Philosophy 1010

1
Philosophy 1010 Class 8
Title Introduction to Philosophy Instructor Pau
l Dickey E-mail Address pdickey2_at_mccneb.edu
Today Discuss Mid-term Exam. Finish
Discussion of Chapter 3 Reality
Being Discussion of Chapter 4, Sections 4.1
thru 4.5. 10/30/03 . Discuss Velasquez,
Philosophy A Text With Readings, Chapter 6,
Sections 6.1-6.3, pp. 394-428. Make class
discussion assignments.
2
Midterm Exam
3
Chapter 3 Reality and Being, Cont. (a
Metaphysical Study)
4
The Metaphysical View Idealism Platos
Theory of Forms (a refutation of Materialism)
5
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.

6
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?

7
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.

8
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.

9
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.

10
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.

11
Towards A Modern View Cartesian Dualism
12
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.

13
Yet, Descartes embraced the Scientific 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.
14
(No Transcript)
15
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.
16
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.
17
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.
18
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.

19
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)

20
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.

21
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.

22
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.

23
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.

24
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?

25
Chapter 4 Philosophy and God (a Metaphysical
Study)
26
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.

27
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.

28
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.

29
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?

30
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 .

31
The Traditional Proofs The Ontological
Argument

• Saint Anselm (c. 1033-1109) provided the
  classical ontological argument (proof) for the
  existence of God
• First of all, Anselm argues, God is that Being
  for which none greater can be conceived.
• But if God did not exist, then we could conceive
  a greater Being, namely a God that does exist.
• Thus, God must exist.
• Note This argument does not give evidence of
  Gods existence. It attempts to prove it.
• Unfortunately, the argument seems to suppose that
  
• Existence is a property of a thing, and
• Non-existence is an imperfection.

32
The Ontological Argument Kants Objection

• Immanuel Kant argued against Anselms Ontological
  Argument that it defines God into existence, that
  is, Anselm has formed a concept of God that
  itself requires existence as a property.
• Nonexistence was an imperfection, thus God could
  not have that property since he by definition is
  perfect.
• And thus, Anselm is begging the question.
• Few philosophers or theologians today accept
  Anselms Ontological Argument.

33
The Traditional Proofs The Cosmological
Argument

• Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) provided several
  cosmological arguments (proofs) for the
  existence of God that were of the following form
• First of all, Aquinas argues, Some things move.
  
• What moves must be moved (caused) by something
  prior.
• This movement (causation) can not have an
  infinite regression for it must have an origin.
• The origin of the movement (the cause) cannot
  itself move (or be caused).
• Thus, God (the original mover or first cause)
  must exist.

34
The Traditional Proofs The Cosmological
Argument

• After Newton, it is necessary to refine Aquinas
  first argument to refer to acceleration rather
  than motion.
• More damaging to his argument however is an
  objection that questions the assumption that
  there can be no infinite regress in the causal
  sequences of the universe. How do we know that
  the universe is not infinite?
• The Big Bang theory seems potentially to
  counter this objection. The universe (along with
  space and time) does appear to have had a
  beginning.
• But the argument still does not preclude
  alternatives. Could our universe have come into
  existence from events in another universe and
  thus we could still have an infinity of events in
  multiple universes?

35
The Traditional Proofs The Cosmological
Argument

• Aquinas believed that even if the universe
  existed forever, then there would still need to
  be a First Cause which would be God.
• David Hume (1711-1776) disagreed. He claimed that
  if one had an explanation for all the parts of a
  thing (in particular, all individual causal links
  in the universe), it did not require an
  additional explanation for the whole.
• Many analysts, most notably Arthur Schopenhauer
  (1788-1860), have argued that the arguments
  premise that every event must have a cause is
  actually inconsistent with his conclusion that
  God does not have a cause.