What is Philosophy?

3 Definitions of ‘Philosophy’

‘Philosophy’ is used in a variety of ways. Indeed, dictionaries give multiple entries for ‘philosophy’. Roughly, these entries can be divided into 3 groups:– 1. ‘Philosophy’ as an academic discipline– 2. ‘Philosophy’ as a set of beliefs or worldview– 3. ‘Philosophy’ as a study or inquiry

The Stereotype of Philosophy

Definition 1 merely states that philosophy is something that is done at a university, and does not say what philosophy actually is. This, however, easily leads to the common stereotype of philosophy involving two distinct elements:– 1. Mental Masturbation: Philosophy is done at a university,

and at a university only. Indeed, philosophy is seen by many as a kind of intellectual exercise in futility: absent-minded, bearded, white guys discussing abstract topics having no practical use whatsoever.

– 2. Intellectual Bullying: Philosophers always seem to know better, and constantly plague us with questions.

Philosophy as a Set of Beliefs

Definition 2 defines ‘philosophy’ as a worldview or set of beliefs. Notice that we can say ‘a philosophy’ in this case. Indeed, there can be multiple philosophies in this sense of the word: ‘My philosophy in this regard is …’, ‘Plato’s philosophy’, ‘Eastern Philosophy’, etc.

Philosophies provide answers to difficult questions, and thus often serve as a kind of guide or compass to conduct life and navigate the world.

All ‘isms’ (and all religions) fall under this definition of philosophy: Buddhism, Capitalism, Mysticism, Existentialism, Dualism, etc.

Philosophy as Rational Inquiry

Definition 3 expresses philosophy as we are going to understand it in this class. Philosophy in this sense is (like definition 1, but unlike definition 2) an activity: it is something you do. In particular, doing philosophy is using our rationality in trying to figure out the answers to difficult questions (related to any subject matter).

The Generation and Evaluation of Ideas and Beliefs

Doing philosophy roughly consists of two parts:– 1. The generation of possible ideas, concepts,

views, beliefs, or answers with respect to some issue or question.

– 2. The evaluation of those generated beliefs in order to figure out which make sense and which don’t, which is true and which is false, which is good and which is bad, or which we should accept and which we should reject.

Creativity and Reason

The two steps show that the philosopher should be able to create as well as destroy ideas or beliefs. The philosopher thus must be both imaginative as well as reserved, liberal as well as conservative, ‘artsy’ as well as ‘nerdy’ (indeed, there are links from philosophy to literature as well as science), creative as well as rational. In sum, the philosopher should be open-minded but (as someone once nicely put it), not so open-minded that his or her brain is going to fall out!

A Common Myth about Open-Mindedness

Some people believe that they are open-minded because they believe in things that are not commonly accepted. However, this has nothing to do with open-mindedness, as being open-minded has nothing to do with what you believe (see next slide)!

Even worse, if you believe things to be true exactly because they are not commonly accepted, you are in fact quite narrow-minded, since apparently you are unwilling to consider the commonly accepted answer as a possible answer.

Open-Mindedness: An Attitude

OK, so what makes one open-minded? Open-mindedness has to do with your attitude towards beliefs:– You are able to consider alternative beliefs.– You have no initial preference of one belief over the

other.– You accept the possibility that existing beliefs are

false.– In sum: You are critical towards existing beliefs.

A Common Myth about Being Critical

Many people incorrectly equate being critical with being dismissive, cynical, or negative:– First of all, when you are critical of a certain belief, you

merely consider the possibility that a certain belief is false; you do not automatically reject that belief.

– Second, even if you do reject a certain belief, then that is not automatically a bad thing; if you had good reasons to reject that belief, then that belief was probably false, and eliminating false beliefs may well be considered a good thing!

Being Critical: What it is

Being critical about a certain belief means to think about that belief, and to decide whether to accept it, reject it, or suspend judgment on that belief.

Thus, you consider alternative beliefs, and you make arguments for or against any of those beliefs to figure out whether the original belief was indeed the best belief or not.

In other words, being critical involves the same two components as philosophy: the generation as well as evaluation of alternative beliefs.

Indeed, philosophy can be understood as critical thinking with regard to difficult issues.

Why it is hard to be critical I

Habit– It’s hard to change our thinking patterns

Difficulty– It can be hard to generate or evaluate alternative beliefs.

Sometimes we can’t comprehend suggested ones Laziness

– We don’t want to spend the time and effort Futility

– Being critical does not guarantee any kind of improvement in our beliefs.

Why it is hard to be critical II

Fear and Desire– We fear or desire the consequences of the truth

of a belief– We desire acceptance and fear rejection by

people around us– We hate to lose the ‘investment’ we have put in

our beliefs– We like certainty and hate uncertainty– We love to be right and hate to be wrong

Wishful Thinking

We often like certain beliefs to be true. For example, it would be nice if there is a God, if there is life after death, etc. Wishful thinking frequently makes us believe exactly that what we want to be true, and at the same time makes us uncritical of those beliefs as well.

Herd Instinct, Partisan Mindset, and Leadership

Humans are very social animals, and we have a lot to gain or lose depending on our social status. Thus, we tend to do three things:– 1. Herd Instinct: We are quick to accept the beliefs of those around us

(family, friends, culture, etc.): we would hate to come off as being critical of those beliefs, as they may result in being rejected from our support group.

– 2. Partisan Mindset: We reject the beliefs of other groups, since they are, as a group, in competition with our group. Thus, we adopt a ‘Us vs Them’ Mindset: ‘We are right, and they are wrong!’.

– 3. Leadership: Within the group that we’re in, it is best to be ‘on top’. To be a leader, however, you must take control, and act as if you know what you are doing. As such, believing something (whether it is true or bad), and holding on to that belief, is better than trying to figure out what’s best. Indeed, admitting that you don’t know what’s best is often considered a sign of weakness.

Beliefs and Actions

Whenever, we make a decision, we rely on our beliefs: Beliefs are what we act upon. This makes us uncritical of our beliefs in 2 ways:– 1. We hate to find out that in the past we have acted on

bad beliefs, since as such we may have to admit that we have done harm.

– 2. We hate to change our daily routines as the result of changing our beliefs (laziness), especially if they seem to work fine (futility).

Certainty and Uncertainty

We like to have a sense of certainty, even if that is a false one, for having a definite belief means:– 1. that we don’t have to spend time and effort to really

think about what we’re doing: we can just do it.– 2. that we can take control, which is good for our social

status within the group that we live in. Especially when it comes to the ‘big’ questions in

life (‘What should I do with my life?’, ‘What happens when I die?’ etc.), we grasp for whatever answer is able to relieve us from the uncomfortable feeling of not knowing the answer.

Being Right and Being Wrong

We love to be right, and hate to be wrong! Our beliefs are a big part of who we are: how we see, define, and identify ourselves. Thus, we hate to be critical of our beliefs, as that would amount to being critical of ourselves!

Also, there is again a lot of social status to be lost if we would admit that we were wrong about something: Leaders are strong-headed (even if that means pig-headed!).

Critical Thinking and Evolution

As you can see, there are many obstacles to critical thinking, and some of those have a straightforward evolutionary explanation:– habit and a sense of certainty allows us to act quickly

(the ‘Perfect Deliberator’ will simply not survive in a hostile world)

– there is strength in numbers (herd instinct), there is competition between groups (partisan mindset) and within a group, it is good to be ‘on top’ (status)

– the benefit of wishful thinking is not so clear: maybe it relieves stress

Why Critical Thinking isn’t much liked

Many of the reasons for why it is hard to be critical explain also why we associate critical thinking with negativity. We simply hate to be critical of our own beliefs, and we also hate others to be critical of the beliefs we have.

Revisiting the Stereotype of Philosophy

It should now be clear why many people have such a negative stereotype of philosophy: – Philosophers are critical thinkers, and we don’t like

critical thinkers. In fact, by being critical, philosophers always seem to know better (‘intellectual bullying’).

– Since the questions that philosophers ask are big, progress will be slow, and seemingly non-existent. Thus, philosophy seems like a waste of time (‘mental masturbation’).

The Value of Philosophy

What, then, is the value of philosophy? Here are some answers:– First, philosophy may provide answers to difficult questions, even if this

takes a lot of time. In fact, science is one example where philosophy became very successful (‘natural philosophy’).

– Second, even if philosophy does not provide one with any clear answers, it may still be able to say that certain answers are better than others.

– And third, even if philosophy seems to be going absolutely nowhere, just the act of doing philosophy can still be very useful:

Doing philosophy will improve your critical thinking skills, and those can be successfully applied to almost any aspect of life.

Philosophy will open your mind, and get us out of our rut. It is, as Bertrand Russell called it, ‘liberating doubt’.

Philosophy forces one to be precise, clear, and rigorous. These are all useful qualities to have as well.

Revised, 8/30/08

Part I: The Structure of Philosophy

Philosophy as the love of wisdom The basic questions and branches of

philosophy The branches of the branches and the many

philosophical questions that have been raised

24

The Greek word, philosophia, means

the love (philia)

of

wisdom (sophia)

The Sanskrit, Chinese, & Japanese equivalents of “philosophia” are:

Darshana (Sanskrit), which means “vision” (more precisely, vision of ultimate reality)

Je Shwe (Chinese, pronounced something like “juh shway”), which means “wise study”

Tetsugaku (Japanese), which means “wise learning”

This course concentrates on

Chinese & Indian philosophy.

(Japan has a less developed philosophical tradition, mostly borrowed from China or

from the West.)

Philosophers (East & West) seek wisdom

by trying to answer

certain kinds of questions.

The three most basic philosophical questions are

What’s what?

What’s good?

What do we know (or what’s true)?

The Branches of Philosophy

Metaphysics - What’s what? – Reality

Axiology - What’s good? – Value

Epistemology - What do we know? - Knowledge (Or what’s true?) (& Truth)

What do those fancy words mean?

Metaphysics, metaphusika (Gr.)– meta = above, beyond, after

– phusika = the scientific study of the world (phusis = nature)

Axiology, axiologia– axios, axion = value– logia = the study,

theory or science of something

Epistemology, epistemologia– episteme = knowledge– logiaThese are Greek terms, but they pretty

well describe the three main areas of

philosophy that are recognized in all

philosophical traditions.

Some official (& brief) definitions: Metaphysics is the philosophical investigation of

the nature of reality, being, or existence. Axiology is the philosophical investigation of the

nature of value(s) & of the foundations of value judgments.

Epistemology is the philosophical investigation of the nature of knowledge & truth & of the differences between knowledge & opinion & between truth & falsity.

M

A E

The Branches of the Branches

of Philosophy

Metaphysics (Theory of Being)

Ontology - being (ontos) in general

Philosophical Cosmology - the cosmos

Philosophical Theology - God & the gods (Theos & theoi)

Philosophical Anthropology - human nature and human existence (anthropos)

Axiology(Theory of Value)

Aesthetics (philosophy of art)

Ethics (moral philosophy)

Social & Political Philosophy

35

Epistemology(Theory of Knowledge)

Any branches of this branch?

(No)

So philosophy as an intellectual discipline has the following structure (or subject matter):

Metaphysics– Ontology (being in general)

– Philosophical Cosmology (the cosmos or universe)

– Philosophical Theology (God & the gods)

– Philosophical Anthropology (human nature & existence)

Axiology– Aesthetics (art & aesthetic experience)

– Ethics (morality)

– Social & Political Philosophy (society & politics)

Epistemology

Logic is also important in philosophy.

(We’ll get to it as we go along.)

In each of the branches (& sub- branches) of philosophy,

numerous questions are raised.

In the following slides, various questions from the various branches of philosophy are listed. After

each question, there are parenthetical indications as to whether the question has been raised in the

Western philosophical tradition (“W”), or in Indian philosophy (“I”), or in Chinese philosophy (“C”).

In metaphysics,there are questions about being or reality in general, i.e., ontological questions.

Why is there something rather than nothing? (W) Is it possible that, prior to now, there was absolutely

nothing in existence? (W) What is ultimately (really) real (as opposed to what is only

apparently real)? (W, I, C) Is reality fundamentally one or many? (W, I, C) What is the relationship between the One (TAO), the Two

(Yin & Yang), & the Many (the plural world)? (C) Is there anything that does not change? (W, I, C) Is reality fundamentally material or spiritual? (W, I, C) Which is more basic, Being or Non-Being? (C)

Metaphysics also includes, cosmological questions such as

– What is the nature of the cosmos? What is it made of? How is it structured? (W, I, C)

– Did the cosmos come into being? If so, how? (W, I, C)– Will the cosmos cease to be in the future? (W)– Is there a reality above & beyond the cosmos (a

“supernatural” reality), or is the cosmos (nature) “all there really is”? (W, I, C)

– What are the philosophical implications of scientific answers to cosmological questions? (W)

(For more cosmological questions, see "Notes on the Nature of Philosophy”)

Also in metaphysics,there are

theological questions:– Does God exist? (W, I)

– What is the nature of God? (W, I)

– If God exists, how is it possible for pain, suffering, and disorder (“evil”) to exist? (W, I)

anthropological questions:– What are the basic

characteristics of human nature? (W, I, C)

– How are the human mind & the human body related to each other? (W)

– Is there “freedom of the will”? (W, I, C)

– Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going? What’s the point? (W, I, C)

However, see next slide on this category.

In Eastern philosophy, especially in Chinese philosophy,

“theological” questions are often less focused specifically on “God” than the preceding slide suggests.

The reality of “God” &/or the gods is not denied, but the emphasis is often placed on a Supreme Reality higher than the divine (the TAO in Confucianism & Taoism; the cosmic Buddha-nature & Nirvana in Buddhism; the Nirguna-Brahman in certain schools of Hindu thought).

In this context, the questions would include: “Is there a Supreme Reality above the gods?” “What is its nature?” “How can we live in harmony with it?” “Can we achieve union with it?”

in Indian philosophy, there are questions that

are both anthropological & theological.

What is the nature of the Self (Atman)?

What is the relationship between the Self & “God” (Brahman)?

What is the relationship between the body, the mind, the ego, & the Self?

Does the finite individual really exist?

What is the solution to the problem of suffering?

How can the Self be liberated from suffering?

In axiology, there are questions in

the philosophy of art (aesthetics),

moral philosophy (ethics), &

social & political philosophy

there are questions about art:

What is “art”? (W) Can we distinguish between (1) art & non-art,

(2) authentic art & unauthentic art, (3) good & bad art, (4) fine & useful (applied) art? If so, how? If not, why not? (W)

What are the standards of aesthetic judgment? (W) What is the purpose of art? (W) How does art “mean”? Does art “mean”? (W)

(Not sure about C & I.)

there are questions about morality:

General normative ethics– What are the basic

standards of morality?

– What are the differences between “right” & “wrong”?

– What is the nature of moral virtue?

Applied normative ethics– Is the death penalty

morally justifiable?– Abortion?– Racial, gender, or age

discrimination?– Recreational drug use?– The “war on drugs”?

These are questions in normative ethics.What about non-normative ethics?

Ethics is a branch of axiology, & it has its own sub-branches:

Normative Ethics– General - the attempt

to define the basic principles, standards, & rules of morality

– Applied - the application of moral principles, standards, & rules to specific moral problems

Non-Normative Ethics– Descriptive Ethics - the

scientific study of moral beliefs & practices (part of the social sciences)

– Metaethics - critical thinking about normative ethics (e.g., “Is moral knowledge possible?”).

The 3d branch of axiology is social & political philosophy:

What are the origins, nature, & purposes of government (the state)?

What are the proper relationships between the individual, society, & the state?

What is the nature of justice? Liberty? Equality?

What is the nature & purpose of law?

(W, I, & C)

Questions in epistemology: What is the nature of knowledge? What are the sources of knowledge? What is the extent (scope & limits) of knowledge? What are the differences between knowledge &

opinion? What is the nature of truth? What are the differences between truth & falsity? Can the truth be known at all?

(W & I -- not so much C)

Questions in epistemology:

What is the nature of knowledge?What are the sources of knowledge?What is the extent (scope & limits) of knowledge?What are the differences between knowledge & opinion?What is the nature of truth?What are the differences between truth & falsity?Can the truth be known at all?

52

Theories of Truth

(W & I -- not so much C)

Theories of TruthWhat makes a belief or proposition true (as opposed to false)?

Correspondence theory: A belief or proposition is true when it corresponds to, agrees with, or describes reality (i.e., the "way things are," what is in fact the case), and it is false when it fails to correspond to, agree with, or describe reality. (How we find out whether beliefs, propositions, and claims are in fact true or false, i.e., how we go about proving or disproving truth-claims, is a question we will need to discuss.)

Coherence theory: A belief or proposition is true when it agrees (coheres) with other true beliefs or propositions in a system of accepted beliefs and propositions.

Pragmatic theory: A belief or proposition is true when it works out in practice, i.e., "when acting upon it yields satisfactory practical results." William James held that this approach will lead in the long run to "a stable body of scientific propositions that have been shown in experience to be successful principles for human action."

53

Part II: The Process of Philosophical Thinking

The dialectic of construction and criticism in the process of philosophical thinking: constructive philosophy & critical philosophy

The nature of rational defensibility (and of rational indefensibility)

54

In addition to being a discipline with a structure & subject matter,

philosophy is also a process or activity, a way of trying to “figure

things out.”

As a process or activity,

philosophy is a two-sided way of thinking about reality, value, &

knowledge.

The Two Types (or Sides) ofPhilosophical Thinking

Constructive Philosophy

– the construction of rationally defensible answers to philosophical questions concerning the nature of reality, the nature of value, & the nature of knowledge

– answering questions

Critical Philosophy

– the analysis , clarification, & evaluation of answers that are given to philosophical questions concerning the nature of reality, the nature of value, & the nature of knowledge

– questioning answers

The overall process of philosophical thinking proceeds in something like the following way:

Someone raises a philosophical question.

Someone (the questioner or someone else) constructs an answer to the question, trying to back the answer up with good reasons so as to make it as rationally defensible as possible (constructive philosophy).

Someone (the constructor or someone else) analyzes, clarifies, & evaluates the answer & judges the degree to which the answer is satisfactory (critical philosophy).

Then,

if the answer is less than completely satisfactory (& it usually is),

the constructor of the answer will have to reconstruct it or construct a

new one,

and then the critic will analyze, clarify, & evaluate the reconstructed or new answer & judge the degree to which it is a satisfactory response to the original philosophical question . . . (and so on) . . .

Ideally (and theoretically),

this back-and-forth (“dialectical”) process of construction-criticism- reconstruction-criticism- reconstruction goes on until a fully satisfactory answer to the original question is developed.

It is, of course, possible that that ideal goal will never be reached.

However, true philosophers never give up their pursuit of the wisdom that they love.

Another point about constructive philosophy:

Traditionally, the aim of constructive philosophy was quite ambitious. It was to construct a comprehensive, coherent, & intellectually (& perhaps emotionally) satisfying world-view or philosophical system in which everything “falls into place,” has meaning, & makes sense.

However, in modern times, many (but not all) constructive philosophers have tended to be more modest in their aims, attempting to answer only a few of the major philosophical questions without attempting the construction of a world-view or philosophical system.

(This is more true of Western than of Eastern philosophy.)

Philosophy, on the constructive side, is the attempt to formulate rationally defensible answers to certain fundamental questions concerning the

nature of reality, the nature of value, & the nature of knowledge and truth;

&, on the critical side, it is the analysis, clarification, & evaluation of answers given to basic metaphysical, axiological, & epistemological questions in an effort

to determine just how rationally defensible such answers are.

What does “rationally defensible” mean?

What makes a claim rationally defensible?

To be rationally defensible, at minimum,

a claim must not be inconsistent with itself (i.e., self-contradictory), and

it must not be inconsistent with the facts or evidence of common sense or scientific experience.

the claim that today is both Monday & Friday

cannot be true because it is self-contradictory (i.e., it is

inconsistent with itself), and it is therefore NOT rationally

defensible.

the claim that there is an elephant in your living room,

although it is not inconsistent with itself (i.e., it is not self-contradictory),

is inconsistent with the facts of experience, i.e., as a matter of fact, there is no elephant

in your living room (is there?). So this claim is also NOT rationally

defensible. Of course, if there were an elephant in your living room, then this claim . . . .

would be rationally defensible, wouldn’t it?

It is not a self-contradictory claim. If there were an elephant in your living

room, then it would not be inconsistent with the facts of experience to say that there is.

Indeed, the facts of experience (seeing, touching, etc.) would actually prove that the claim is true.

a distinction between claims that are rationally

defensible in the weak sense, i.e., in the sense that they are neither self-contradictory nor negated by the facts of experience and thus cannot be refuted;

claims that are rationally defensible in the strong sense, i.e., in the sense that they are positively supported by or even proved true on the basis of good reasons.

If someone were to claim that there is an elephant in your living room,

we could prove or disprove the claim by going into your living room, looking around, and, on the basis of our perceptions, discovering whether there is an elephant there or not.

And the result of our investigation -- i.e., our answer to the question as to whether or not there is an elephant in your living room -- would itself be rationally defensible in the strong sense because our answer would be proved on the basis of perception.

the claim is that there is an ANGEL in your living room?

How could we prove or disprove that claim?

If we all (& by “we,” I mean the members of this class) went into your living room & saw an angel sitting on your couch (& if we all agreed that what we were seeing actually was an angel), then I suppose we could say that this claim is rationally defensible in the strong sense (at least to our own satisfaction although others we told about this might think that we had all been subject to a mass hallucination).

when we look around your living room is that we will NOT see any angels because angels (which are spiritual rather than material beings) are ordinarily invisible (& imperceptible in general).

No, it won’t. Since angels are ordinarily imperceptible, our failure to perceive any in your living room does not prove that there are none there.

It seems that the claim that there is an angel in your living room

is neither provable nor disprovable; andsince the claim is neither self- contradictorynor inconsistent with the facts of experience,it is rationally defensible,

only in the weak sense that it cannot be refuted on the basis of either logic or factual evidence.To be rationally defensible in the strong sense, the claim would have to be positively supported or even proved true on the basis of good reasons.

(Remember, the fact that we do not perceive the angel does not show that the claim here is inconsistent with the facts of experience because it IS a fact of experience that angels are rarely [if ever] perceived.)

At this point, we must be careful not to claim too much.

To say that a claim is rationally defensible does not necessarily mean that it is true or has been proved true.

A claim that is rationally defensible in the strong sense is one that has good reasons supporting it.

The support may be so strong as to remove all doubt (& thus prove with certainty) that the claim is true.

However, the reasons supporting the claim may only remove all reasonable doubt (not all doubt) from our minds; or they may be just strong enough to make it more likely than not that the claim is true (because it is supported by a “preponderance of the evidence”).

A claim that is rationallydefensible in the weak sense

is merely one that has not been refuted because it is neither inconsistent with itself nor with the facts of experience.

Thus, it might be true. However, there is no positive or convincing reason to

believe that it is true (e.g., is there any reason whatsoever to believe that there are, say, exactly three ghosts in your living room?).

Thus, the claim might also be false.

74

(Just because it has not been proved false does not allow us to say that it is true.)

Let’s pause to summarize

our discussion of rational defensibility . . . .

A claim is rationally defensible in the weak sense when

there is no good reason to believe that it is true, but when also

it cannot be proved false because it is neither self- contradictory

nor inconsistent with the evidence of (common sense or scientific) experience.

a claim is rationally defensible in the strong sense when it is neither

inconsistent with itself

nor with the evidence of (common sense or scientific) experience

AND when there is good reason to believe that the claim is (1) certainly true (no doubt), or (2) probably true (no reasonable doubt), or at least (3) more likely to be true than false (because there is a preponderance of evidence supporting it).

What makes a belief or proposition rationally indefensible?

A belief or proposition that is inconsistent with itself (self-contradictory) is rationally indefensible. Any belief or proposition that is self-contradictory is not only false but necessarily so. Its truth is logically impossible.

A belief or proposition that is inconsistent with the evidence of (common sense or scientific) experience is rationally indefensible. Any such belief or proposition is at least probably false.

Are there other ways in which a belief or proposition can be rationally indefensible? I don't know. Can you think of any?

78

Part III: The Sources of Philosophical Beliefs

Perception (i.e., sense-perception) Inference Intuition Authority ("authoritative testimony")

79

Earlier, when we were considering the claim that there is an elephant in your living room,

we appealed to sense perception in order to test the rational defensibility of that claim.

However, many claims (philosophical or otherwise) can be neither established nor refuted through perception because

they are inferential in nature.

For example, I can (& do) perceive crows, & every crow I have ever seen has been black.

From this perceptual experience, I infer that . . . .

all crows are black.

Now, even though this claim is based on perceptual experience, it cannot be evaluated through direct

perception because no one can have a perception of ALL crows.

IS IT REASONABLE

to infer that ALL crows are black on the basis of our perceptions of SOME crows? I have observed hundreds or even thousands of

crows, haven’t you? They’ve all been black. So my “reason” tells me that ALL crows are

black even though I have observed only SOME crows.

Is this or is this not a reasonable inference? That is the question. What’s the answer?

Here’s a more philosophical example. It pertains to a

metaphysical issue known as“the problem of other minds.”

My answer to this question is “yes,” & I construct it on the basis of both perception & inference.

I cannot perceive the minds of other persons, but I can see their bodies, and I can hear their voices.

Other people speak as though they have minds, they make facial expressions which suggest to me that they have minds, & their “body language” in general leads me to believe that they have minds as I do.

. . . I infer the existence of minds other

than my own, namely, the minds of other people.

This is my solution to “the problem of other

minds.”

Now, this answer must be subjected to philosophical criticism. Is the inference I have made a reasonable one? Is it rationally defensible? What do you say?

So, philosophical claims can be established or

criticized on the basis of perception (i.e., sense perception), or

on the basis of a process of logical inference.

Much philosophical thinking begins with perception; but reasoning out the logical implications of what is perceived probably plays a larger role in philosophy than does perception itself. As we proceed through the course, we may even find some philosophers reasoning in ways that owe very little or nothing to perceptual experience.

We’ll discuss logic a lot more later on.

In addition to perception & inference,

some Western philosophers & and many Eastern philosophers recognize at least two additional means by which philosophical claims can be established or criticized, namely,

intuition

&

appeal to traditional authorities (e.g., the Bible, the Vedas, the Chinese classics, etc.).

INTUITIONis the immediate, direct apprehension,

understanding, or knowing of something without the use of discursive reasoning.

(Discursive reasoning is the process of inference, i.e., the process of going from premises to a conclusion in a series of logical steps.)

Actually, perception is a form of intuition.

Some philosophers distinguish between sensible (or sensory) intuition (perception) & intelligible intuition.Through sensible intuition (perception), we can know directly (i.e., without using discursive reasoning) that (for example) physical objects (such as tables) exist.

Through intelligible intuition (intellectual perception), we can know certain things in the realm of ideas (not perceivable objects) directly & non-inferentially, e.g., that every effect must have a cause; that a proposition “A” is either true or false; that a finite whole is larger than any one of its own parts; that a perfect being cannot have any defects; etc.

(Some also claim that we have intuitional knowledge of Being, of God, of the Self, of moral truth, etc.)

Appeal to Traditional Authorities

In Indian and Chinese philosophy, another source of belief is authoritative testimony, especially as embodied in classic and/or sacred texts. Maybe we should add that to sense-perception, inference, and intuition. How, for example, do we know (if we do know) that there was a great civil war in America in the mid-19th century? None of us was there

to witness it. We do not know about it through pure intuition. Nor does our knowledge of the Civil War seem to be a product of logical reasoning. We know about it mainly through the (written) work of historians, who have used the

remnants of the past (documents and artifacts of various sorts) to construct accounts of “what happened then.” Even now, how do we know what is going on in Iraq or in Afganistan? It is through the (written, radio, and TV) reports of

journalists and social scientists, isn't it? Not through our own perceptions, inferences, or intuitions. It seems that much of what we know (or at least believe) arises from that kind of “authoritative testimony.”

What, then, is philosophy?

It is an attempt to figure out, on the basis of perceptual (& perhaps intuitional) experience, logical reasoning, and “authoritative testimony” – & in a “rationally defensible” way – the nature of reality, value, & knowledge. (That’s “constructive philosophy.”)

It is also the criticism of all such attempts. (That’s “critical philosophy.”)

Some (other) contrasts between Eastern & Western philosophy:

Eastern Philosophy– Close relationship between

philosophy & religion

– Strong emphasis on “spirit”

– Employs perception, reasoning, intuition, & traditional authority in its pursuit of philosophical “vision”

– Recognition of many perspectives on truth

Western Philosophy– Critical distance between

philosophy & religion

– Less strong emphasis on “spirit”

– Emphasis on reason, experience, & “scientific” methods of thinking (critical of appeals to intuition & traditional authority)

– Seeks THE perspective on truth (less so in recent times)

Continued

Continued . . . . Eastern Philosophy

– Accent on synthesis

– The unity of things

– Tends to see a harmony between opposites

– More “existential” - i.e., focused on gaining release from suffering (“salvation” philosophies)

– Unsystematic, rambling, disorganized, aphoristic, & repetitious style of thinking & writing (suspicion of human ability to grasp “The Truth”)

Western Philosophy– Accent on analysis

– The plurality of things

– Tends to draw sharp contrasts between opposites

– Less “existential” - i.e., focused on understanding the nature of reality, value, & knowledge

– Systematic, precise, analytic, logically organized, logically extended (non-aphoristic), & less repetitious style of thinking & writing