INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY


"The unexamined life is not worth living."
Socrates
The simplest definition of "philosophy" is: the love of wisdom
The two root words are "philo" meaning love and "sophia" meaning wisdom.
Philosophy is not the same as wisdom. Philosophy is the love of wisdom.
There are many people who have a wisdom that they live by or believe in; many people have been indoctrinated into one creed or another. That does not make them philosophers. A philosopher is a person who personally loves to know the truth about the general principles of the world; a person who actively pursues the truth in such matters.
Using this basic definition of philosophy, one can understand what has motivated the countless number of famous philosophers down through the ages. Each one was on a personal search for the principles of the universe.
The history of western philosophy is marked by three revolutions in thought.
The revolutionary switch from religious or mythical ways of thinking to a rational way of thinking which occurred in ancient Greece and centers around the time of Socrates (470-399 B.C.)
The epistemological revolution which occurred around the time of Descartes (1596-1650). For a long time thinkers had been taking something for granted which they used in all their work - knowledge. They had assumed the reliability of the human mind. It was Descartes who called into question the very foundations of all knowledge by doubting the reliability of knowing. All philosophy since that time has had to deal with this issue.
The linguistic revolution occurred at the beginning of the 20th century. For a long time thinkers had been taking something for granted which they used in all their work - language. They had assumed the reliability of language. It was Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) who questioned the very purpose and function of language, and its use and misuse in philosophical discussions. Wittgenstein's philosophy is unusual in that his first major work, called the "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus", published in 1921, was a central vehicle in the view that philosophical problems were based on a misuse of language; and that a careful logical analysis would clarify the meaning of these issues. Then, Wittgenstein's second book, the "Philosophical Investigations", published in 1953 (two years after his death) was an attack on his previous work and proposed a new type of linguistic analysis, which proposed that a sentence is understood not by itself, but only in the context of its use.
NOTE TO THE READER: The above three revolutions in philosophy are greatly simplified and are given only as a bare outline. There were writers before the philosophers mentioned who began to recognize these problems. The revolutions were preceded by a gradual buildup of questioning on these issues. And of course I am only discussing western philosophy. There was philosophic activity in other cultures around the world as well.
SIX MAIN DIVISIONS OF PHILOSOPHY
While different authors divide philosophy differently, the following divisions include all the areas of philosophical problems:
Logic
Epistemology
Ethics
Metaphysics
Political Philosophy
Aesthetics
LOGIC
Logic has been defined as the study of the rules of correct thinking. It concentrates on the principles that guide rational thought and discussion. The most fundamental concept in logic is that of an argument. An argument must be distinguished from "arguing", which is a debate or disagreement between different people. The logical concept of an argument is: a set of statements, one of which is the conclusion, the others are premises, and the premises support the conclusion. In other words, it is a statement along with the evidence that supports it.
Logic plays a key role in philosophy. If there is going to be any rational discussion of different philosophical positions, the discussion must use the rules of logic. While logic will not specify what the content of the statements are, it will tell you how to arrange the statements in a logical fashion.
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
A deductive argument is one in which the conclusion is certain based on the premises. In a deductive argument the conclusion is contained in the premises.
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
An inductive argument is one in which the conclusion is probable based on the premises. In an inductive argument the conclusion goes beyond the premises.
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISMS
One of the earliest and most common forms of deductive logic was developed by the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). A categorical syllogism is a deductive argument containing three statements: two premises and one conclusion. Each of the three statements is a categorical statement. These statements can be of the form: All S are P, No S are P, Some S are P, or Some S are not P. An example of a valid categorical syllogism is:

All humans are mortal.

Socrates is a human.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

ARGUMENT BY ANALOGY
A common form of inductive argument is the argument by analogy. This is an argument in which a conclusion is drawn about a situation based on similarities of this situation (analogies) to previous situations. For example, if we predict that a since it is snowing today a certain employee will be late because in the past when it was snowing the employee was late, we are making a probabilistic argument based on an analogy, the occurrence of snow.
MODUS PONENS
Here is a common form of deductive reasoning using the concept of a conditional or hypothetical statement. The name "modus ponens" comes from the Latin word "modus" meaning method, and the Latin word "ponens" meaning affirming.

If it rains, then the sidewalks will be wet.

It is raining.

Therefore, the sidewalks will be wet.
FALLACIES
Logic also discusses the incorrect ways of reasoning. A set of statements that appears to be an argument but is not is a fallacy. There are formal fallacies, which break specific rules of logic, and there are informal fallacies which usually are phrased to appear as an argument but the statements purporting to be premises to do not support the conclusion. One example of this is called a "circular argument", in which the conclusion is used as the premise.

Why is counterfeiting illegal? I'll tell you why. It is because it is against the law!
Since "illegal" and "against the law" are the same concept, the speaker in the above fallacy is using the fact that counterfeiting is against the law to prove that it is illegal. In effect the speaker is just repeating the same statement two times. Nothing has been proven.






ETHICS


Ethics is defined as the study of the moral value of human behavior. Ethics as a division of philosophy uses the methods of philosophy, not the methods of religion. In other words, it is not faith in the writings of religious figures which is used to develop ethical positions, it is the application of human reasoning to ethical issues.
The questions of ethics are many:
What method do we use to determine moral standards?
Why be moral at all?
Are there moral standards which are common to all humanity?
Is free will a necessary condition for moral praise or blame?
Is the language of ethics different from other uses of language?
RESULTS-BASED ETHICS
How do you determine if a rule or act is morally right or wrong? This theory states that the moral goodness or badness is determined by the results or consequences of an act or rule. This theory is sometimes called "consequentialism”; it is similar to some definitions of "teleological ethics". Telling a lie is morally wrong because of the damage this lie will cause; both to the liar and to society which depends on honest relationships.
One example of this theory is called "utilitarianism". It was started by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) an Englishman who, in trying to reform some of the unfair laws in England developed his theory that the morally correct rule was the one that provided the greatest good to the greatest number of people.
STANDARDS-BASED ETHICS
Under this theory you determine if an act or rule is morally right or wrong if it meets a moral standard. This is sometimes called the "deontological" theory or "duty ethics". One famous philosopher who developed such a theory was Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant was a German philosopher who developed a "universal test" to see if a rule could be a universal standard. If a rule can be made universal without contradiction, then it is morally good; if a rule cannot be made universal without contradiction, then it is morally bad. Not keeping your promise is morally wrong because you cannot make it a universal law that everyone can knowingly make promises with no intention of keeping them. Kant felt this was a contradiction in terms. When you say "I promise." while you are thinking you do not intend to keep your promise, you are contradicting yourself.
ETHICAL INTUITIONISM
Under this view an act or rule is determined to be right or wrong by appeal to the common intuition of a person. This intuition is sometimes referred to as your conscience. Anyone with a normal conscience will know that it is wrong to kill an innocent person.
ETHICAL EGOISM
This view is based on the theory that each person should do whatever promotes their own best interests; this becomes the basis for moral choices.
VIRTUE ETHICS
This is ethical theory that ethics should develop character traits or virtues in a person so that person will do what is morally right because they are a virtuous person. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) was a famous exponent of this view. Aristotle felt that virtue ethics was the way to attain true happiness.
EMOTIVISM
This ethical theory is based on a study of the type of language used in ethical sentences and discussion. Notice, for example, how people get emotional about ethical issues. On this view ethical pronouncements are a type of language which attempts to evoke similar emotions in the hearer that the speaker has.
SUBDIVISIONS OF ETHICS
There are a number of specialties in ethics which deal with specific problem areas.
- Medical Ethics: This specialty, often called biomedical ethics, or bioethics, focuses on ethical issues that arise from the application of the biological and medical sciences.
- Business Ethics: There are a number of ethical issues and problems that are found in the workplace. Issues of honesty and equity are discussed here. There are internal ethical issues such as those that occur in the relationships between employers and employees. Then there are external ethical issues which concern the relationships between a company and the society of which it is a part.
- Environmental Ethics: This specialty deals with a cluster of problems that relate to the use of the environment. There are ethical issues involved in pollution and waste; and there are ethical issues involved in the conservation of natural resources for future use.







EPISTEMOLOGY

Epistemology is the study of the valid forms of knowledge. It comes from the Greek "episteme" which means knowledge. It is sometimes called "theory of knowledge". It must be noted that epistemology as a distinct branch of philosophy is of recent origin. Usually Descartes is considered the first philosopher to seriously work in epistemology. The validity of knowledge was more or less taken for granted by previous philosophers. It was only when Descartes began to systematically doubt the veracity of knowledge that problems of knowledge became apparent.
The problems considered in epistemology are:
Is genuine knowledge attainable at all? Is the skeptic right?
What are the limits of knowledge?
From what faculties of the mind does knowledge originate?
Which method should be used to obtain valid knowledge?
How do you justify a priori statements?
Where is the boundary between the subjective and objective factors?
What is the nature of truth?
SKEPTICISM
This is the view that questions whether valid or reliable knowledge is ever attainable by a human being. Some skeptics stated that nothing can be known. Other skeptics stated that they did not know whether knowledge was possible; they suspended judgment on the issue. Some of the common examples used by skeptics are the illusions and deceptions of our senses. Others point to the complexity of any experience and ask how you can know what is the essence or real nature of the things you are experiencing.
RATIONALISM
This is the view that valid knowledge comes only through the mind. Rationalists hold that the mind knows truths that were not placed there by sensory experience. There are innate ideas which you can know independent of your sensory experience. Mathematics and geometry are examples of abstract truths which are known with certainty, even though the physical illustrations of these truths may vary. An early example was the Greek philosopher Plato (427-347 B.C.), who stated that ideas have an existence independent of human minds. These independently-existing ideas are the only reality in the universe since they are absolute and unchanging. Valid knowledge comes then when the mind grasps these ideas. Another famous philosopher was the Frenchman Rene Descartes (1596-1650) who went through a period of skepticism in his life and then came to the conclusion that only ideas which were clear and distinct to the mind represented valid knowledge. Other well-known rationalist philosophers of this era were Spinoza (1632-1677) a Dutchman, whose philosophical writings were arranged like a geometry book, with axioms and postulates used to prove every part of his philosophy, and Leibniz (1646-1716), a German philosopher who proposed a system of symbolic calculations along with his view that the world was rationally ordered with a "pre-established harmony."
EMPIRICISM
This is the view that valid knowledge comes only through the five senses. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) held the view that whatever was in the mind was first in the senses. It was a group of philosophers who came after the rationalist Descartes who made the greatest contributions to empiricism. John Locke (1632-1714) was an English philosopher who compared the mind to a blank tablet. When a person is born they know nothing. As they go through life, the experiences they have with their five senses write information on the tablet of their mind. Locke held a representational view of knowledge. Ideas in our mind are representatives of the things in the real world. If they accurately represent these things we can say we have valid knowledge. However only some of the qualities or characteristics in objects were objective: these were size, shape and weight. Other qualities of objects were subjective, that is, they are created by our individual mind: these subjective or secondary qualities are smell, taste, texture, color and sound. The empiricist philosopher after Locke was George Berkeley (1685-1753) an Irishman, who carried Locke's empiricism even further by stating that the qualities of objects which Locke said were objective were really subjective. This meant that all perceptions were subjective and led to Berkeley's view that "esse est percipi" which means "to be is to be perceived". Something can exist only if it is being perceived by someone. The last famous empiricist is David Hume (1711-1776) a Scottish philosopher. Hume applied empiricism to many favorite ideas, with devastating results. For example, he denied causality. He stated that while we perceive a physical happening such as a ball being thrown and then another physical happening such as that ball striking another ball we never at any time perceive the "cause" of the event. For Hume the term "cause" was an empty word which we use only out of habit.

KANT
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was a German philosopher who attempted to combine rationalism and empiricism. It is called the "form and matter" epistemology. A statue can have a form such as Abraham Lincoln and a matter such as marble; you need both a form and a matter to have a statue. So in knowledge you need a form, which are categories of the mind, and matter which are the data of sensations. You need both of these to have knowledge. It is similar to wearing rose-colored glasses. You have visual sensations and they are colored by the glasses. Of course with the mind you cannot take of your glasses.

W.V.O. QUINE
Quine is a contemporary philosopher who argued that the sharp distinction between analytic truths (true because of the meaning of the concepts) and synthetic truths (true because of facts) cannot be maintained.
Back to Home Page
METAPHYSICS
Metaphysics is defined as the study of ultimate reality. But what is the nature of that ultimate reality? Is it only material? Is it non-material? The word "metaphysics" comes from the root words "meta" meaning beyond and "physics" meaning the physical world. But is there a reality beyond the physical world? The various answers to this question have produced various metaphysical theories.
IDEALISM
This is the view that the only reality is the ideal world. A well known exponent of this view was Plato, a philosopher in ancient Greece (428-347 B.C.). Plato believed that the physical world around us is not real; it is constantly changing and thus you can never say what it really is. There is a world of ideas which is a world of unchanging and absolute truth. This is reality for Plato. Does such a world exist independent of human minds? Plato thought it did, and whenever we grasp an idea, or see something with our mind's eye, we are using our mind to conceive of something in the ideal world. There are a number of proofs of this ideal world. The concepts of geometry, such as the concept of a circle, which is a line equidistant from a point, is something which does not exist in the physical world. All physical circles, such as wheels, drawings, etc. are not perfectly round. Yet our mind has the concept of a perfect circle. Since this concept could not come from the physical world, it must come from an ideal world. Another proof is that from moral perfection. We can conceive of a morally perfect person, even though the people we know around us are not morally perfect. So where does someone get this idea of moral perfection? Since it could not have been obtained from the world around us, it must have come from an ideal world. Platonism has been an extremely influential philosophy down through the centuries.
DUALISM
Dualism is the philosophy that there are two kinds of reality: material and immaterial. There is a physical world as well as a non-physical or spiritual world. There is a problem in showing how the physical world and ideal world are related. Are physical objects imperfect copies of ideal objects?
In each person there is a dualism according to this philosophy. This is the dualism of mind and body. There is a common expression which speaks of "mind over matter" which assumes this dualism. But a problem arises when trying to explain how the two substances can interact. As an example, in movies about ghosts (which are non-physical) if a person tries to strike a ghost their hand goes past the ghost because there is no way to interact with such a being. So while the dualistic view is commonly held there are serious philosophical problems with such a view.
MATERIALISM
On this view only the world of matter is real. Thoughts, ideas and other non-physical things are merely movements of physical matter or chemical reactions. There is no reality beyond the physical.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
Here is a metaphysical problem which has puzzled thinkers through the centuries. It is stated this way:

If God is all powerful and all good then there would be no evil in the world.

But there is evil in the world.

Therefore God is not all powerful or all good.
If the first two premises are true must the conclusion be true? Some answers to this have tried to deny the first premise by appealing to our free will as the source of evil. This however does not account for natural disasters and similar types of evil.
Others have tried to deny the second premise by saying that these calamities are not really evil; they build our character and make us stronger.
Others have accepted the conclusion and often postulate another being, such as a devil, who has power in the universe.
GOD
There are a number of logical arguments given for the existence of God. These arguments rely only on human reasoning; they do not invoke religious faith. They were proposed by philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and Saint Anselm (1033-1109) during the Middle Ages in Europe.
The Cosmological Argument:

If there was an infinite chain of causes of the universe then there would be no universe now.

But there is a universe now.

Therefore there must be a first cause of the universe.
The Argument from Design:

Most organisms in the world act for a purpose.

Most organisms are not aware of acting for a purpose.

There must be a superior being directing their purpose.
The Ontological Argument:

The concept of a supreme being is of a being with all perfections.

Existence is a perfection.

The supreme being must exist.
All three of the above arguments have been analyzed and criticized a great deal. They do show how human reasoning tries to grapple with the concept of a supreme being.

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Political philosophy studies the nature, origin and purpose of government.
FORMS OF GOVERNMENT
The are many forms of government. In a monarchy supreme power is placed in a single person. In an oligarchy, power is placed in the hands of a few people. In an aristocracy rule is placed in the hands of the best qualified people. In a timocracy the power is placed in the hands of the wealthy. In a democracy power is placed in the hands of the people. Which of the above forms is the best? The answer to this question depends on how you view the purpose of a government.
SOCIAL CONTRACT
This political philosophy was proposed by Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher (1588-1679). It was further developed by John Locke (1632-1704) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). It was an attempt to answer the question concerning the origin of government. The social contract concept was an attempt to challenge the divine right of kings philosophy which was used by monarchs of the time.
According to this philosophy people in a society made a contract with each other or with a ruler to guarantee them certain needs such as peace, safety and justice. If the ruler did not meet his part of the contract, then the people had a right to select a new ruler. This is the basic philosophy that a democracy is based on.
NATURAL LAW
This philosophy goes as far back as ancient Greece. It is the view that there is a higher law to which specific written laws of a government must be compared. This higher law or natural law, was universally valid and thus applied to all governments. The natural law was known by the use of human reasoning.
JUSTICE
One of the purposes of government is to administer justice among the people. But what is justice? One recent philosopher who has written a very influential book is John Rawls, who wrote A Theory of Justice in 1971. Rawls proposed a theory of what is called "distributive justice". There were three principles that determined justice:

The Principle of Greatest Equal Liberty: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.

The Difference Principle: Inequalities should benefit the least well off in society.

The Principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity: Positions to which inequality are attached should be open to all.
AESTHETICS


Aesthetics is the study of the principles that guide the formation and evaluation of art.
"Aesthetics" is sometimes referred to as the philosophy of art; and sometimes as aesthetic theory. The word "aesthetics" is derived from the Greek word "aisthanesthai" which means perception. The most common examples of art are music, painting, sculpture, writing, theater and dance. There are, of course, many varieties of each of these.
Much debate and discussion has occurred over the centuries about the central questions of aesthetics.
How do you determine artistic value?
What is art?
What is good art?
Are there standards for judging artistic experiences
or are they relative?
How does art relate to nature?
How do you classify the arts?
Is art representational?
Must a work of art have meaning?
Must art be placed in its context to be felt or understood properly; or can it be viewed in isolation?
Is art justified if it is the expression of the artist?
Does art have to be practical?
ART
The word used in ancient Greece for art was "techne" which referred to a craft or specialized skill. Even in the Renaissance, artists thought of themselves as craftsmen. It was in the 17th century that some forms of art began to be conceived of from the point of view of an aesthetic experience. In the next century there arose the distinction between the fine arts and the useful arts. It is the fine arts which in general are now considered to be "art".
PLATO
One of the early philosophers who talked about beauty and art was Plato (427-347 B.C.). In Plato's philosophy there was an independently existing world of ideas or forms. The highest idea was that of pure beauty. Physical objects such as works of art were beautiful to the extent they were imitations or reminders of that idea of pure beauty. And to see something as beautiful was to see the reflection of the idea of pure beauty in it. Art thus was a form of cognition.
SCHILLER
For Friedrich Schiller (1759-1805), art was a form of playing. When something was produced, not because it was needed, but because a person just had a lot of extra energy and produced something with this energy, then this is art. It involved the use of the imagination. It was not the rational, formal impulse or the sensual, material impulse that motivated art, but the play impulse. The play impulse will result in a resemblance or image of reality which the artist freely constructs.
ROMANTICISM
For the Romantics, such as William Wordsworth (1770-1850), art is the expression of the artist's personal emotions. The imagination is the important faculty which the artist uses. Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834), for example described imagination as the power to transform the raw data of the senses into something new.
CROCE
For Benedetto Croce (1866-1952), art was a form of cognition, but not cognition of the universal idea, but cognition of the individual thing. Art is intuition, which includes the concrete and immediate in experience. Croce was trying to describe a form of artistic knowledge which was not of purely intellectual forms and not based on the feelings of the Romantics.



ADVANCED


PHILOSOPHY





Advanced philosophy is for the adventure loving intelligentsia. Look at the image above and you will see why. It is a tangled thicket which is how reality first presents itself to an inquiring mind which is critical, skeptical and accurate. Philosophy has been characterized as the "organization and interpretation of experience." What you see in the image above is the complexity of experience, the "blooming, buzzing confusion" of the philosopher William James. It is a difficult task to try to make sense out of the complexity of experience, but that is what advanced philosophy does.

But where is the observer in the above picture? The observer is taking the picture. So is the observer in the picture? Yes and No.

Now look at the picture below. You can see all the observers. They are searching for information. Is the information in the picture? Yes and No.












(Photo by Safaa Khraizat)

Now we are entering into one of the most complicated issues in philosophy - How to untangle the web of experience. And in particular, how to untangle the observer from the observation.

ADVANCED TOPIC #1: How to separate the observer from the observation
First of all, who cares? What is so important about this topic? The answer is crucial to the concern about eliminating bias and prejudice in someone's opinion. It has usually been desirable for an opinion to be objective when questions about truth and falsehood are involved. If you feel that all members of a certain nationality are dishonest, then this is going to make you biased when you listen to what they say or read what they write. If you have this feeling that there is alien life out there in the galaxy, then you are going to observe strange lights at night as signs of this alien life. Studies of logical thinking or critical thinking have emphasized the importance of not letting personal bias influence your thinking. Rational discussions should be fair and objective.

So if the answer to our topic question is that you cannot ever separate the observer from the observation, then the advice to be objective and unbiased is misguided. Everyone is always biased.

Then perhaps our question should be: to what extent can we separate the observer from the observation? In other words, what do we contribute to the observation and what does the thing observed contribution to the observation?
Many philosophers have agonized over this topic.

1. Read Immanuel Kant, an 18th century philosopher. In his book Critique of Pure Reason you will find his discussion of the forms of space and time, the categories of the understanding and the ideas of pure reason. As we mentioned in our discussion on the Epistemology Page, Kant's view was that the human mind has certain forms, space and time, which it superimposes on our sensory experience. So we observe things as spatial and temporal. And the human mind has certain categories, such as "cause", which are superimposed on our observations. And finally there are three ideas of pure reason which are based on the way the mind works: soul, world, God.

2. Read Werner Heisenberg, a 20th century physicist. In his book Physics and Philosophy he discusses the "uncertainty principle" in quantum physics. He is stating the view that the observer always affects the observation. If you shine a light on something to see it, you have by that action changed what you are looking at.

3. Read Gilbert Ryle, a 20th century philosopher. In his book The Concept of Mind, Ryle argues that all these discussions about the apparatus of the mind are "category mistakes".