Philosophy 1000
Bryson Brown
UH B864, x2506
BROWN@ULETH.CA
What is philosophy?
 The study of how things, in the broadest possible sense of
the term, hang together, in the broadest sense of the
term.
 At the end of the day, what we want is to know our way
around, “not in that unreflective way in which the
centipede… knew its way around before it faced the
question, ‘how do I walk?’, but in that reflective way
which means that no intellectual holds are barred.”
(Wilfrid Sellars, PSIM)
Wilfrid Sellars, 1912-1989
Subject Matter
 Philosophy has no special subject matter of its own.
 Over time many topics that philosophers have studied grew
to become topics of special fields: physics (once ‘natural
philosophy’); psychology; economics;
 Historically, philosophy emerged in Ancient Greece (and in
India too) at about the same time as mathematics.
Euclid (fl. 300 BCE, Socrates (469-399
BCE)
On Euclid
 Euclid wrote the most famous math text in history,
organizing what the Greeks had learned about geometry in
axiomatic form.
 Beginning with 5 simple axioms and a few definitions, Euclid
proved many principles of what we now call Eulclidean
geometry.
 This has been regarded as an ideal example of cognitive
systematization ever since.
On Socrates
 Socrates didn’t publish.
 But his student, Plato, made him the central character in
many dialogues.
 In these dialogues, characters representing different
points of view engaged in discussions of issues including
 What is justice?
 What makes some actions right and others wrong?
 What is knowledge and how do we learn truths?
Aristotle
Background on Aristotle
 A student of Plato’s at the Academy.
 Teacher of Alexander the Great (Ptolemy and Cassander,
too).
 Wrote treatises on all fields of philosophy, physics, biology,
zoology, logic, art (drama, poetry), rhetoric, and more
 His work was largely lost to Europe, but preserved by the
Arabs, who brought it back to Europe in the 11th/12th
centuries.
Evaluating Arguments
 Identifying premises and conclusion(s).
 Evaluating premises:
 Do you think they’re true? Why?
 Can you give reasons to reject one (or more)?
 Do we have any reason to accept them?
 Evaluating the link:
 Does the conclusion really follow from the premises?
Where do we get our premises?
 Regresses: we can ask for arguments in support of premises,
but there has to be an end to this somewhere!
 Authority (How do we justify accepting or rejecting someone
as an authority?)
 Observation/personal experience (What justifies relying on
our own observations?)
 ‘Pure’ reason (Same question.)
Evaluating Authorities
When can/should we rely on some source of information?
1. Basic capacities
-Training (where relevant)
-Experience/opportunity (eye-witnesses, for example)
2. Motives
-Supporting reliability: having good reasons to get it right and
be honest about it; no apparent reason to mislead us (asking a
friend if your tie is straight?)
-Undermining reliability: having some reason to deceive (sales
people or others with a conflict of interest, for example).
Trusting yourself
 When should I trust myself to ‘get it right’?
 In principle this is no different from asking when you should
trust someone else: self-deception is not a contradiction in
terms!
 Do I have the background/ training needed to answer the
question reliably? (If not, what sources should I consult? We’re
back to the question of when to trust someone else.)
 Am I motivated to arrive at a particular answer regardless of
what the evidence shows? (If yes, look deliberately and
carefully for contrary evidence/objections to that answer and
take them carefully into account– e.g. George Smith on forensic
engineering.)