1

Philosophy 1010Class #5 - 7/8/2010

Title: Introduction to PhilosophyInstructor: Paul DickeyE-mail Address: pdickey2@mccneb.edu

Discuss movie mini-essays on Human Nature. Good job, everybody!

2

Midterm Exam next Thursday - July 15

Chap 1-3 + Critical Thinking

Don’t forget about our Quia Class Website !!!

www.quia.com

3

Pop Quiz

(worth 15 points)

4

Chapter 3

Reality and Being

(a Metaphysical Study)

5

• Some might argue that reality is what we experience through our senses.

• Or would you perhaps argue that reality consists of more than the material world? What about justice, mathematics, liberty, freedom, truth, beauty, space, time, and love?

• Is language real?

• Is God real?

• Or the sub-atomic theoretical entities that physics asserts? Are they real?

What Is Reality?

6

• The most fundamental question in metaphysics is: Is reality purely material or is there reality beyond the material?

• We already discussed this question to some degree in terms of the mind/body problem, but now we will begin to look at this issue in a much broader scope.

• We have already seen the materialism of Thomas Hobbes, particular in the context of the mind/body problem. Hobbes, however, argued for Materialism in a much broader sense.

Metaphysics is the Study of What is Real

7

• The Greek Philosopher Democritus (460-360 B.C.) first argued that reality could be explained entirely in terms of matter. He called the small pieces of matter atoms.

• For Democritus, the world consisted of atoms and empty space. Even souls were composed of atoms.

• In the 17th century, Hobbes took the lead for a modern view of Materialism, proposing that all reality was composed of matter and could be measured. Man is a machine, he claimed, and had no soul.

Materialism and Reality

8

• 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.

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

9

• 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. Doesn’t it seem reasonable that this also may be the case with mental states?

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

10

For example, phlogiston theory advanced by J. J. Becher late in the 17th century postulated that in all flammable materials there is present phlogiston, a substance without color, odor, taste, or weight that is given off in burning. “Phlogisticated” substances are those that contain phlogiston and, on being burned, are “dephlogisticated.” The ash of the burned material is held to be the true material. The theory received strong and wide support throughout a large part of the 18th cent. until it was refuted by the work of A. L. Lavoisier, who provided a better theory of the nature of combustion which did not have to create strange “entities” such as phlogiston.

11

• Video:

What is Real?

12

Ten Minute Break!

13

• 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 Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, the world of shadows is representative of the material world and is not fully real.

Is There an Alternative to Materialism?

Idealism & Plato’s Theory of Forms

14

• 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?

• Indeed, how can the world appear to be both permanent and changing all the time.

• 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…?

Plato’s Theory of Forms

15

• To resolve this problem, Plato formalized the classic view of idealism in his doctrine of Forms.

• In natural 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 Plato’s 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.

Plato’s Theory of Forms

16

• 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, e.g. this can, is a complex conglomeration of copies of multiple forms located in space and time.

• 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.

• Forms are the ultimate reality because they are more objective than material things which are subjective and vary in our perception of them.

Plato’s Theory of Forms

17

• 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.

What is the Essence of the Form of the Good?

18

• 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.

What is the Essence of the Form of the Good?

19

• 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 individual’s mind, they must be produced by God’s divine mind.

Modern Idealism

20

• Realism is the view that the real world exists independent of our language, our thoughts, our perceptions, or our beliefs about it.

• 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.

Anti-Realism

21

• 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 personal and 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.

Pragmatism

22

• 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.

Pragmatism

23

• 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.

Logical Positivism

24

• 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.

The Logical Positivist Criteria of Meaning

25

Ten Minute Break!

26

• 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.

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

The Problem of Free Will

27

• 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.

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

28

• 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.

Determinism

29

• 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.

Determinism

30

• Video:

Do We Have Free Will?

31

• 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 Sartre’s 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.

Libertarianism

32

• 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 compatibilist views 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.”

Compatibilism

33

• Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) gives us a compatibilist proposal that does not merely redefine freedom.

• Kant says that when we act, we have to assume we are free and when we try to explain our acts scientifically we have to assume that those same acts are causally determined.

• Even as determinists, when we go to a restaurant we still must take upon ourselves to order from the menu. We cannot sit back and just let our desires and tastes take care of it for us.

Compatibilism

34

Writing AssignmentWorth 5 points in Participation Category.

 Compose a 1-2 page Socratic Dialogue with two characters (you and Socrates) discussing either the Mind/Body problem or the problem of Free Will. Be faithful to the process of the Socratic Method as we discussed in class and was described in your textbook.