soc-admirers; therefore would be predisposed to
believe that a character thus named has all the intellectual brilliance and moral passion of real Soc
-Plato makes efforts to make Socrates life-like (references to his trial and famous traits)
-aura of Socrates would give his words persuasive power
-perhaps also, Plato felt indebted to Soc for his own philosophical ideas and techniques
-shows that he shares in some ideas on important topics: presocratics all about nature; soc and
Plato all about politics, people, ethics
Links between the Dialogues
-continuity seen
-ie. sometimes some dialogue refers to another
-sometimes, the works build on eachother; Plato expects that his readers have referred to other
works
-eg. Socrates continually brings up Forms
-suggests that Plato is endorsing a doctrine
Plato and Politics
-he is essentially a political philosopher
-although he expresses the desire to shed one's body and live in the incorporeal world of forms
he devotes a lot of his works as well to practical matters, understanding our world, appreciating
its limited beauty and improving it
-Socrates, in Apology, appears to be a man not with his head in the clouds (cf. Aristophanes' Clouds); does not want to escape from everyday world but make it better; true art of politics
-Socrates in Republic devotes talk to ordinary social institutions: family, private property, etc.
-Laws all about voting, punishment, education, legislation, etc etc.
-in Republic he shows an antipathy to rule by the many; in Laws, he seems to advocate putting
power in the hands of people who aren't philosophers - has he changed his mind?
Why Dialogues?
-use of character and conversation enlivens work, awakes interest of readership, reaches further
-Dia (true) logos (reason)
-more dynamic, both sides presented, Plato likes being challenged, sees it as more enlightening
-prefers speech over writing - "written word is without father"
-when something is spoken, it can be responded to
What is Justice? (Republic)
-4 Virtues believed in in Greek times: Justice, temperance, wisdom, courage
-presents other stands on justice before his own
1) Simonides
-one must pay his debts; the traditional view
-Plato challenges it: suppose you let me borrow an AK-47, but then you get mad
at me; is it morally justified for me to give it back? you might harm someone!
=> leads to, we should help our friends and harm our enemies
2) Thrasymacus
-today we think he is a historical, rather than fictional, character, a sophist
-justice is the interest of the stronger; what is proclaimed by the law, since the stronger people make the laws
-in greek culture, laws = morality; laws set them apart from the animals
3) Glaucon
-also believed to exist
-injustice is the law of nature; to do injustice = good; to suffer it = bad
-"by nature" - as they should be
-human nature always inclines toward injustice; injustice is more free, and this
is how it should be
-tells Soc a myth: Gaias has a ring to make him invisible; soon becomes very
powerful, gets a good career, seduces queen
-we are all like Gaias, prefer to do injustice
-consider two people: perfectly just, perfectly unjust
-unjust guy will be happier
-now imagine every act according to nature; everyone is unjust; therefore there is
overall, more suffering than joy
=> creation of laws to prevent this situation
-law is nothing but convention/contract
4) Callicles
-justice should be a function of the strongest; strongest should rule
-but rules are made by the weak gathering to prevent domination by the strongest
-laws demanded by the weak
-all of these views are different faces of Greek social justice
-Socrates: to do injustice is more shameful than the suffer it.
-Glaucon asks Soc, "What's justice"; Socrates ensues to compare the justice of the state vs the justice in the individual soul
-method of answering = psychological method
State Justice vs Individual Justice
-Plato supposes the state is a big individual; psychological method explains
certain characteristics of the state as characteristics of the individual and vice
versa
-defines political justice as harmony in a structured political body
-ideal society has three main classes:
1) artisans (fishers, hunters, craftsmen, cultivators, producers)
2) Soldiers and guardians
-need courage and edu
3) Rulers (smallest class)
-society is just when relations between these three are right
-each class must perform its appropriate function and only that; each must be in
the right position of power in relation to the others
-Rulers rule, auxiliaries uphold rules, artisans must exercise nature-granted gifts
-chosen on basis of natural dispositions and education
-tries to show that the individual is like the state
-has three parts: rational part (seeks truth, responsible for philosophical
inclinations), spirited part (desires honour, is responsible for our anger and indignation), appetitive part (lusts after all sorts of things, money most of all)
-just individual is like a just society
-rational part rules, spirited part supports rule, appetitive part must
submit to rules
-in a just individual, entire soul aims at fulfilling desires of rationality
-relates to temperance: master of the better over the worse
-other similarities
-each of the state-class is dominated by each of the three parts of soul
-producers are spurred by their appetites, want for money;
warriors by their spirits, making them courageous,
rulers should be dominated by reason and wisdom
-in ideal state, rulers = philosophers
=three races: Bronze, silver, gold.
Three Analogies/Allegories (of the sun, the line, the cave)
-world is divided into two realms: visible (sensual) and intelligible (only grasped with minds)
-intelligible world consists of The Forms which exist in permanent relation to visible world,
and make it possible
-eg. Apple is red and sweet because of the existence of the invisible forms Redness and
Sweetness
-only philosophers, trained to grasp the Forms, can know anything (making them apt rulers); to be able rulers, they must know the Form of the Good (the source of all other forms)
-Plato can't describe Good directly, but says it is to the intelligible world, what the sun is to the visible world
-using cave allegory, Plato depicts philosopher's soul going through stages of cognition (represented by line) through visible into intelligible realm, finally grasping the Good-Form
-aim of edu is to put desire in the soul for truth, so that it aims to move into the intelligible world, to the Form of the Good
-philosophers = most able rulers since they, more than any other man, are ruled by their rationality; they have the most knowledge and are the most just
-cf the worst kind of ruler: tyrant, ruled entirely by non-rational appetite
-justice is worthwhile for its own sake
-presents a psychological portrait of the tyrant; argues that a just soul is happy and calm while
an unjust one is a tortured psyche
-also, while each of the three types (money-loving, honour-loving, truth-loving) believes his own life to be the more pleasant life, his own goals to be the most worthwhile, only philosopher can judge since he has experienced all three; therefore others should see that philosophical life is the best, more pleasurable and that therefore, to be just is most pleasurable
-end Republic with banning poets
-his political system is called "Utopia"
-merit-based monarchy/aristocracy, not based on genes; philosophers rule
-predicts that one day it will fall into "Themocracy" - guardians ruling, desire for honour rules
-Oligarchy: small group of rich people; desire for money rules
-Democracy: desire for freedom of choice rules
-to Plato, this means all desires are allowed and exist; a collection of all constitutions; chaos.
-political structure reflects on citizens
-if state is in chaos, man is in chaos.
-Tyranny: opposite of ideal state
-World of Forms
-eternal, immutable, immaterial, Only One.
-Greeks: if everything is changing, there can be no knowledge
-math is constant; Plato liked math for this reason
-Allegory of the Cave
-prisoners in a cave, everything chained, facing wall; fire behind them; have been seeing nothing but shadows since birth
-one day, one guy is released; he goes out, sees the fire, slowly starts to realize things, wanting
to go back; then goes out of the cave, starts to see other things; starts small; finally he sees things in moonlight, and then the sun!
-goes back to free and tell the other prisoners; they'll probably think he's crazy and kill him
-thought to be a reference to Socrates
SOURCES
Jankovic, Zoran. Class Lecture on Plato. PHI1104: Great Philosophers. University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
"Plato." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. <>
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Understanding “Evil” Against an Omnipotent God - an argument against Mackie
When Epicurus asked
“whence cometh evil?” if God exists (Hospers 310), he was giving voice to a
question that has long and continues to perplex humanity. Centuries down the
line, Dr. J. L. Mackie has taken up the mantle of thought in his essay “Evil
and Omnipotence” in which he argues that, given the fact that evil exists, the
theological premises that (a) God is omnipotent and (b) God is wholly good
cannot both possibly be true. While he weaves a convincing argument, I find
myself disagreeing with Mackie for three major reasons: first, I am troubled by
what I would describe as a rather aggressive methodology on his part which
evolves into a kind of circular reasoning; second, I believe his argument
against the “most important proposed solution” (208) – that of human agency
being evil’s true culprit – is fundamentally flawed; and third, should we choose to accept Mackie’s
aforementioned crucial rebuttal against the argument of free will as not flawed, we can then easily argue
that the three apparently contradictory statements (God is wholly good; God is
wholly powerful; evil exists) are not in fact discordant at all.
The first issue I take
with Mackie’s argument is this: while it comes off as an iron-clad argument,
the reality is that it is somewhat circular. I think most theologians and
everyday religious folk alike (myself included) would agree with Mackie that
the problem of evil cannot be solved without making some adjustments to the three
main propositions. Off the top of my head, in fact, I can think of a number of
religions into which are built rather different propositions: for example,
polytheistic religions, in which gods, not unlike humans, often have vices and
virtues, or ditheistic religions which propose two equally powerful opposing
forces. These formal institutions besides, many have tried to individually
better define the theistic position by modifying the notions of omnipotence and
omnibenevolence. While Mackie briefly acknowledges these “adequate solutions”
(201), he goes on to treat their proponents with suspicions of inconsistency.
He, moreover, unreasonably dismisses these adequate solutions for the entirety
of the rest of the paper, grappling instead with the central propositions that
he himself defines as “the essential core of the theistic position” (212). The
problem here is that, as aforementioned, many thinkers today have maintained a
theistic position precisely by altering this so-called “essential core.” Mackie
sets up a clearly contradictory set of statements, defines it as the “essential
core” of theism, then goes on to shut down all adequate opposing views as
either inconsistent or denying this “essential core.” I, for one, found myself
frustrated by this circularity.
But let us set aside our adequate solutions for now and
look at Mackie’s arguments proper – specifically (the one to which I most
object) his rebuttal against what he calls the “most important proposed
solution” to the problem of evil: that “evil is due to human free will” (208). Against
this defense, Mackie claims the following:
There
was open to [God] the…possibility of making beings who would act freely but
always go right. Clearly, his failure to avail himself of this possibility is
inconsistent with his being both omnipotent and wholly good. (209)
I
think many of us intuitively sense this to be an invalid statement – rightly,
for Mackie creates a logical paradox: it is not logically possible for us to have free will and yet, by
predetermination, always and forever choose the morally good choice – there
must still exist the possibility of choosing the wrong choice. As an analogy, we
cannot logically praise a machine of doing the moral good of, say, purifying a
body of water if it was programmed to do as such: the machine does not freely
choose, and neither would humans, if God pre-determined that we should always
do the right thing. A world in which humans’ actions are both pre-determined
yet also determined by free will would thus not be a possible world. For God to
create such a world, he must be able to do the logically impossible – and here,
I believe, is where Mackie makes his greatest mistake: he focuses his essay on
those who believe that God, being omnipotent, must be able to accomplish and
create the logically impossible.
Earlier
in the paper, Mackie touches briefly on the idea of logical impossibility and
admits that the “interpretation of omnipotence [that it cannot accomplish the
logically impossible] may…be accepted as a modification of our original account
which does not reject anything that is essential to theism” (203). Even adding
that this is the “most common theistic
view” (203, emphasis mine), however, he quickly moves back to arguing
against his own definition of the “essential core of the theistic position”
which includes an omnipotent God that can accomplish the logically impossible.
In fact, it is on this notion of omnipotence that his entire final solution
rests, for without this definition, it would, as I’ve explained above, be impossible
for God to create a world where humans have free will yet cannot but choose the
morally good (thus countering his final rebuttal).
As Mackie, however, essentially
denies the notion that an omnipotent being is bound by logic, let me allow that
an omnipotent God could create the (apparently logically impossible) world in
which human beings are free to act and cannot ever choose a morally wrong
choice. In such a universe, in which God supersedes our understanding of logic
and sense – indeed, a universe in which “logic is the way in which God
arbitrarily chooses to think” (203) – I would argue that God can indeed be both
omnipotent and wholly good yet still allow “evil.” The apparent contradiction
that we encounter in dealing with the problem of evil does not mean that God
does not exist; it means that we have failed to understand what good and evil
are – they are beyond our logic, just as God’s omnipotent abilities can
accomplish the logically impossible. Thus, God is omnipotent and God is wholly
good. And evil exists – or does it? It is, finally, beyond our ability to even
guess.
SOURCES
Hospers, John. An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis. 3rd
ed. Routledge, 1990. 310. Print.
Mackie, J. L. “Evil and
Omnipotence.” Mind 64.254 (1955):
200-12. Oxford University Press. Web.
17 Jan. 2016.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)