Philosophy 1010

1
Philosophy 1010 Class 8/1/13
Title Introduction to Philosophy Instructor P
aul Dickey E-mail Address pdickey2_at_mccneb.edu
Tonight Turn in your Summary Statement of your
Class Final Essay Present your Study
Blue flashcards http//www.studyblue.com/folde
r/7010893 Chapter Three - Reality
Being Next Week Assignment Pop Quiz over
Chapters 3 4. All questions will be taken
from your flashcards.
2
A pupil from whom nothing is ever demanded which
he cannot do, never does all he can. It is, no
doubt, a very laudable effort, in modern
teaching, to render as much as possible of what
the young are required to learn, easy and
interesting to them.  But when this principle is
pushed to the length of not requiring them, to
learn anything but what has been made easy and
interesting, one of the chief objectives of
education is sacrificed.                J. S.
Mill, Autobiography
3
The Metaphysical View Idealism Platos
Theory of Forms (a refutation of Materialism)
4
Idealism Platos Theory of Forms

• The view that reality is primarily composed of
  ideas or thought rather than a material world is
  the doctrine known as Idealism. That is, an
  Idealist would say that a world of material
  objects containing no thought either could not
  exist or at the least would not be fully "real."
• The earliest formulation of this view is given to
  us by Plato.
• In Platos Allegory of the Cave, the world of
  shadows is representative of the material world
  and is not fully real.

5
Platos Theory of Forms

• What is the problem with which Plato is faced?
• How can one live a happy and satisfying life in a
  contingent, changing world without there being
  some permanence on which one can rely? (The
  Ethical Problem)
• Indeed, how can the world appear to be both
  permanent and changing all the time. (The
  Metaphysical Problem)
• Plato observed that the world of the mind, the
  world of ideas, seems relatively unchanging.
  Justice, for example, does not seem to change
  from day to day, year to year.
• On the other hand, the world of our perceptions
  change continuously. One rock is small, the next
  large, the next?

6
Platos Theory of Forms

• To resolve this problem, Plato formalized the
  classic view of idealism in his doctrine of
  Forms.
• In everyday language, a form is how we recognize
  what something is and unify our knowledge of
  objects. (e.g How do we say two objects of
  different size, color, etc. are both cars?)
• Permanence comes from the world of forms or ideas
  with which we have access through reason.
• In Platos view, all the particular entities we
  see as material objects are shadows of that
  reality. Behind each entity is a perfect form or
  ideal. Ideal forms are eternal and everlasting.
  Individual beings are imperfect.
• e.g. Roundness is an ideal or form existing in a
  world different from physical basketballs.
  Individual basketballs participate or copy the
  form.

7
Platos Theory of Forms

• Forms are transcendent, that is they do not exist
  in space and time. That is why they are
  unchanging.
• Forms are pure. They only represent a single
  character and are the perfect model of that
  property.
• Material objects are a complex conglomeration of
  copies of multiple forms located in space and
  time.
• Forms are the cause of all that exists in the
  world.

8
What is the Essence of the Form of the Good?

• Forms are the cause of all that exists in the
  world. Forms exist in a hierarchy with the Form
  of The Good being the highest form and thus is
  the first cause of all that exists.
• Forms are the ultimate reality because they are
  more objective than material things which are
  subjective and vary in our perception of them.
• For Socrates and Plato, the question What is a
  thing? is the question what is the essence of
  the thing? That is, the attempt is to identify
  what (presumably one) characteristic or property
  makes that thing what it is.

9
What is the Essence of the Form of the Good?

• Further, Plato compares the power of the Good to
  the power of the sun. The sun illuminates things
  and makes them visible to the eye. The absolute
  or perfect Good illuminates the things of the
  mind (forms) and makes them intelligible.
• The Good sheds light on ideas but, the vision of
  the idea of the Good is, according to Plato, too
  much for human minds.
• When Plato emphasizes The Good as the cause (I.e.
  an active agent) of essences, structures, and
  forms, as well as of knowledge, he seems to be
  invoking the idea of the Good as God. The Good as
  absolute order makes all intermediate forms or
  structures possible.

10
Towards A Modern View Cartesian Dualism
11
Descartes Modern Philosophy
René Descartes (15961650) was a creative
mathematician of the first order, an important
scientific thinker, and an original
metaphysician. He offered a new vision of the
natural world that continues to shape our thought
today a world of matter possessing a few
fundamental properties and interacting according
to a few universal laws. This natural world
included an immaterial mind that, in human
beings, was directly related to the brain. In
many ways, Descartes established Philosophy as a
modern endeavor and saw science and philosophy as
intricately linked in their pursuit of knowledge.

12
Yet, Descartes embraced the Sientific Revolution
fundamentally differently that Galileo.
Descartes claimed to possess a special method,
which was variously exhibited in mathematics,
natural philosophy, and metaphysics, and which,
in the latter part of his life, included, or was
supplemented by, a method of doubt. He was still
fundamentally too much of a Rationalist in the
traditions of Plato. This method of conducting
science is quite contrary to the approach that
was gaining sway with Galileo. Galileo proposed a
methodology which did not first engage in a
metaphysical search for first principles on which
to base his science.
13
(No Transcript)
14
For Descartes, Galileo erred by without having
considered the first causes of nature, he has
merely looked for the explanations of a few
particular effects, and he has thereby built
without foundations But ultimately, it was
Galileo (not Descartes) that pushed the
Scientific Revolution forward.
15
Galileo The Scientific Revolution Galileo
Galilei (1564  1642), was an Italian physicist,
mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher who
played a major role in the Scientific Revolution.
Galileo has been called the "father of modern
observational astronomy", the "father of modern
physics", the "father of science", and "the
Father of Modern Science Galileo proposes that
physics should be a new science based on
methods of observation not just on the methods of
reason. Thus, Galileo discovered many things
with his telescope, he first saw the moons of
Jupiter and the mountains on the Moon he
determined the parabolic path of projectiles and
calculated the law of free fall on the basis of
experiment.
16
Galileo The Scientific Revolution He is known
for defending and making popular the Copernican
system, using the telescope to examine the
heavens, inventing the microscope, dropping
stones from towers and masts, playing with
pendula and clocks, being the first real
experimental scientist, advocating the relativity
of motion, and creating a mathematical physics.
His major claim to fame probably comes from his
trial by the Catholic Inquisition and his
purported role as heroic rational, modern man in
the subsequent history of the warfare between
science and religion. In 1636, a Hobbes travels
to Italy where he may have met with Galileo. With
the influence of Galileo, Hobbes develops his
social philosophy on principles of geometry and
natural science.
17
Materialism

• Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) rejects Cartesian
  dualism claiming that Descartes Mind/Body problem
  itself refutes dualism.
• Since mind and body cannot interact, they cannot
  both exist within human nature.
• There can only be one realm of human nature and
  that is the material world.
• All human activities, including the mental, can
  be explained on the paradigm of a machine.

18
Materialism

• Hobbes was reductionist in that he believed that
  one kind of purported reality (the mind) could be
  understood entirely in terms of another (matter).
  
• New scientific techniques of observation and
  measurement being used by Galileo, Kepler, and
  Copernicus were making giant strides in
  understanding the universe.
• The spirit of his century suggested to Hobbes
  that all reality would be explained in time in
  terms only of the observable and the measurable.
• Hobbes himself was unable to explain any mental
  processes in terms of the physical.
• Perhaps motivating Hobbes view was basically his
  passionate faith in the advancement of science at
  the time.

19
The Prima Facie (or Self-evident) Case for
Materialism

• The argument from common sense
• If there are other realities besides the
  material, can they causally interact with the
  material world?
• If so, how can this interaction happen? If they
  can not interact, what does it mean to say that
  such a reality exists?
• Please note this may be more difficult that even
  the mind/body problem where we do seem to have
  direct evidence to believe that our own
  consciousness exists.

20
The Prima Facie (or Self-evident) Case for
Materialism

• The argument from science
• Science seems to be our most developed and useful
  organized body of knowledge about the world by
  focusing on observation and measurement of the
  physical material world. In the history of
  science, discussion of any kinds of entities
  other than material entities largely have been
  blind alleys.
• The history of science is full of examples where
  entities once thought to be necessary to explain
  life and man have been replaced by fully causal
  explanations in terms of chemicals and biological
  processes. Doesnt it seem reasonable that this
  also may be the case with mental states? (458)
  

21
Modern Idealism

• The founder of modern Idealism is Bishop George
  Berkeley (1685-1753).
• Berkeley argued against Hobbes Materialism that
  the conscious mind and its ideas and perceptions
  are the basic reality.
• Berkeley believed that the world we perceive does
  exist. However that world is not external to and
  independent of the mind.
• The external world is derived from the mind.
• However, there is a further reality beyond our
  own minds. Since we have ordered perceptions of
  the world which are not controlled by an
  individuals mind, they must be produced by Gods
  divine mind.
• (900)

22
Pragmatism

• The major pragmatist philosophers are Charles S.
  Pierce (1839-1914) and William James (1842-1910).
• To the American Pragmatists, the debate between
  materialism and idealism had become a pointless
  philosophical exercise.
• They wanted philosophy to get real (as we might
  say today.)
• The Pragmatists argued that philosophy loses its
  way when it loses sight of the social problems of
  its day. Thus, the Pragmatists focused on issues
  of practical consequence. For them, asking even
  what is real in the complete sense is not an
  abstract matter.

23
Pragmatism

• In terms of Metaphysics, James argued against
  both sense observation and scientific method and
  reason as the determinants of reality.
• Reality is determined by its relation to our
  emotional and active life. In that sense, a man
  determines his own reality. What is real is what
  works for us.
• Pragmatism was refreshing and offered new
  insights to various disciplines, particularly
  psychology as a developing science.
• Ultimately to most philosophers, pragmatism
  failed to give a systematic response to the
  traditional philosophical issues that Materialism
  and Idealism were struggling with.

24
Logical Positivism

• Similar somewhat to the American Pragmatists, the
  Logical Positivists also viewed the debate
  between materialism and idealism as a pointless
  philosophical exercise.
• Unlike the Pragmatists however, they identified
  the problem with the metaphysical debate as a
  problem in understanding language and meaning.
• The Logical Positivists proclaimed that
  Metaphysics was meaningless and both Materialists
  and Idealists were making claims that amounted to
  nonsense. They might be proposing theories that
  seemed to be different but had no consequences to
  our understanding of the world.
• A.J. Ayer (1910 1989) proposed a criterion by
  which it could be determined what was a
  meaningful statement to make about reality.

25
The Logical Positivist Criteria of Meaning

• Metaphysical statements such as God exists or
  Man has a mind and body or ethical statements
  such as Lying is wrong are meaningless for
  Ayer.
• Such statements do not make assertions about the
  world, but in fact only express emotions and
  feelings like poetry.
• A statement can only be meaningful if it is
  verifiable by means of shared experience.

26
Anti-Realism

• Anti-realism rejects the notion that there is a
  single reality. Rather, there is multiple
  realities that are dependent upon how they are
  described, perceived, or thought about.
• Notice that whereas Berkeley emphasized
  consciousness as the basis of the world, the
  modern anti-realists focus on the pervasiveness
  of language.
• Is Realism a condition of sanity? Can it be
  challenged?
• How can you even know about reality without
  language? Thus, what sense does it make to say
  reality exists beyond language?
• Is reality dependent on our contextualization
  of things. Does this mean reality is just
  whatever you think it is? Is this different than
  subjectivity? Or is it an objective, shareable
  cultural phenomena?

27
The Problem of Free Will
The Prima Facie (or Self-evident) Case for Free
Will

• From common sense
• I have a direct consciousness of being able to do
  otherwise.
• I have a direct consciousness of causing my own
  behavior.
• I accept responsibility for my decisions.

28
The Prima Facie (or Self-evident) Case for
Determinism

• From common sense
• Everything appears to have a scientific cause.
• It is not understood by what mechanism a mental
  state such as a will or an intention can cause
  behavior in the physical world.
• We seem to be think it quite appropriate to
  explain the behavior of others (and they us)
  simply in terms of behavior or reasons that they
  are unaware of, even when the person themselves
  would have said they chose to do so.

29
Determinism

• Determinists argue that previous events and the
  laws of nature cause all human acts.
• Human acts are predictable theoretically if we
  knew all prior conditions and the laws governing
  those conditions on the model of physics.
• Sir Isaac Newton (1642 1727) argued that all
  bodies in the universe both the smallest atoms
  and the largest planets act in accordance with
  the universal laws of nature.

30
Determinism

• The Marquis de LaPlace (1749-1827) applied the
  Newtonian conception and argued that humanity is
  part of a causal chain, as is all phenomena.
• For LaPlace, free will is an illusion that we
  have since we are ignorant of the appropriate
  laws of human nature.
• John Hospers (1918 - ) argues that the
  unconscious motivations for behaviors discovered
  by Sigmund Freud determine all human action.
• Subsequently in the view of hard line
  determinists, humans are not responsible for
  their acts.

31
Libertarianism

• Libertarianism is the view that our choices are
  not determined by the laws of nature. It is often
  referred to as indeterminism.
• One prevalent view of libertarianism is John Paul
  Sartres existentialism. Sartre claims that
  humans can be motivated by a future state, not a
  past state.
• Thus, we can conceive and choose what is not,
  i.e. negativity or non-being. (that is, what does
  not yet exist). To be determined would mean that
  what is past or present could determine the
  future (what does not exist.)
• Although man is radically free, most forms of
  existentialism allow that man can also choose to
  sell out his freedom and act as if he is
  determined by desires and emotions. Yet, man is
  always responsible for his actions.

32
Compatibilism

• Compatibilism argues that free will can be made
  compatible with determinism.
• The general strategy of compatibilism is
  typically to re-define freedom.
• Thomas Hobbes said that freedom was only the
  absence of physical restraints and causal
  determinants do not act as physical restraints.
• Although classical compatibilist views such as
  Hobbes appeal to our need to explain the paradox
  of free will and determinism, most philosophers
  find it unconvincing and ignores the real issue
  that cannot be defined away.

33
Chapter 4 Philosophy and God (a Metaphysical
Study)
34
Does God Exist?

• Theism is the belief in a personal God who is
  creator of the world and present in its processes
  and who is actively engaged in the affairs of
  humans.
• Pantheism is the belief that God is the universe
  and its phenomena (taken or conceived of as a
  whole). God exists but is not personally involved
  in the lives of men.
• Atheism is the denial of Theism. (Metaphysical
  View) It states that there is no God.
• Agnosticism is the view that it cannot be known
  whether God exists or not. (Epistemological
  View)
• According to Logical Positivism, the question
  Does God Exist? is meaningless.

35
First, Can We Even Make Sense of the Question?

• Surely before trying to answer the question, one
  needs to ask the following questions
• What does one mean by the word or concept of
  God?
• What is the sense of existence that is being
  asserted when one says God exists.
• Without being clear about these issues, the
  argument often becomes mostly subjective.

36
What Do We Mean by God?

• If we say that God is the creator of the
  universe, do we mean
• 1) that there is a Being that is God that could
  or could not be the one who created the universe,
  but as a matter of fact is the creator of the
  universe? Or
• 2) that by definition that God is the Being that
  created the universe such that it would be a
  logical error to say that God did not create the
  universe.
• Note that if we mean the first, we have still not
  said who (or what) God is, apart from what he has
  done.
• If we mean the second, of course given the
  inherent assumptions, then God exists. But we
  have committed the logical fallacy of begging
  the question.

37
What is the Meaning of Existence that is Being
Used to Say that God Exists?

• Is existence a property of an entity? I say This
  chair is black. Blackness is a property of the
  chair. So that I would say that this chair has
  the property of existing and thus there could
  be chairs some of which have the property and
  some dont. Then would I say that some chairs
  exist and some do not like I would say some
  chairs are black and some are not?
• Or is existence of the chair identified in terms
  of its relationship to a real world, say Hobbes
  material world or Berkeleys mental world? But
  then what sense does it make to say that Gods
  existence is dependent upon a world that He
  created and itself came into existence after
  Him?
• If not, then what is this form of existence for
  God that we are asserting?

38
Is it Possible to Talk About Something that Does
Not Exist?

• We generally believe that only things that exist
  can have properties. Thus, by referring to God
  with properties, I.e. omnipotent, do we prove
  that God exists?
• Probably not of course. We do refer to Santa
  Claus as having a white beard and living at
  the North Pole. And then turn around and say
  Santa does not exist.
• Bertrand Russell proposed a Theory of
  Descriptions to account for how we refer to
  things that appear to have properties or
  characteristics but may or may not exist.

39
How is it Possible to Talk About Something that
Does Not Exist?

• Russells solution is to take names to be
  shorthand for descriptions. For example, Santa
  Claus is a person who goes by the description
  that he lives on North Pole, and delivers toys to
  kids for Christmas, and the sentence Santa
  doesnt exist should be understood as There is
  no X, such that X is a person that lives on North
  Pole, etc., etc.
• Thus, presumably for Russell to say God does not
  exist would be to say There is no Being, such
  that the Being existed prior to the creation of
  the universe, and then created the universe,
  etc., etc.

40
So, is Logical Positivism right after all?

• Theism is so confused and the sentences in which
  'God' appears so incoherent and so incapable of
  verifiability or falsifiability that to speak of
  belief or unbelief, faith or unfaith, is
  logically impossible.
• A. J. Ayer, Language, Truth, and Logic
• Wikipedia suggests A. J. Ayer (1910-1989) was an
  atheist. Ayers position on the existence of God
  should not be confused with atheism. Of course,
  claiming that God does not exist also lacks
  analytic or empirical verifiability and is thus
  also meaningless.
• Many (perhaps most?) mid to late 20th century
  philosophers who abandoned strict logical
  positivism (including Russell and Wittgenstein)
  still found Ayers response to this issue quite
  credible.
• On the other hand, maybe the question is too
  obvious and important to give up on, so lets
  stumble on .