North Berwick HS Higher/Int 2 Philosophy Intro
What is Philosophy?
If you have formed an idea of what the
world is made of, how humans should
behave and how you can be sure that
something is true, then you have already
done philosophy.
Philosophers interrogate beliefs.
Q: What kind of beliefs?
A: All kinds of beliefs!
For example, if some one claims or expresses the belief that X is true,
false, right, wrong, good or bad, then a philosopher would ask –
“What reason/evidence do you have for that belief?”
Claim 1 =
“Plants need light to grow.”
Claim 2 =
“Murder is wrong.”
Claim 3 =
“2 + 2 = 4.”
Assignment 1 (Paired)
1
2
3
What reason could be given for Claim 1?
What reason could be given for Claim 2?
What reason could be given for Claim 3?
1
A claim is an
expression of
a belief.
MORE CLAIMS
“Dealing in illegal drugs is wrong” “People are responsible for their
actions”
“You cannot know that the sun will rise tomorrow”
“Aids
is caused by HIV” “Education is good for you”
“Earning huge bonuses is wrong” “Every effect has a cause”
“All
right angles have 90 degrees”
Philosophy is really an activity, or a process. The tool philosophy uses
for this activity is critical thinking.
So what is critical thinking?
Critical thinking involves analysing and evaluating the reasons given
for believing something or claiming that something is true.
So the tool philosophers use for interrogating claims or responding
to questions is critical thinking. To state the obvious – this is the
opposite of uncritical thinking!
If some one knocks on your door and says that, when you were out,
they noticed a lose slate and fixed it because it was dangerous and
then ask for £50 for doing it……
Do you pay them the £50 they ask for?
BP CEO Speaks About Louisiana Oil Disaster
“I don’t believe it (see pic) should result in a
ban on drilling for oil in the sea, in the same
way as Apollo 13 did not stop the space
program.”
(BBC Radio)
2
Assignment 2 (Pairs if you want)
1
2
3
What is the BP CEO’s claim?
What reason does he give to support his claim?
What do you think about his reasons?
Philosophy mainly focuses on beliefs/claims about, what the
world made of, how humans should behave and what is true.
In other words the answers to the three Big Questions –
What is real? How should we act?
How do we know?
Assignment 3 (Individual)
TRUE OR FALSE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
We lose most of our body heat through our head.
We only use 10% of our brain at any one time.
Shaved hair grows back thicker and darker.
You should use urine on jellyfish stings.
Eating at night makes you fatter.
Nails and hair continue to grow after death.
IQ test measure intelligence.
Alcohol is a good antiseptic for open wounds.
Eye exercises improve vision.
Physical exercise increases lifespan.
3
Assignment 4
Do you agree or disagree with the following claims? Give reasons.
1
2
3
4
5
6
“The mind and brain are the same”
“Babies born without brains should be used for transplants”
“Prison without trial is unjust”
“The Loch ness monster does not exist”
“Humans are just physical beings”
“When a tree falls in an uninhabited forest there is no sound”
Paradox = a belief that leads to
a contradiction e.g.
"The statement below is false."
"The statement above is true."
Assignment 5 - DVD - Philosophy to Socrates
This DVD explores the early development of philosophy and
how it is linked to other ways to understand the world.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
What did philosophers use to search for the truth
Where does western philosophy begin?
What is Pre-Socratic philosophy?
What did Pythagoras believe reality is based on?
What different views of the soul did early philosophers have?
Why did Heracleitus bury himself in cow dung?
What did Heracleitus believe he discovered?
4
8 For Heracleitus, what were the main elements of the universe?
9 What did Heracleitus believe people should do?
10 What did Parmenides deny?
11 How did Zeno try to support Parmenides?
12 What is the problem of basing knowledge on our senses?
13 What is “the beginning of knowledge”?
Assignment 6 (Individual)
Use the site below to find and construct 5 philosophy timelines
in your notes 1
4
Greek
2
Renaissance
3
Industrial Revolution 5 Modern
Enlightenment
http://www.wadsworth.com/philosophy_d/special_features/timeline/ti
meline.html#
On the Shoulders of Giants
The writings of philosophers from the past like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle,
Descartes, Hume, Kant, Russell and so on, are important sources because
they tried to solve the main philosophical problems, of what the world is
made of, how we should behave and what is true, in a systematic way.
5
These philosophers have expressed their views in the form of
arguments. They have either produced arguments of their own
or criticised the arguments of others – these are called
counter arguments.
So philosophy mainly involves trying to deal with arguments.
An argument is a series of connected statements which
contains evidence/reasons for a belief.
 Philosophers deal with arguments. We either invent
them or criticise other peoples’ arguments or both.
 Philosophers often question what others take for
granted about what the world is made of, how we
should behave and what is true
 Philosophers deny the existence of common sense!
Question –
What is REAL?
Belief
-
Only physical objects are real
Reason
-
Only physical objects can be seen, smelled,
touched, tasted or heard
From the above you get lots of other arguments.
6
Philosophical Argument 1
Philosophical Argument 2
Philosophical Argument 3
Only physical objects are real because only
physical objects can be seen, smelled, touched,
tasted or heard.
We cannot know anything that cannot be
sensed therefore only objects that can be
seen, touched, smelled, touched, tasted, or
heard can be known.
You can only sense the consequence of an act
therefore a good act is one which has good
consequences.
Assignment 7 (Revision)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
With what do philosophers deal?
What existence do philosophers deny?
What is the main tool of philosophers?
What are the big three philosophical questions?
Why are the writings of philosophers like Socrates important?
In what form do philosophers express their views?
In what form do philosophers challenge the views of other
philosophers?
What is an argument?
Why do philosophers deny common sense?
7
Assignment 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Socrates Part 1
Where was Socrates born?
How do we know what
Socrates said?
When was Socrates born?
What did Socrates try to
help us do?
Humans sometimes act like
what other creature?
Why do we do this?
What did Socrates do in the
market place?
What did Socrates discover?
What motivated Socrates?
What do we all have a duty
to do?
Assignment 9
After Socrates Part 1 (Paired if you want)
What were the Big Questions people
were asked in the programme?
What are some responses to these
questions?
8
Assignment 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
To what did Socrates compare thinking?
What kind of beliefs did Socrates examine first?
What happens to a belief if you can find an exception?
What is a “water-tight” thought?
Who did Socrates believe had a duty to philosophise?
Of what has the death of Socrates become a symbol?
What achievement of ancient Athens has survived the
best?
How can philosophy transform an individual?
Assignment 11
1
Socrates Part 2
After Socrates Part 2 (Paired if you want)
Look back to Assignment 3 – what have these beliefs got
to do with Socrates?
9
Philosophers – No Common
Sense!
So according to Socrates,
nothing is taken for granted. In
philosophy, there is no common
sense!
But most people would say that it is common sense that it is
wrong to kill but a philosopher would say ‘why?’ “What makes
an act wrong?” and ‘What does wrong mean?’
Many of the beliefs we take for granted may have firm
foundations but others do not. Philosophy allows us to examine
what we think we know and believe. This skill of analysing and
evaluating arguments and counter arguments is transferable.
We can apply it to any part of life.
Most professions have a code of ethics which are based on
philosophical principles - for example, medicine, law and education.
So philosophy is concerned with arguing about important
questions – examining the reasoning on which beliefs are
based and revising beliefs if necessary.
Examples of Philosophical Questions:
Is the unborn child a person? Is there knowledge which is so
certain that it is impossible to doubt it? What is fairness?
Can I be sure that other people experience colour and pain in
the same way as I do? Is punishment ever justified? Why
should we obey the law?
Do animals have rights?
10
What is ‘knowing’?
Could a computer be a person?
These are all very difficult questions
some of which have been discussed for
at least 2500 years. This struggle is
still going on so do not worry that you
will be expected to come up with answers yourself but you will
be expected to be able to evaluate some of the answers to
these questions for their strengths and weaknesses.
How do philosophers proceed?
1
We try to make clear what claims are being made.
This usually takes the form of a question.
For example - if we take the question ‘Is the unborn child a
person?’ –
The first problem we must clear up is what do we mean by a
‘person’?
2
The answer(s) to this question will also be analysed.
For example - “A person is a human.”
What we will do next is look for weaknesses in this definition
or exceptions to it. And this is where your critical thinking
comes in.
11
Assignment 12
In groups of no more than 4,
test the definition of a person
given at the foot of page 11.
 Are there problems?
 Can you find exceptions?
Assignment 13 (Pairs if you want)
What philosophical questions might be raised by
the following?
The Genetic modification of plants and animals
The debate over Capital Punishment
The internet
Down To Basics
There are an infinite number of philosophical questions but only
three basic types.
1
Questions about what really exists
2
Questions about how we should act
3
Questions about what can be known
These basic questions have created the three major branches
of philosophy.
12
1 Metaphysics
=
Questions about what really exists
2 Ethics
=
Questions about how we should act
3 Epistemology
=
Questions about what can be known
In other words the three basic questions are –
What is there? How should I act?
and
How do I know what there is and how I should act?
1
ETHICS - How Should I Act?
For thousands of years this question has been asked and it is
still relevant today. In our personal lives we are constantly
faced with this problem. What is right and what is wrong? We
are also face with the problem of why we should choose right
instead of wrong. So what makes and act right or wrong? This
is the philosophical area known as Moral Philosophy or Ethics.
13
The Ring of Gyges (A story)
Gyges was a shepherd in the service of
the king of Lydia. There was a great
storm, and an earthquake opened a cave
at the place where Gyges was feeding
the king’s sheep.
Gyges went into a cave where he saw a
hollow bronze horse. There was also an
ancient dead body of something more than human.
Gyges noticed a gold ring on the finger of the body and took it
before escaping out of the cave.
Examining the ring, Gyges discovered that when he turned the
stone of the ring he became invisible. He was astonished at
this and made several trials of the ring with the same result.
When he turned the stone inwards he became invisible, when
outwards he reappeared.
Later Gyges was chosen to be one of the messengers who were
sent to the king with the report on his sheep.
When he arrived at the court, Gyges used the ring to secretly
plot against the king. Eventually, again using the ring, he was
able to kill the king, marry the king’s widow and take over the
whole kingdom and its wealth.
Meaning
The writer of this story believed that humans only act well if we
fear being caught and punished. If anyone was given great
powers, like invisibility, they would use them for selfish reasons.
14
Assignment 14
1
Do you think it is true that we only behave because we
fear getting caught and punished?
2
Give reasons for your answer. Remember the approach
philosophers take.
Moral Dilemmas
A moral dilemma is a
situation where the
choice of options
seem equally
unattractive.
Example 1
Stacy notices that a teacher makes a mistake
recording the results of a test. Stacy’s friend Lacy,
is given a pass instead of a fail and another student,
Macy, is recorded as failing instead of passing. It
was Lacy’s last chance to pass and the Macy had
already passed the unit in another test. Lacy asks
Stacy to pretend that they did not see the mistake.
15
Assignment 15
1
2
3
4
What are the choices?
What is unattractive about each choice?
What should Stacy do?
Why should Stacy do this?
The Trolley Dilemma 1
A railway carriage is running out
of control and heading for a
group of workers.
All the workers will die unless
the carriage can be stopped.
You notice that there is a lever
beside the track which will
switch
the
carriage
onto
another line and the workers
will be safe.
However there is a man working
on this line and he will be killed if you flip the lever.
Assignment 16
1
2
3
Do you flip the lever – yes or no?
Why?
Compare your responses. What do you find?
16
Assignment 17
(Research – Jeremy Bentham)
1
2
3
On what did he base his
ethics?
How would he resolve the
“Trolley Dilemma”?
Why would he choose this
resolution?
The Trolley Dilemma is used in
various forms in a variety of
contexts. They are used as thought experiments when legal
principles are being tested, by psychologists to formulate
hypotheses and in medicine when difficult ethical issues need
to be resolved.
However they are all doing philosophy.
By the way, they are called the “Trolley Dilemmas” because
railway carriages are called trolleys in the USA.
So, all trolley dilemmas are examples of thought experiments.
Just as scientists use physical experiments to test theories
about physical forces and objects, philosophers use thought
experiments to test theories about Ethics, Epistemology and
Metaphysics.
Some people say that many of these thought experiments are
just plain silly. Look out for an example of how philosophers
defend their methods.
17
The Trolley Dilemma 2
A railway carriage is running out of control and heading for a
group of workers. All the workers will die unless the carriage
can be stopped. You are on a bridge over the track and you
notice that there is a big guy standing beside you. You know
that pushing the big guy onto the track
will stop the carriage and the workers
will be safe. You also know that the big
guy will die.
Would you kill the big guy?
Assignment 18
1 Yes or no?
2 Why?
3 Compare your responses.
What do you find?
Before we continue with this section, there are some technical
words for you to learn. You may think you know them already!
Remember the philosophical process – please check and list the
accurate definitions in your notes.
Assignment 19
intention =
intrinsic =
utilitarian calculus = collateral damage =
instrumentalize =
innate = intuition =
18
Assignment 20
In groups, listen to the podcast and answer the questions as
you do so.
Any group member can pause or replay parts of the podcast.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Jeff McMahan
In what different ways do people respond to Trolley Dilemmas
1 and 2?
What practical example of the trolley dilemma comes from
WW2?
Why does Brian Oakley think the UK Government was right to
deceive the enemy?
What example of the trolley dilemma is thought to
have a clear “NO” response?
Why is this response thought to be clear?
What distinction does make between intention and
side effects?
What does Frances Kamm say utilitarianism
denies?
Why does Frances use created trolley examples
not practical examples?
Frances Kamm
19
After the Podcast
1
2
What would be your response to the Crying
Baby dilemma?
When people are faced with Trolley Dilemma
1 and are wired up to an fMRI, the equipment
shows that the reasoning centre of the brain
is being stimulated. When they are faced
with TD 2, the reasoning and emotional
centres of the brain are being stimulated.
 What does this suggest?
 Why might this be?
Why do lawmakers want to keep emotions out of justice?
Prep for Podcast 2
Bombing of Dresden & Coventry
Research task
Use the fabby interweb to research and report on the following.
1
2
3
Where is Dresden?
What happened to it during WW2?
Why is this incident still controversial?
20
Assignment 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Would You Kill the Big Guy 2
Why are US soldiers studying Kant?
What was Kant’s main point?
Recall/review the Trolley Dilemma.
What is the “likely action”?
What has the first soldier learned is inherently wrong?
What makes philosophy relevant?
Why is a philosopher soldier essential?
What distinction does the Israeli spokesman make?
How does terrorism differ from a legitimate/just war?
How does this distinction relate to Coventry and Dresden?
How does this relate to the use of Drones in war?
Why does Arkin claim robot warriors will be better than
humans?
What is his evidence for this claim?
What was the dilemma with the Maltese conjoined twins?
Why did Justice Brook have to go back to Cicero (106 – 43
BCE) & Hobbes (1688-1789)?
What was the court’s judgement?
What is the distinction between empathy and justice?
What was the reaction of the parents to the judgement?
Where else could the trolley dilemma be relevant?
What does Francis Kamm say we cannot do with humans?
Is there a difference between denying treatment and
intentional killing?
What has the commentator discovered about philosophy?
AFTER THE PODCAST
1
2
What evidence could be used to challenge Arkin’s view of robot
warriors?
How would you explain the reaction of the parents of the
conjoined twins to the court judgment?
21
What is real? Plato and Socrates
Metaphysics – concerns what is real
The common sense position is that
you/we can tell when something is real.
The planet earth is real, your body is
real (whether you like it or not!), this
piece of paper you are reading from is real as is the classroom
you are in.
This may seem strange but Plato, Socrates’ student, challenged
these views. He pointed out that the earth, your body, paper,
classrooms and all material things are constantly changing.
Nothing material lasts, so material things are not real.
Plato’s argument is that to be real, something has to BE. If
something is changing constantly it isn’t BEING anything it is in
a constant state of BECOMING.
Mountains are becoming rocks which are becoming sand which
are becoming rocks and so on. This applies to all material
things.
So what was real for Plato? What did he claim never changed?
Here is your clue.
3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640
6286208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844609550582231725359
4081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334
4612847564823378678316527120190914564856692346034861045432664821339360726
Assignment
10 (Pairs if you want)
0249141273724587006606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011
330530548820466521384146951941511609...
22
Assignment 22 (Pairs if you want)
Can you think of anything material that does not change?
In other words can you think of an exception to Plato’s
argument?
Plato’s argument seems to be very strong but it also seems to
go against our deepest intuition. Material things seem so real.
When we smell, touch, taste, see and hear stuff it all seems
very real.
It would be difficult to deny the reality of getting hit by a
material object like a chair.
Plato says that getting our heads round this idea is very
difficult and he wrote a story to explain this. The story is
called the Allegory of the Cave. An allegory is an example of a
story with a meaning in which each element represents some
thing.
Plato’s Allegory of the Cave (Another Story!)
Imagine prisoners who have been chained since childhood deep
inside a cave. Not only are their limbs immobilized by the
chains; their heads are chained as well so that their eyes are
fixed on the wall in front. Unknown to the prisoners, behind
them is an enormous fire, and between the fire and the
prisoners is a raised walkway, along which shapes of various
animals, plants, and other things are carried by people passing
over the walkway. These shapes cast shadows on the wall,
which hold the prisoners' attention. When one of the shape-
23
carriers speaks, an echo against the wall causes the prisoners
to believe that the words come from the shadows in front of
them not from the actual source behind them.
The prisoners discuss the shapes and sounds - naming the
shapes as they come by. This shadow display is the only reality.
A prisoner is released, stands up and turns around.
At first his eyes will be blinded by the firelight, and the
shapes passing will appear less real than their shadows but
painfully and gradually he begins to see the real objects.
He begins to claw his way up and out of the cave into the
sunlight. At first he is again blinded by the sun and not be able
to see anything.
Eventually he will be able to see darker shapes such as shadows
and, only later, brighter and brighter objects.
The last object he would be able to see is the sun, which, in
time, he would learn to see as that object which provides the
seasons and the courses of the year, presides over all things in
the visible region, and is in some way the cause of all these
things that he has seen.
Once he realises what is real he wants to return to the cave to
free his fellow prisoners. The other prisoners' do not want to
24
escape captivity. The freed prisoner's eyes cannot adjust
again. He tries to explain their plight to them but he stumbles
around in the dark as seems completely mad. Eventually they
feel threatened by him and kill him.
What does the story mean?
In an allegory, each element has a meaning and the whole story
has an important point. Plato is saying –
“Wake up to reality”!
We often accept things without question. We have a habit of
accepting things without thinking and checking. If we don’t
wake up to reality then we could be living an illusion. We will
value the valueless, believe what is false and as a result do
what is wrong.
Socrates, Plato’s teacher, said “The unexamined life is not
worth living”. In other words to be full human we must be
philosophers – we must establish the truth for ourselves.
The unexamined
life is not worth
living!
25
Assignment 23
In the Cave Allegory who/what represents
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
false beliefs,
the philosopher
critical thinking,
common sense belief
the difficulty of challenging common sense beliefs
false beliefs can result in acting wrongly?
How do we apply Plato’s Cave
today? In what ways are we in
danger of mistaking illusion for
reality today?
For Plato and Socrates the Good
Life was a life spent searching for
the truth and doing the right
thing. Both of them observed
people, especially those with power and influence, telling lies, cheating,
stealing and killing. Plato and Socrates believed that philosophy was the
way to truth and if people discovered the truth they would always
choose right and never wrong.
So, after 2500 years of philosophy, why do people choose
wrong instead of right?
Marcus Aurelius
Do you get bugged by little things?
Does it matter if you do?
26
If they bug you then they bug you! Right?
But what if it bugs you that it bugs you? In other word, what
if the fact that little things do bug you bugs you even more?
If this is the case then Marcus Aurelius is your man.
Marcus Aurelius was emperor of Rome from 160-180CE. He
wrote a book called Meditations which explained the Stoic
philosophy. The Stoics claimed that we need to understand
ourselves and the world we live in. If we do this we will realise
what is and is not important. If an individual does not do this
they will becomes slaves to their emotions.
Assignment 24
Answer the following questions to check your SQ – Stoicism
Quotient.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Can you work through a small headache?
Can you to work if the room is not quite at the right
temperature?
Can you focus on work if you are hungry?
Can you cope with trips on a rainy day?
Can you easily recover from disappointing test scores?
Can you ignore mild teasing (or do you want them to
suffer in return)?
If you are a sports fan, can you recover quickly when
your team is beaten?
Can you accept being shown that you are wrong about
something?
Can you listen to your friends’ music even if you don’t
like it?
If some electronic equipment fails to work can you
work without it easily?
27
Marcus Aurelius claimed that to have a good life, the individual
had to discover what they should do – what their duty is – and
then do it. If people could say that they did their duty, they
would not be troubled by anything else either emotionally or
intellectually.
Assignment 25
What would you say are the duties of the following individuals to…
A parent….
A teacher….
A friend….
Themselves….
Which is more important – doing your duty or being happy?
28
We all get angry sometimes. But some people turn that anger into violence... and
scientists are discovering that may be partly due to genetics. This ScienCentral
News video explains
He's focusing on a specific gene that was previously linked to impulsive violence
in certain populations of people. A study in 2002 found that subjects with a
particular form of a gene had a significantly higher risk of violence only if they
were abused as children. While this gene-environment interaction is important in
understanding this behavior, Meyer-Lindenberg wanted to focus on the genetic
facets of violence"One of the most fascinating things," Meyer-Lindenberg says,
about this field of science called psychiatric genetics, "is how it is possible that
genes [can] encode for molecules that affect something as complex as behavior,
even psychiatric illness such as depression and social behavior."
Serotonin is a chemical messenger in the brain that affects how brain cells
communicate with each another. Meyer-Lindenberg says that different forms of
the gene can affect the brain's wiring and, "will then presumably contribute to
behaviors and emotions such as fear or aggression."
29
Plato believed that relying on sense experience made us into pleasureseekers not truth-seekers. We are drawn to entertainments not
knowledge.
Assignment 12
Is Plato right? Give reasons for your answer.
What would Plato think of “Big Brother”?
30
The Truman Show – Hollywood’s Version of Plato’s Cave
The Truman Show is set in a world, called
Seahaven, where an entire town is
dedicated to a continually running television
show. All but one of the participants are
actors. Only the central character, Truman
Burbank (Jim Carrey), is unaware that he
lives in a constructed reality for the
entertainment of those outside. The film
follows his discovery of his situation and his
attempts to escape.
Along his path to truth and escape
Truman encounters obstacles created to
prevent him from discovering reality like
traffic jams, vehicle breakdowns and
industrial accidents.
Truman has been
made afraid of water after witnessing the
tragic "death" of his father in a fake
boating incident.
Assignment 13
Compare and contrast the meaning of the
Allegory of the Cave with The Truman Show.
You can word-process this and include pix if you
want.
31
How Should We Act?
This is the next Big Question in philosophy – many would say this is THE
Big Question.
So we are now in the area of what is right and wrong.
Firstly let’s assume that we should act according to some view of what is
right and wrong.
What did Plato say?
Plato’s view was that philosophers would do the right thing because they
would know what the right thing was.
Glaucon, a relative of Plato’s argues that people only act well from fear of
the consequences. He uses a story to illustrate his point.
Assignment 14
1
Who do you agree with most, Plato or Glaucon, and why?
2
Some people argue that we only ever act for ourselves. What do
you think? Why?
3
Imagine you discovered the Ring of Gyges. How
would you use it?
The Cider House Rules
Homer Wells (Tobey Maguire), an un-adopted orphan is
the film's central character. Homer grew up in an
orphanage directed by Dr. Wilbur Larch (Michael Caine).
32
Dr. Larch is also secretly performs abortions. Dr Larch believes that he
is doing "What is right" because otherwise there would be more
unwanted babies and women dying from back-street abortions. Dr Larch
trains Homer to be his replacement. Homer refuses to take part in
abortions but has no objection to Dr Larch performing them.
Assignment 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Why does Dr Larch say he
performs abortions?
Why does Homer say that he will
not perform abortions?
What action did Dr Larch take with
the girl with the botched abortion?
What other examples of immorality
does Dr Larch exhibit?
Why does Homer change his view on
abortion?
For Dr Larch what do the terms
“right” and “wrong” mean?
Do you think Dr Larch is a good
man? Why?
What do you think makes an act
either right or wrong?
Assignment 16
1
What would be the
arguments for and against
using the atomic bomb in
WWII, eating meat, the
33
national lottery and legalising all drugs?
What Can Be Known?
This is the third Big Question in philosophy
and links strongly with the other two – what
is real and how should we act?
What does it mean to know some thing?
What do you know? How do you know you
know?
Here are some knowledge statements:
I know my name
I know that Friday follows Thursday
I know how to count
I know 6 X 6 = 36 I know the
sun will rise tomorrow I know stealing is wrong
I know
that sugar is sweet I know that the London is the capital
of England I know that vinegar tastes sour
I know
how to ride a bike
I know that WWII started in 1939
I know I am reading this
Assignment 17
34
1 Can you challenge any of these statements?
2 Are they all basically the same sorts of statements or are they
different?
3 Look at each – how is knowledge achieved or how can it be
demonstrated?
35
Epistemology
Epistemology = a big word for the study of knowledge.
In philosophy we firstly have to distinguish between knowing that….. and
knowing how…..
There is a difference between knowing how to drive – a skill, and that a
car is a kind of vehicle – a fact.
We are not concerned with knowing how. We are only concerned with
facts or statements that claim to be factual. Later we will call these
propositions – statements that have truth-value.
In philosophy we also have to distinguish between two different kinds of
propositions.
Propositions based on sense experience are called a posteriori
statements. For example - The sky is blue Sugar is sweet He can’t sing
etc.
Propositions are not based on sense experience are called a priori
statements. For example - 2 + 2 = 4. The shortest distance between
two points is a straight line Triangles have angles equal to 180 degrees.
Bachelors are unmarried men
How do you get to know something?
Look at the a posteriori statements above. How do you know these to be
true?
36
Seeing is believing! Show me! We would probably claim that know our
world through senses. However…..
Knowledge Based on Sense Experience = a posteriori statements
Now look at the a priori statements on the previous page. How do you
know that these are true?
These statements are true by definition. They cannot be false because
they would contradict themselves.
The definition of a triangle is an object with internal angles adding up to
180 degrees and you just don’t get married bachelors!
Knowledge not Based on Sense Experience = a priori statements
Remember Plato? He claimed that sense experience did not result in real
knowledge – this is called the Rational position.
Philosophers who claim that we can only really know our world through our
senses are called Empiricists.
Assignment 19
Which of the following statements are a priori and which are a posteriori? Put them
into separate columns
2 + 2 = 4 In fourteen hundred and ninety-two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue
I exist
You exist
The sun will rise tomorrow Right now I am perceiving this
page
Barking dogs bark
Humans have evolved from lower animals Every
event must have a cause
Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland
Red is Red
37
Seeing is Believing?
38
What do you think is happening when you look at this pattern?
All these illusions point out a problem with the empirical approach to
knowledge. Sometimes our senses can deceive us. So the argument
against empiricism is….
Our senses sometimes deceive us.
When we are deceived we do not know
we are being deceived.
We could be deceived right now.
Conclusion
We can never trust sense experience.
What do you think of this argument?
39
Socrates and Eukiddenme
Socrates:
Good morrow, my friend. Whither goest?
Eukiddenme:
I hunger. My essential material being yearns for a chicken nugget
sandwich.
Socrates:
Ah, my good man! Before you digest it into your body, think, what is the
essence of chicken?
Eukiddenme:
It is an object composed mainly of chicken atoms. It is that which is
beloved of Col. Sanders.
Socrates:
Consider, however. Mrs. Sanders is also beloved of Col. Sanders. Is Mrs.
Sanders then a chicken nugget?
Eukiddenme:
Ah, Socrates, you have me there. She is surely not a bit of an old hen.
Actually she's quite a chick. I must then define chicken as that which
may be dipped in barbeque or honey mustard sauce.
Socrates:
I must demur, my dear Eukiddenme. Even I have been known, on occasion,
to dip my fries in the sauce. Are then fries to be known as chicken?
Eukiddenme:
Dear no! Fries are mainly of spud atoms from East Lothian. I must then
alter my definition to that which struts around on two feet.
Socrates:
Do not get personal, my friend. My wife struts in such a manner, but is
certainly no chicken. She strikes fear into even my heart. Have you no
truth as to the harmonious, mathematical essence of chicken?
Eukiddenme:
Ah, it comes to me! Chicken is that which is fried or baked.
Socrates:
Your brains on drugs are also fried or baked. Is your rational part then
composed of chicken?
Eukiddenme:
No, but you have made mince of my brains. I shall give it one more try.
Chicken is that which has large white breasts, little chicken legs, and
clucks.
Socrates:
I should not touch that one with a new toga, but, for your friendship, I
shall. Consider Katie Price. Is she then, a chicken?
Eukiddenme:
A reasonable point. My very last attempt is this: chicken is that which
makes megabucks for Col. Sanders.
Socrates:
Think of where we began. We have returned there. Chicken is that which
is beloved of Col. Sanders. Is there nothing new to be said?
Eukiddenme:
Fare thee well, my Socrates. I have lost my desire for chicken. I now
desire ham.
40
Socrates:
Ah, what is the essence of a pig?
Eukiddenme:
Oops! I must run!! Farewell, Socrates.
41
By studying logic you will become more skilled in analysing and evaluating
all kind of arguments.
Logic is the philosopher’s main tool. Another way of describing it is the
process by which good reasoning is distinguished from bad reasoning.
Reasoning is obviously a type of thinking but logical reasoning involves
inference.
Inference is a process in which a proposition is reached and affirmed on
the basis of one or more other previously accepted propositions.
What does that mean?
A proposition is a statement which could be true or false.
So if some one said to you - “It is raining .” - that is a proposition
because it could be true or not.
If however you read on a page or saw on a billboard “I like ice-cream.” or
“I have a red beard.” - they would not be propositions because there is
no way of testing the truth or falsity of these statements.
So a proposition is a statement but a statement is not necessarily a
proposition!!!!!
Why?
A proposition is a special kind of statement, one which is
capable of being true or false.
In philosophy we are concerned with philosophical arguments.
What about this?
42
A:
B:
A:
B:
A:
B:
“Euthanasia is wrong!”
“No it isn’t!”
“What do you know?”
“More than you!”
“Oh Yeah?”
“Yeah you’re just stupid!”
This is an example of what we usually mean when we talk about an
argument but it is not a philosophical argument.
Why not?
Only some of the statements are propositions.
Assignment 5
1
2
3
4
What is logic and why is it important to philosophy?
What is the difference between a statement and a proposition?
From the argument on page 7, which ones are just statements
and which propositions?
Devise three non-propositional and three propositional
statements.
Philosophical Arguments
Some people including many philosophers would claim that all important
knowledge comes via sense experience – seeing, hearing, touching tasting
and smelling - but a counter argument would be that sense experience
can be deceptive – we think we see X but it turns out to be Y. A
conclusion which follows from these two propositions is that nothing can
be known for certain.
Logic & Rhetoric
43
Everyday arguments are often composed of two main elements - Logic and
Rhetoric.
Someone’s justification for their argument may be described as “empty
rhetoric”. This occurs when emotion is used rather than reason. Rhetoric
not logic.
For Example:
A defendant, when found guilty of killing both his parents, asked
that the judge show mercy to him as he was a poor orphan.
Rhetoric appeals to the emotion, logic should appeal to reason. Sometimes
rhetoric is appropriate but somtimes rhetoric is used disguised as logic.
For an example of almost pure rhetoric listen to Martin Luther King’s “I
have a dream” speech. Few would say that the rhetoric used in this case
was anything other that appropriate.
Most every day arguments are composed of logic and rhetoric. Rhetoric
refers to the use of language, the emotion and complexity of what is
argued. Logic is the way the argument is put together - the reasoning and
this is the important point.
Form Versus Content
The following section is very important and you will have to remind
yourself constantly of this. In logic, it is the form of the argument not
the content which is important. Let’s put that another way -
In logic, the first important consideration is
THE FORM
of the argument
Johnston’s Analogy of The Wall
44
If an argument were a wall, then logic is the quality of the construction how well the materials are put together. You can have a wall of many
different materials, wood, stone or brick - that is the content of the
argument - but it is the construction which needs to be good in order for
the wall to remain standing no matter how good the materials are. It is
the same for arguments.
Definition of a Philosophical Argument
An argument in philosophical terms is a series of connected propositions.
Some of these propositions will be premises and one will be the
conclusion.
Take a look at this :If you eat up your veggies, then you will get chocolate pudding.
You eat your veggies.
Therefore you can get chocolate pudding.
Believe it or not this “nursery experience” is a good example of an
argument with a logical form.
(Easy or what?)
There are three propositions. The first two are premises, the last
proposition is the conclusion and there is a reasoned connection between
them.
SO.....
An argument is a set of connected propositions (true or false
statements) which try to convince us to believe something.
Assignment 6
1
Define the following terms – logic - proposition - logical form –
premise – conclusion – infer – argument .
2
What are the aims and benefits of logic?
45
4
What is the difference between a proposition and a
statement?
5
Most everyday arguments are composed of what two
elements?
6
What is Johnston’s “Simile of the Wall” and what does it
attempt to illustrate?
7
Put these concepts into a meaningful sentence -
premises - conclusion - proposition - argument - logical - philosophical
46
Philosophical Arguments
But we cannot use just any old propositions to make up an argument.
For example this is not an argument :Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland.
There are seven days in a week.
__________________________(Therefore)
Euthanasia is wrong.
The statements are propositions because they could be true or false but this is not an argument because there is no connection between the
propositions.
But this is an argument :-
It is wrong to kill humans.
Euthanasia is killing humans.
_______________________(Therefore)
Euthanasia is wrong.
The statements are propositions and there is a connection between them
which tries to convince us that “Euthanasia is wrong.”
Above the line there are two propositions called premises and below the
line there is a proposition called the conclusion. The line between them
means “therefore”.
The premises taken together infer the conclusion. The argument tries to
convince us that if we accept the premises we should also accept the
conclusion.
47
Basic Elements of an Argument
1st Premise
2nd Premise
_____________
Conclusion
Inference
In any argument, some of the propositions will be premises and at least
one will be a conclusion.
In order to help you identify premises and conclusions here are certain
key words which help to identify both premises and conclusions.
Remember however that these terms only tend to identify. There is no
guarantee.
Premise-signals:
since, because, for, as, inasmuch as, otherwise,
in view of the fact that, for the reason that.
Conclusion-signals: therefore, thus, accordingly, we may infer, which shows that,
points to the conclusion that, as a result.
The important point is that the logician is concerned with the relationship
between the propositions.
But people do not always speak nor write is such clear and precise terms.
Arguments often have to be identified, to be sifted out from the
background material.
48
What about this?
Eyed needles have been found on Paleolithic sites from
40,000 years ago. It is believed that Paleolithic people
used them to sew animal skins into protective suits. Thus
tailoring is a very old practice.
(Jill LeBlanc “Thinking Clearly”)
Is this an argument?
In order to find out if there is an argument in a set of statements we can
ask two questions.
Test 1
Does it try to convince us of something?
Test 2
Are reasons given?
If the answer to both is “yes”, then we are dealing with an argument.
What about this?
The fact that eyed needles have been found on sites dating from 40,000
years ago suggests Paleolithic people used them to sew animal skins into
protective suits thus showing that tailoring is a very old practice.
What do you notice about the above passage?
Try the argument tests on the passage below.
Financial and human resources have been directed too much towards
finding a cure for AIDS, and not enough towards education. We have
heard for many years that education is the most effective weapon
against AIDS, and that this is still the case. In fact education will
continue to be crucial even if a cure is found: it is not merely a
temporary solution. Even if drugs and vaccines are developed, AIDS will
not just disappear, especially among the underprivileged, any more than
any other disease has just disappeared.
49
Assignment 7
Which of the following statements are propositions and
which are not?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Most elephants have trunks.
Sarah loves philosophy.
2+2 = 4
What was that?
I am thirsty.
The union of the parliaments took place in 1707.
Good evening.
I am tired.
All people from Dunbar can sing.
Is this a philosophical argument?
Give a reason for your answer.
Are the following a philosophical arguments?
Give a reason for your answer.
All philosophers are stupid.
There are many stupid people in N.Berwick
N. Berwick is a tourist town.
All philosophers are stupid.
Stupid people should be shot.
All philosophers should be shot.
12
Are these arguments?
Give reasons
Rimbaud claimed that the only way an artist could arrive at the truth he
wanted was to experience every form of love, suffering and madness, and
that he might prepare for this by a planned disordering of all the senses,
for example by drunkenness.
50
All dogs need an occasional bath. Dogs with long silky coats, like Afghan
hounds, may require bathing on a weekly basis, while sporting breeds like
golden retrievers may only need a bath once or twice a year. The dog’s
lifestyle can also contribute to the need for bathing.
Violence in movies is not evidence of people’s declining moral standards, as
critics like Michael Medved claim. Ancient myths, mediaeval biographies
of saints, Shakespeare’s plays and nineteenth-century novels like Dracula
are all full of bloodshed and mayhem. People have always been like this.
12
Put any new technical terms into your glossary.
13
Explain the importance of inference to philosophical
arguments.
14
Which of these, if any, are propositions?
a)
b)
c)
51
d)
Problems in Philosophy
Philosophical questions are also called problems. This is really what the
course is all about – Philosophical Problems – but one of the three units
which make up the course is also called “Philosophical Problems”
In this unit we will explore one problem from each area - one
Metaphysical, one Ethical and one Epistemological problem. So that is
three problems in total.
So, for each area of philosophy, we are going to study a particular
problem. In studying a problem we will explore an argument or arguments
- the philosophical term for a philosophical point of view and the reasons
given to support this point of view. Then we will the look at the counter
arguments. This means exploring arguments and reasons which attack the
first position. Lastly you will form your own conclusion in which you
explain the strength and weakness of each argument with reasons.
1 Metaphysics
The main metaphysical question is – ‘What is Real?’
Stupid question !?
For example one of the fundamental metaphysical questions is ‘Does God exist?’
Some may ask “what makes the existence of God fundamental?”
Well the point is, if God does exist then it follows that there is a purpose to life,
there may even be the prospect of a life after death. If not, then we should focus
our lives on others things and not hope for a ‘happy hereafter’. Also, it is one of
those questions which seems to refuse to go away.
When philosophers turn their interest to God and religion and ask for explanations,
they are not content with responses like ‘It’s a matter of faith.’ or ‘It’s a miracle.’
Neither are they impressed when some one just dismisses the possibility without
examining the arguments for and against.
52
So philosophers want to know what is meant by ‘faith’ and they would want to know
what people mean when they talk about ‘miracles’.
The belief that there is a God is called theism. When philosophers talk about God,
they do not necessarily believe that one exists. But they know what God should be
like if she existed. This may sound strange, but it is important, even if you do not
believe in God, to say what kind of God you do not believe in!
When philosophers discuss God they are referring to an eternal, all-knowing, allpowerful, creator being.
Another Metaphysical Question:‘Is there such a thing as a human soul? ‘
Many religions believe that the essence of a human being is something called the
soul. At death the body dies but the soul lives on in some other form.
Assignment 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
What would you say a human being was – essentially?
Is there a difference between a human being and a person?
Can some one be a person and not be human?
How does the soul relate to being a person?
What is God to a philosopher?
What is a theist?
For what reasons is this question of the existence of God important?
What is the opposite of a theist?
53
2 Ethics
The last main area of philosophy is Ethics sometimes called Moral Philosophy. It is
about right or wrong and good and bad. But not like maths answers can be right or
wrong or a film can be good or bad. It is about behaviour codes humans live by and
on what these are based. In other words how we treat other people and the world
we live in and why. We will look at why some people say an action is right or wrong.
In morality, and perhaps elsewhere also, the facts do not speak or themselves. The
Scottish philosopher David Hume believed that you cannot get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’.
A murderer may commit the most horrendous of crimes but it is not until an
individual reflects on the crime that the ‘wrongness’ is identified. It is not the deed
but how we feel about it which results in the rightness or wrongness
Perhaps a more immediate example come from the current debate on animal
experimentation will illustrate this point.
Fact:
Chimpanzees are used in medical experiments
Fact:
Chimpanzees are genetically very close to humans
Opinion:
Some individuals believe that it is because chimpanzees are so close
genetically to humans that it is right for them to be used in
research. It is because they are so similar to us that makes the
results of the experiments so valuable.
Assignment 10
Can you think of another ethical opinion based on these facts?
The facts are not in dispute. It is the interpretation, and the evaluation, the moral
evaluation of these facts, the inward reflection that results in the differing moral
viewpoints. In other words it is what the observer brings to the situation, their
particular viewpoint, which determines the rightness or wrongness.
54
Does this mean that morality is just a Òmatter of opinionÓ?
The philosopher questions the viewpoints. ÒWhat arguments are the views based
on?Ó ÒAre these arguments convincing?Ó
Questions of morality are constantly being discussed today. We just have to look at
the fuss over Genetic Modification or Euthanasia to see this.
On the one hand we can see evidence of pluralism within modern democracies, with
the expectation that differing moral viewpoints must be tolerated in order to avoid
conflict. On the other we have such principled statements as the introduction to
the constitution of the United States:
ÒWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.Ó
The Problems
Are statements like the above also just opinions? If all is just cultural relativism
and there are no absolute standards for morality, who is to say what is right and
what is wrong?
Modern democracies are culturally plural and this plurality results in moral diversity.
One of the health indicators for such modern societies is this tolerance which allows
the existence of choice within society.
The lack of perceived absolutes has led to the search for general principles which
provide a guide for moral action. So what are these general principles? Later.
So can we achieve any certainty in all this? What is the right answer?
55
Activity 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
What is another name for ethics?
Can you recall the 10 Commandments? (Pairs if you want)
Look up the 10 Commandments and check your list.
Any of these which you would bin? Why?
Any additions? Why?
So what is the principle the Commandments are based on?
So what would be an atheists position on the Commandments?
What are the problems with trying to get an absolute moral
code which everyone must follow?
What principle ethical difficulty do we face in a pluralist society?
Activity 9
Look back to the example box on pages 2 & 3 .
Group the questions under the three branches of philosophy.
3
JCÕs new stuff here
Epistemology
Remember what this is?
Well you have already done some of this. Epistemology is some times called the
theory of knowledge. It concerns how we know anything.
Our basic knowledge of the world around us comes from our senses.
56
For most of us the key sense is sight. We often use touch to check what we see and
taste and smell in the same way.
Common sense teaches us that a dog is a dog, a cat is a cat and jaguar is a car.
Common sense also teaches that these objects still exist whether we are looking at
them or not. In other words, with the world, what you see, is what you get and our
senses give us an accurate picture of what that is.
Now it is very possible to go through life without questioning any of this but that is
not the philosophical way.
In the study of what we know, or what we think we know, the philosopher will ask:
How do we know that what we see is what is? Could all sense experience be just a
dream? What is seeing? When I leave a room do the objects in it still exist? Can you
ever have direct experience of the world?
Activity 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Look around the room and list six things which really exist.
How do you know that these things exist?
How would you prove to someone else that any object exists?
What about things not in the room? List 4.
Can you think of anything the existence of which can be doubted?
How do you know that you exist?
How would you prove that you exist?
Is there anything you know exists but you canÕt prove?
What shape is the desk in front of you?
How would you demonstrate that 2 + 2 = 4?
How would you demonstrate that 2 + 2 always = 4?
57
12 How would you prove that there was not an elephant in the
room?
13 How would you demonstrate that murder was wrong?
14 How would you prove that the Loch Ness monster does not
exist?
15 How would you demonstrate that you are not dreaming at the
moment?
16 How do you know that you are reading this?
17 How could you demonstrate that the person next to you is human
and not just a biological machine?
18 How would you demonstrate that humans deserve Hun am
Activity 11
Second Order Question First Order Questions
Is God Good?
Is time-travel possible?
Is the Mona Lisa a beautiful
painting?
Should there be gender equality?
Why is there something?
What is thinking?
Summary
*
Rule 1 in philosophy there is no Òcommon senseÓ.
*
Philosophy is an activity, a process.
58
rights?
*
Philosophy is about asking the Big Questions.
*
Philosophy uses logical thought to develop and test
arguments.
*
Philosophy is about First order Questions
*
Everybody philosophises (some more and better than others)
*
Philosophy is a craft and a science
*
Philosophy under pins all human knowledge and expression
*
There are three main branches to philosophy
Metaphysics ÒWhat is real?Ó
Ethics ÒWhat should be done?Ó
Epistemology - ÒWhat can be known?Ó
Further work
Read Pages 5-13 of ÒPhilosophyÓ by Mel Thompson and then respond
thoughtfully to the questions below.
1
What is the dictionary definition of philosophy?
2
What reasons are given for studying philosophy?
3
What reasons are given for studying what dead philosophers have
written?
4
Why might it be said that philosophy is a frustrating experience?
59
5
What did Socrates do? Why? What is his lesson for us?
Home Work Assignment
Choose a (fictional) TV programme/book/film you are familiar with.
Describe it.
Explain what philosophical questions are raised by or in the plot
Unit Title - Problems in Philosophy - Epistemology
The Challenge of Scepticism
So what do you know?
ÒThat will teach you!Ó
ÒWhat did you learn at school today?Ó
ÒYou should know better than that!Ó
ÒHow do you know that?
You may have heard a politician saying that this is a knowledge-based society or
that, ÒKnowledge is powerÓ so what is knowledge?
Epistemology means the study of knowledge.
Activity 1
Write down 6 things that you know to be true.
For each of the six say how you know each to be true.
What is Knowledge?
Plato (628-354 BCE)
.
The Greek philosopher Plato pointed out that we can be right about something but
not really know about something. He used a story to illustrate his argument.
60
A traveller asked a passerby which of the two roads ahead led to the town he
wished to reach and the passerby, not knowing but wishing to be helpful pointed to
one which subsequently proved to be the right choice.
The traveller did not really know the correct road. He did believe that it was the
correct road and it was the correct road but according to Plato he did not really
know it was the correct road.
Activity 2
Why do you think Plato said that the traveller did not really know?
Read the following problem :-
THE COW IN THE FIELD
Farmer Field is concerned about his prize cow, Daisy. In fact, he is so concerned
that when his dairyman tells him that Daisy is in the field happily grazing, he says he
needs to know for certain. He doesn't want just to have a 99 per cent idea that
Daisy is safe, he wants to be able to say that he knows Daisy is okay.
Farmer Field goes out to the field and standing by the gate sees in the distance,
behind some trees, a white and black shape that he recognises as his favourite cow.
He goes back to the dairy and tells his friend that he knows Daisy is in the field.
At this point, does Farmer Field really know what he thinks he knows?
The dairyman says he will check too, and goes to the field. There he finds Daisy,
having a nap in a hollow, behind a bush, well out of sight of the gate. He also spots a
large piece of black and white paper that has got caught in a tree.
61
Activity 3
Daisy is in the field, as Farmer Field believed that she was in the field, but was he
right to say that he knew she was?
Explain your answer.
What is Knowledge?
In order to cope with this problem Plato came up with the Tripartite Test for
Knowledge.
He accepted that for some thing to be known it must first be believed and also
actually be true like PlatoÕs traveller but to be really known the knower must have a
good reason for believing it to be true. There must be a good reason for it to be a
justified true belief.
The Tripartite Test For Knowledge
62
1
2
3
So we have our definition of knowledge. Remember it, you will need it from now on.
Sometimes it is shortened to ÒJustified true beliefÓ.
The next question is where does real knowledge come from? The internet?
my head? From your teacher? Where?
From
In philosophy there are two basic answers to this question. One provided by the
rationalists and the other by the empiricists...
Empiricists argue that all real knowledge comes from experience. By this they mean
mainly sense experience. Empiricists refer to the mind as tabula rasa. The human
mind is born as a blank sheet until it is Òwritten onÓ by sense experience. Ideas
and impressions which is real knowledge are then built up or recorded.
.
So according to empiricists, all real knowledge is based on and can be traced back to
sense experience.
63
Rationalists on the other hand emphasise the power of rational thought in helping us
understand our universe. They believe that some real knowledge is independent of
experience. Very few rationalists dismiss experience entirely but they argue that
humans do have some innate beliefs, abilities we are born with, and that some of
these are the really important, fundamental beliefs.
So what things do we know without having to experience them first?
Well at the less important end of the scale we know that Òall bachelors are
unmarried menÓ and that Óall barking dogs barkÓ. But these are true by definition.
This knowledge does not really tell us much about the world.
Activity 4
Are there any beliefs which you hold that are not based on experience?
Activity 5
1
What is the technical term for the philosophy of knowledge?
2
What is the Tripartite definition of knowledge?
64
3
Why is this definition important?
4
What are the two main philosophical perspectives on the
acquisition of knowledge?
Explain each carefully with
5
Tabula Rasa = _____________ Innate = ____________
6
What is your philosophical perspective on the acquisition of
knowledge? Give reasons for your answer.
examples.
Further work
Read page 15-19 in Thompson
1
2
3
4
5
6
What is the difference between science and philosophical
questions?
What is reductionism?
What is a materialist?
What is an idealist?
What questions does the Christmas Day in the trenches try to
illustrate?
What does a philosopher mean by Òcan we be certain?Ó
Summary
*
Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge.
65
*
Rationalists (Greek Ratio = reason) believe that at least some of our
knowledge is innate (in born) and that at least some of our
knowledge is
independent of sense experience.
Examples cause and effect, human rights, morality.
*
Empiricists (Greek - Empeiria = experience) argue the human mind is
born tabula rasa and is then written on by the five senses.
This means that all knowledge can be traced back to sense experience.
Know? No! - The Challenge of Scepticism
Human beings like certainty. ÒThis one is a dead cert!Ó ÒYou can trust me!Ó We
do not like uncertainty. We find it difficult to cope with. We like to know what is
going to happen. If we donÕt, we get anxious.
Activity 6
List examples of our search for certainty in life.
Some Knowledge Statements
Which of these are you certain about?
66
*
2 + 2 = 4.
*
In fourteen hundred and ninety-two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
*
I exist.
*
You exist.
*
The sun will rise tomorrow.
*
Right now I am perceiving this page.
*
Barking dogs bark.
*
Humans have evolved from lower animals.
*
Every event must have a cause.
All knowledge statements but they are quite different in themselves.
In what way are they certain? What does it mean to know in each case?
The Challenge of Scepticism
In everyday life, to be a sceptic means to be a doubter. Some one who is not willing
to take things on faith. But in philosophy it is a technical term.
The word "scepticism" comes from a Greek word which means to reflect on,
consider, or examine, so it is not surprising that it is usually associated with
doubting or suspending judgment. A glance at the dictionary shows that, beyond
being doubters, sceptics come in many varieties. We, however, wish to distinguish
just three types or levels of scepticism.
67
Varieties of Scepticism
We have to distinguish between common-sense scepticism, philosophical scepticism,
and absolute scepticism.
The ancient philosopher Pyrrho denied that we can know anything.
Heraclitus an early Greek philosopher believed, as many Buddhist philosophers have
pointed out, that everything is in a constant state of flux - changing all the time and
therefore you cannot step into the same river twice. So how can you really know
when all is change?
The Sophists believed that ÒMan was the measure of all thingsÓ - crudely Òit is all
a matter of opinion. Ó What is true for me is true for me. What is true for you is
true for you.Ó
There is no objective truth all is subjective.
Gorgias of Leontini (525 BCE) had three observations
ÒNothing exists. If something does exist we could never know it. If we could know
it we could never express it!Ó
68
Pyrrho said that the most certain we can be about anything is the statement - ÒIt
appears to be the case that....Ó More than this is speculation not knowledge.
The arguments for scepticism are usually based on the relativity (or differences of
opinion) in reason, sense perception, and custom.
Relativity
______________________________
______________________________
Sense Perception
______________________________
______________________________
Custom
_____________________________
______________________________
So what has happened to the Tripartite Definition of Knowledge?
Well sceptics accept the definition they just do not accept that it is possible! They
claim that you cannot justify any belief.
69
With all such disagreements, should we just suspend judgment and abandon all hope
of knowledge?
Not so fast, say those who charge that at least absolute scepticism is both
impractical and impossible.
*
It is impractical, they say, because no one can live a coherent life
except on the assumption that some things can he known.
*
It is impossible not only because we surely have certainty about
such things as our own existence and impressions, but also
because the absolute sceptics affirm with complete conviction
their thesis that nothing can be known and are therefore
hopelessly self-contradictory.
OR
ÒHow can they know that nothing can be known?Ó
Scepticism is also part of philosophical enquiry. It is part of questioning and
arguing. It is not to take things for granted. It is not to accept Òcommon senseÓ.
That is philosophical scepticism.
Activity 7
What is the Òchallenge of scepticismÓ?
What are the three kinds of scepticism?
What was the Sophist point of view?
70
What is the Sceptic view of the Tripartite definition of knowledge?
Why do some philosophers challenge Scepticism because it is impractical and selfcontradictory?
Perception Versus Reality
One of the problems of knowledge is the relationship between perception and
reality.
Do our senses tell us what our world is really like?
If you take a straight stick and stand it in some water what appears to happen to
the stick? What should we take from this demonstration?
When we perceive the world it is as human senses represent it to us, a bee sees the
world in ultra violet light, a bat sees with its ears! So how do we know that that
world is as we perceive it to be? Can it ever be?
One of the great philosophers of the twentieth century was Bertrand Russell. This
is his view of the situation
From ÒThe Problems Of PhilosophyÓ,
by Bertrand Russell
In daily life, we assume as certain many things which, on a closer scrutiny, are found
to be so full of apparent contradictions that only a great amount of thought enables
us to know what it is that we really may believe. In the search for certainty, it is
natural to begin with our present experiences, and in some sense, no doubt,
knowledge is to be derived from them. But any statement as to what it is that our
immediate experiences make us know is very likely to be wrong.
71
It seems to me that I am now sitting in a chair, at a table of a certain shape, on
which I see sheets of paper with writing or print.
By turning my head I see out of the window buildings and clouds and the sun. I
believe that the sun is about ninety-three million miles from the earth; that it is a
hot globe many times bigger than the earth; that, owing to the earth's rotation, it
rises every morning, and will continue to do so for an indefinite time in the future. I
believe that, if any other normal person comes into my room, he will see the same
chairs and tables and books and papers as I see, and that the table which I see is
the same as the table which I feel pressing against my arm. All this seems to be so
evident as to be hardly worth stating, except in answer to a man who doubts
whether I know anything. Yet all this may be reasonably doubted, and all of it
requires much careful discussion before we can be sure that we have stated it in a
form that is wholly true.
To make our difficulties plain, let us concentrate attention on the table. To the eye
it is oblong, brown and shiny, to the touch it is smooth and cool and hard; when I tap
it, it gives out a wooden sound.
Any one else who sees and feels and hears the table will agree with this description,
so that it might seem as if no difficulty would arise; but as soon as we try to be
more precise our troubles begin.
Although I believe that the table is "really" of the same colour all over, the parts
that reflect the light look much brighter than the other parts, and some parts look
white because of reflected light. I know that, if I move, the parts that reflect the
light will be different, so that the apparent distribution of colours on the table will
change. It follows that if several people are looking at the table at the same
moment, no two of them will see exactly the same distribution of colours, because no
two can see it from exactly the same point of view, and any change in the point of
view makes some change in the way the light is reflected.
72
For most practical purposes the differences are unimportant, but to the painter
they are all important: the painter has to unlearn the habit of thinking that things
seem to have the colour which common sense says they "really" have, and to learn
the habit of seeing things as they appear.
Here we have already the beginning of one of the distinctions that cause most
trouble in philosophy - the distinction between "appearance" and "reality", between
what things Òseem to beÓ and Òwhat they areÓ. The painter wants to know what
things seem to be, the practical man and the philosopher want to know what they
are; but the philosopher's wish to know this is stronger than the practical man's,
and is more troubled by knowledge as to the difficulties of answering the question.
To return to the table. It is evident from what we have found, that there is no
colour which preeminently appears to be the colour of the table, or even of any one
particular part of the table - it appears to be of different colours from different
points of view, and there is no reason for regarding some of these as more really its
colour than others. And we know that even from a given point of view the colour will
seem different by artificial light, or to a colour-blind man, or to a man wearing blue
spectacles, while in the dark there will be no colour at all, though to touch and
hearing the table will be unchanged.
This colour is not something which is inherent in the table, but something depending
upon the table and the spectator and the way the light falls on the table.
When, in ordinary life, we speak of the colour of the table, we only mean the sort of
colour which it will seem to have to a ÒnormalÓ spectator from an ÒordinaryÓ point
of view under ÒusualÓ conditions of light. But the other colours which appear under
other conditions have just as good a right to be considered real; and therefore, to
avoid favouritism, we are compelled to deny that, in itself, the table has any one
particular colour.
The same thing applies to the texture. With the naked eye one can see the grain,
but otherwise the table looks smooth and even. If we looked at it through a
73
microscope, we should see roughnesses and hills and valleys, and all sorts of
differences that are imperceptible to the naked eye. Which of these is the "real"
table? We are naturally tempted to say that what we see through the microscope is
more real, but that in turn would be changed by a still more powerful microscope.
If, then, we cannot trust what we see with the naked eye, why should we trust what
we see through a microscope? Thus, again, the confidence in our sense with which we
began deserts us.
The shape of the table is not better. We are all in the habit of judging as to the
Òreal" shapes of things, and we do this so unreflectingly that we come to think we
actually see the real shapes. But, in fact, as we all have to learn if we try to
draw, a given thing looks different in shape from every different point of view. If
our table is "really" rectangular, it will look, from almost all points of view, as if it
had two acute angles and two obtuse angles.
If opposite sides are parallel, they will look as if they converged to a point away
from the spectator; if they are of equal length, they will look as if the nearer side
were longer. All these things are not commonly noticed in looking at a table, because
experience has taught us to construct the "real" shape from the apparent shape,
and the "real" shape is what interests us as practical men. But the "real" shape is
not what we see; it is something inferred from what we see. And what we see is
constantly changing in shape as we move about the room; so that here again the
senses seem not to give us the truth about the table itself, but only about the
appearance of the table.
Similar difficulties arise when we consider the sense of touch. It is true that the
table always gives us a sensation of hardness, and we feel that it resists pressure.
But the sensation we obtain depends upon how hard we press the table and also upon
what part of the body we press with; thus the various sensations due to various
pressures or various parts of the body cannot be supposed to reveal directly any
definite property of the table, but at most to be signs of some property, which
causes all the sensations, but is not actually apparent in any of them. And the same
applies still more obviously to the sounds which can be elicited by rapping the table.
Thus it becomes evident that the real table, if there is one, is not the same as what
we immediately experience by sight or touch or hearing. The real table, if there is
74
one, is not immediately known to us at all, but must be an inference from what is
immediately known. Hence, two very difficult questions at once arise; namely, (1) Is
there a real table at all? (2) If so, what sort of object can it be?
(The Problems of Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 1912)
LetÕs see if we can summarise RussellÕs argument by answering a few questions.
Activity 8
1
What sort of ÒknowledgeÓ does Russell question?
2
What philosophical problem does Russell illustrate with the
table?
3
What is the difference between an artist and a philosopher?
4
What is RussellÕs conclusion?
5
What do you think of RussellÕs conclusion?
Give reasons for your answer.
The Sceptical Challenge - Revision
Much of philosophical debate concerns what we call the challenge of scepticism. It
is certainty about anything which is challenged. This can be seen from what
Bertrand Russell and many others have written.
75
Common Sense Scepticism
If a sceptic is someone who at one time or another has doubts or who suspends
judgment about something, then all of us are sceptics.
None of us can know everything though some times we pretend or think that we
know more than we do.
A dose of common sense scepticism is indeed probably
healthy for us. For one thing, it is a corrective to gullibility, superstition, and
prejudice. All of us should rightfully be sceptical of the claim that a vast herd of
giraffes is at this moment roaming the school, or of certain promises made by
politicians running for office.
Common sense scepticism is also an antidote to intellectual arrogance and
presumption.
Clearly, scepticism in this form poses no problem - if anything it stimulates and
enhances philosophical activity. But with philosophical scepticism the plot thickens.
Philosophical Scepticism
By philosophical scepticism we do not mean any particular position or movement in
philosophy, but the tendency of some philosophers to deny or doubt the more
cherished philosophical claims.
What are some of these claims? It depends, of course, on the particular
philosopher, but at one time or another it has been denied or doubted that every
event must have a cause, that God exists, that there are underlying substances,
that the external world is as we perceive it to be, and the like.
These issues, of course, are the really big ones in philosophy.
Absolute Scepticism
76
Still more troublesome is what we might call absolute scepticism. What is denied or
doubted here is any possibility of knowing anything - knowledge itself - zip! There
have been some philosophers who have denied that we can know anything at all. But
then again, how did they know?
Local Scepticism
There are also philosophers who deny that we can really know anything about certain
specific things for example God or morality, but accept mathematical or scientific
knowledge. We could label these Local Sceptics.
So letÕs recap
Tripartite definition of knowledge is
Common sense or everyday scepticism is
The Philosophical Sceptical Method is
Local Sceptics are (e.g.s)
Absolute Sceptics are
So the sceptical challenge questions the view that we can have certain knowledge
about something or anything depending on which type of scepticism we are talking
about.
Why do sceptics take this view?
77
Summary of reasons for scepticism based on lack of ÒjustificationÓ for knowledge
1
Unreliable senses/Veil of Perception
2
We could be dreaming
3
We could be in an experiment/game
4
Infinite Regress
Is Absolute Scepticism a Coherent Position?
Actually, there have been relatively few absolute sceptics. It is not hard to see
why.
As stated earlier, critics of this position have been quick to charge that it is
impractical and contradictory.
78
It is impractical because, from the purely practical standpoint of getting along in
the world, no one in his or her right mind can actually live on such a premise. Our
daily lives would not be possible if we did not accept that what appears common
sense is real - that our ÒknowledgeÓ is Knowledge.
Why, for that matter, are you reading this, studying philosophy, or studying
anything, if not because you think that something can be learned, understood,
known? And where, on the sceptical view, is there any place for responsible actions
or serious commitments and decisions?
There is a glaring contradiction in claiming to know that nothing can be known.
LetÕs reprise the Tripartite Test for Knowledge. If knowledge is Òjustifiable true
beliefÓ, the problem, as far as sceptics are concerned, is Òwhat do you mean by
true?Ó and they also argue Òjustification is not possibleÓ.
Revision - Reasons for scepticism
79
1
Appearance and Reality
It is an undeniable fact that our senses sometimes deceive us. (See previous
examples) Sceptics argue that because we can be deceived by our senses we cannot
be certain that this is not happening at any time so we can never have certain
knowledge from our senses.
Sceptics also point to the Veil of Perception. This states that the senses can only
express how the external world appears not how it is and therefore acts as a
barrier to knowledge not an aid. And again that statements about the external
world are not statements about reality but experience.
2
We could be dreaming
When we are dreaming we are not aware that we are dreaming. Only when we wake
up can we see the illusion for what it is. So the sceptical argument is that what we
call reality could all be just an illusion - a dream.
3
We could be in an experiment/game
The philosopher Descartes posed the question ÒHow do we know that our minds are
not controlled by an evil demon?Ó So that what we take for reality is in fact
illusion.
In the features films Blade runner, The Truman Show and The Matrix, what is
usually accepted as knowledge is shown to be a creation - a deception. How do we
know with certainty that this is not the case with us now? Sceptics would say we
donÕt!
80
4
The Problem of Infinite Regress
This is one of the main arguments used by sceptics to challenge traditional
definitions of knowledge. The problem of the infinite regress means that you can
never have certain, demonstrable knowledge.
For example if I were to ask you if you knew the name of the highest mountain in
Scotland, you might answer confidently ÒBen NevisÓ
However a sceptic would challenge ÒBut how do you know?Ó Again you might say
Òbecause I read it in my geography book.Ó - ÒBut how do you know the book is
accurate?Ó ÒBecause the authors are well-respected geographers.Ó ÒBut....Ó and
so on and so on ad infinitum.
This is the problem with the infinite regress of knowledge. Sceptics say we cannot
find a foundational belief which provides certainty.
Are they correct? Are there no foundational beliefs?
The Responses to Scepticism
The two main philosophical schools, Rationalism and Empiricism aim for certainty in
knowledge but attack the Sceptical viewpoint but use different methods.
Rationalism =
Empiricism
=
81
Foundationalism
Foundationalism is the attempt by empiricists and rationalists to identify solid
foundations for what we call knowledge. Descartes, a rationalist believed that his
own thinking could not be denied nor could belief in a good God.
Hume, an empiricist believed that sense experience was undeniable. Our perceptions
happened to us therefore they exist.
Empiricist could also say that we can check one sense against another and so be less
likely to be deceived. But still no certainty. In trying to justify knowledge gained
from sense experience they would say the method of scientific enquiry means that
experimental results can be duplicated all over the world.
As we know sceptics would say that this is meaningless because all we can test is
appearance not reality. And the experience of this appearance is subjective not
objective.
Another challenge to scepticism is called coherencism. This points out that it
usually makes more sense to accept what sense experience is telling us than not. You
could doubt that you are reading this page but really!? According to coherencism
our knowledge systems are like boats on the sea or cobwebs they cohere together
and do not fail so cannot be completely dismissed.
Against the sceptics include those who believe that there are certain basic beliefs
which are self-evident and do not need justification and so can be used to end the
82
infinite regress. Rationalist would say that analytic statements, e.g. 2+2=4, Òall
bachelors are unmarriedÓ, are true by definition and require no justification.
Some rationalists would include ÒI existÓ,Ó Murder is wrongÓ, Òevery cause has
an effectÓ and Òhumans have rightsÓ as foundational beliefs.
Sceptics would say other kinds of knowledge are not like maths and that analytical
statements donÕt really say anything new about the world.
Could this really be an elaborate dream? We do not question reality when we dream.
The experiment/game argument is a tricky one. That is why it has been used so
much in stories.
The Problem of Infinite Regress
Response
As a way of getting round this problem there is the coherence argument. Something
is true if it relates to other ÒtruthsÓ. You could say that to believe that I am
reading this page probably makes more sense (is more coherent) that thinking that I
am not. Another way of looking at this is to end the infinite regression by circling
back to the original statement so that there is no such thing as a foundational belief
- all beliefs interrelate and so can be used to support each other.
However circular arguments are usually dismissed by philosophers because they do
not demonstrate truth - they do not provide a firm foundation for belief. They are
in danger of producing ÒAlice in
WonderlandÓ results - they could be internally coherent but still absurd.
Remember at one time the flat earth-centred universe was a Òcoherent truthÓ.
83
Challenge of Scepticism - Conclusion
When all is said, Russell seem to be right that the sceptical view is Òimpossible to
reject and difficult to acceptÓ.
On the other hand scepticism finds it difficult to answer the charge of
impractical and self contradictory.
being
The Sale of The Sceptic
In his Sale of the philosophers about 175 CE Lucian pokes fun at some Greek
philosophers under the guise of having them put up for sale at an auction.
In the following passage the Sceptic Pyrrho is renamed Coppernob Ð we can but
speculate on the reason for the name change.
ZEUS.
WhoÕs left?
HERMES: This Sceptic here. Hey Coppernob! Come here and be
auctioned! Hurry up! Not many to sell you to Ð most of them
drifting off now. Still Ð any bids for this one?
BUYER:
Yes me. But tell me first, what do you know?
PYRRHIAS:
BUYER:
Nothing.
How do you mean, nothing?
PYRRHIAS:
I don't think there is at all.
84
are
BUYER:
Aren't we something?
PYRRHIAS:
BUYER:
Not even that you're somebody?
PYRRHIAS:
BUYER:
IÕm not even sure of that.
I'm much more doubtful about that.
What a state to be in! Well whatÕs the idea of these
scales?
PYRRHIAS:
I weigh arguments in them. I balance them until theyÕre
equal, and when I see theyÕre exactly alike and exactly the
same weight, then - ah, then! I donÕt know which is the
sounder.
BUYER:
What are you good at apart from that?
PYRRIAS:
BUYER:
Everything except catching a runaway slave.
And why canÕt you do that?
PYRRIAS: My good man I canÕt apprehend anything. *
BUYER: I don't suppose you can. You seem slow and stupid. Well,
what's the end of your knowledge?
PYRRHIAS:
BUYER:
YouÕll be unable to see or hear, you say?
PYRRHIAS:
BUYER:
Ignorance, deafness, and blindness.
And unable to judge or feel either. No better than a worm,
in fact.
I must buy you for that. How much shall we say for him?
85
HERMES: One Attic mina.
BUYER:
There you are. Well now, you - I've bought you, eh?
PYRRHIAS:
BUYER:
Nonsense! I have bought you, and I've paid my money.
PYRRHIAS:
BUYER:
I'm not sure.
I defer judgment, I'm considering the matter.
Look, you come with me - you're my slave.
PYRRHIAS:
Who can tell whether what you say is true?
BUYER: The auctioneer can. My mina can. These people here can.
PYRRHIAS:
Is there anybody here?
BUYER: I'm going to put you on the treadmill, then. IÕll show you I'm
boss - the hard way!
PYRRHIAS:
BUYER:
IÕll suspend decision on it.
Oh, ye gods! Look, I've already told you my decision,
HERMES: Stop dillydallying, you, and go with him - he's bought you.
Gentlemen, we invite you to come tomorrow when we will
be putting up ordinary people, workmen and tradesmen.
Lucian, ÒSale of the PhilosophersÓ, in Selected Works, tr. Bryan P. Reardon
(Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill, 1965), pp. 109-11 1.
(* In Greek this involves a pun on the word katalambano, which means both "to
seize" and "to understand.")
Activity
What does this scene try to point out about the position of
86
Absolute Sceptics? How does it do this?
To what extent do you agree with the playwright?
How might the sceptic defend herself?
How Do You Know, When You Know?
Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge. Epistemology is concerned primarily
with the kind of knowledge involved in truth-claims, that is, when the truth or
falsity of something is asserted. Propositional Knowledge.
Obviously, the kind of knowledge involved in a straightforward historical claim like
"I know that in fourteen hundred and ninety-two Columbus sailed the ocean blue" is
quite different from the kind of knowledge delivered through an introspective
intuition, as in "I know that I exist." And both of these are quite different from the
knowledge involved in the religious assertion, "I know that my Redeemer liveth." And
so on.
Both empiricism and rationalism provide answers to the question, "What is the basis
of knowledge?" - though in radically different ways.
Rationalism is the belief that at least some knowledge about reality can be acquired
through reason, independently of sense experience.
It is important here to stress, first, that the rationalist believes that only some
knowledge about reality can be acquired through reason alone. Even if you are a
strict rationalist, how do you know that swans are white and that in fourteen
hundred and ninety-two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue?
Second, we must stress that for rationalists reason is the source of at least some
of our knowledge about reality.
For example, we know that all barking dogs bark,
that a triangle has three sides, and in short, any statement of the form "A is A.'
Such statements are absolutely and universally and necessarily true. But that is
because they are true by definition. As such they have no bearing on reality, they
neither affirm nor deny the existence of anything, they must be true no matter
what.
87
Everyone agrees that such truths are known independently of sense experience; all
you have to do is look at the proposition to see that it must be true. The rationalist,
though, claims that at least some propositions which are about reality - which affirm
or deny the existence of something - may be known independently of sense
experience, through reason alone.
e.g. ÒEvery event must have a cause.Ó ÒIt is morally wrong to kill people
for the fun of it.Ó ÒAll individuals are endowed with basic rights.
Can you derive such universal and certain knowledge from the limited, fluctuating,
and relative evidence of sense experience? Where, then, does this knowledge come
from?
According to empiricism, all knowledge (at least "existential" knowledge, which
informs us about existence) is derived from the five senses.
Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz are usually called rationalists. Because all three
were Europeans (Descartes was French; Spinoza, Dutch; and Leibniz, German), they
are often called Continental Rationalists.
The movement developed by John Locke and continued by Berkeley and Hume on the
other hand, is generally called empiricism, because of its insistence upon the data of
experience (or empirical data) as the source of all knowledge. They are often called
British Empiricists - they were in fact English, Irish an Scottish respectively.
Modern empiricist philosophers sometimes talk of sense-data, that is, the
information immediately given by the senses. Empiricists claim that we cannot have
an idea about the world which cannot be traced back to sense experience. Can you?
Test Yourself
1
What is epistemology?
2
Carefully explain the difference between rationalists and
empiricists. Use examples to clarify the distinction between them.
carefully how they justify their position on knowledge.
3
Explain carefully the sceptical challenge.
4
In what way is scepticism necessary?
88
Explain
5
What are the different forms of philosophical scepticism?
6
What are the reasons for scepticism?
7
What responses can be made to these reasons?
8
Which position do you think is the most convincing - the
sceptical challenge or the responses - can we have certain
knowledge?
Give reasons for your answer.
UNIT:
TOPIC:
ISSUE:
Problems in Philosophy
Epistemology
The Challenge of Scepticism
Revision Exercise - Assessment Guidelines
LO1
-
Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of a chosen
problem or issue.
PC (a)
Present a detailed description of a chosen problem or
issue.
PC (b)
Review and make relevant reference to a range of sources.
LO2
-
Analyse in a reasoned and structured manner a chosen
problem or issue.
89
PC (a)
Present in a reasoned and structured manner two key
positions or arguments found in the problem or chosen
issue.
PC (b)
Analyse two key positions or arguments.
LO 3 Evaluate in a reasoned and structured manner a chosen
problem or issue.
PC (a)
Evaluate in a reasoned and structured manner two key
positions or arguments found in the problem or chosen
issue.
PC (b)
Present a detailed conclusion with supporting arguments.
You will have one hour, under controlled conditions, to answer the question.
Your script will be awarded a Pass/Fail on the learning outcomes. If all three are
passed, your script will then be marked and graded.
Higher Philosophy Unit Assessment
Date
Problems in Philosophy - Epistemology
ÒThere is no knowledge which can be demonstrated to be certain.Ó
To what extent do you agree with this statement?
25 Marks
---------------------------------------Remember to include some sources
1 Explain Epistemology
90
2
Examples of Different Kinds of Knowledge
3
Tri partite Definition of Knowledge - Then Empiricist (Tabula) Vs Rationalist
(Innate)
4
Describe the Sceptical Challenge(s)
5
Reasons For Sceptical Challenge - (Include Sources)
6
Responses To Sceptical Challenge - (Coherence + Foundationalism)
7
Conclusion based on the above - Russell + Plato appearance and reality , The
Sale of The Sceptic, Claimed Certainties - Maths, Analytical & Ethics
Statements, Descartes, How Informative are M, A & E Statements?, The
Necessity For Scepticism for Philosophy, Solipsism and The
Human
Experience
Test Yourself
1
What is epistemology?
2
Carefully explain the difference between rationalists and
empiricists. Use examples to clarify the distinction.
3
Explain carefully the sceptical challenge.
4
In what way is scepticism necessary?
5
What are the different forms of philosophical scepticism?
6
What are the reasons for scepticism?
7
What responses can be made to these reasons?
8
Which position do you think is the most convincing - the
sceptical challenge or the responses - can we have certain
knowledge?
Give reasons for your answer.
91
Hume & The Challenge of Scepticism
TASK
What did Plato and Descartes have in common - to what branch of philosophy did
they belong and to what challenge were they responding?
What is an empiricist?
TASK
In pairs, take each of these propositions in turn to defend and challenge swapping
over each time so that each of you has an opportunity to challenge and defend.
You should record each statement you make in defence or as a challenge.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I know the earth is a globe which revolves around the sun.
I know that the moon revolves around the earth
I think therefore I am.
I know that all bachelors are unmarried.
2+2=4
I know that the sun will rise tomorrow
I know that my lunch today will nourish me.
I know that salt tastes salty.
I know that ice is cold.
Activity
Read over the Russell excerpt.
92
According to Russell, what is the basic problem with empiricism.
Give examples.
What other philosophical issues does he raise?
We are already familiar with Plato's theory of reality and we should recall that his
image of the Divided Line represents as much a conception of knowledge as a
conception of reality. The object of authentic knowledge is what is, as opposed to
what is becoming.
Such knowledge is hardly possible in this life, where the soul is imprisoned in the
body, and where the body itself is a constant hindrance to the acquisition of
knowledge. When the soul is liberated from the body at death, the soul comes into
the possession of absolute knowledge. Until that time all we can do is cultivate as
much as possible the innate truths that the mind is born with, but which, as they are
"recollected," are invariably distorted by the world of Becoming, resulting in mere
opinions/beliefs, or relative knowledge.
Likewise, Descartes' theory of knowledge too, seeks to develop at least the
foundation of his philosophy apart from the input of the senses. He saw in
mathematics an especially good model for philosophical reasoning, and adopted
intuition and deduction as the principles of his philosophical method. He believed
that, in principle, it would be possible to unfold a complete system of knowledge by
the rigorous practising of this method. As with Plato, it is important to see that
with Descartes every attempt is made to exclude or minimise the illusory and
deceitful
intrusions of the senses.
Empiricism, with its doctrine that the mind is at birth a "blank tablet", rejects the
very starting point of rationalism.
It was said earlier that empiricism is the view which emphasises experience as the
source of knowledge. We must now explain more carefully what we mean here by
"experience."
What Is Empiricism?
93
There are many different sorts of experience, such as mystical experience, moral
experience, aesthetic experience, lonely experience, and wild experience. But here
we mean sense experience, that is, perceptions derived from the five senses: sight,
sound, touch, taste, and smell.
When empiricists say that experience is the basis of our knowledge, they mean
sense experience, and therefore that the five senses are the foundation of all our
knowledge.
As with rationalism, empiricism comes with varying emphases and in varying degrees.
But as a general definition we may say that empiricism is the view that all knowledge
of reality is derived from sense experience. This may be livened up somewhat by
the empiricist metaphor of the tabula rasa, or "blank tablet." It is a shorthand way
of expressing the empiricist denial that any ideas or even intellectual structure is
inscribed on the mind from birth-the mind is at birth a tabula rasa.
impressions,
Perceptions
which are vivid or lively sensations, or the immediate data of experiimpressions +
ence, and
ideas, which are sort of pale copies of impressions, and ideas
which provide the material for thinking. Hume goes on to distinguish
between simple and complex perceptions (both impressions and
ideas), but insists in any case on the priority of impressions over ideas:
First, we have sensations, and then, second, ideas which are based on
these sensations. The crucial point is that we have no ideas unless they
are derived from impressions, and this brings us to the crunch. For in
the derivation of all our ideas from sense data, Hume was much more
rigorous or consistent or radical than either Locke or Berkeley. This
radicalism shows up, first, in Hume's treatment of the idea of
substance, both material substance in the external world and mental
substance in the internal world.
It is natural to believe that there is Something, some mental
94
substance, which underlies our intellectual activities: How can there Hume's analysis
of
be thinking, etc., without something that does the thinking? Likewise,
substance
it is natural to believe that there is Something, some material substance, which underlies the sensible qualities in the external world:
How can there be qualities without something that is qualified? But a
"natural belief," as Hume calls it, for all its practical importance, is
some thing very different from rational knowledge based on experience. Since we have no sense impressions whatsoever of substance,
either external material substance or internal mental substance, we
242
Hume's "radical" empiricism is so-called because he applied the empiricist
á criterion of knowledge rigorously, consistently' and exclusively. Unlike previT*HE
knowl-
ous empiricists, he allowed no rationalistic cracks or back doors: Our
QUESTION
edge can extend absolutely no further than what is actually
disclosed in sense
OF
KNOWLEDGE experience.
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION
* St. Augustine has been quoted here as a great opponent of skepticism. In
another work, entitled On the Advantages of Believing, he argues that no practical
or intellectual progress can be expected from one who is unwilling ever to accept
certain claims on the authority of others. What do you think of this position? What
might be said for it and against it?
* How do you come out on the question of skepticism? If you are persuaded by the
arguments against skepticism, then what is the relevance, for epistemology, of the
95
relativity of reason, perception, and custom? (You might recall the discussion at the
end of Chapter I on living and dead options.)
Rationalist theories of knowledge are regarded by many as a bit naive and quaint.
However, the "tough-minded" philosophers have been given something of a jolt in
recent years.
The psycholinguistic research of Chomsky in particular has
resurrected the theory of innate ideas. Specifically, his work has brought to light
the presence of universal and innate intellectual structures which underlie all
language, and which explain the process of language-acquisition better
than the empirically oriented model of learning. Thus psycholinguis- 221
ties (which is concerned with the connection between the mind and
language) has emerged as an unexpected ally of the rationalist theory
of knowledge. THE
WAY
As two classic examples of rationalism we may mention Plato and Descartes. But now
we consider the epistomological side of their philosophies.
RATIONALISM (THE STRICT SENSE)
The view that knowledge of reality can be acquired through reason, independently of
sense experience.
96
THE RATIONALISM OF PLATO
A long with many other Greek philosophers, Plato believed that the n, which
distinguishes humans from the lower animals, cornreaso
prises the essential nature of the human being. (The classical definition of man as "a
rational animal" comes from these Greek philosophers.) Human good and happiness,
therefore, lie in the activity and fulfilment of the rational faculty. That is, they lie
in contemplation and knowledge. On the other hand, it will be recalled from our
earlier discussion that Plato believed that the only proper object of knowledge, or
the only thing that can really be known, is Being. This means that we can have no
real knowledge of the world about us, the relative and fluctuating world of
Becoming. Of this world we have only opinion,
not knowledge.
Now, Plato has Socrates announce in the Phaedo that not on y o real philosophers
have no fear of death, but they actually desire and look forward to it. In fact, real
philosophers view their lives as lifelong preparations for death. Why? Because as
long as we are in this world Why philosophers we are held back from the attainment
of real knowledge and therefore desire death happiness. And why is this? For one
thing, our bodies are a constant distraction from the higher pursuit of knowledge.
The pursuit of knowledge does, after all, require some time and attention, but it
seems that most of our time is taken up by the body: We must feed it, clothe it,
cleanse it, and pay all sorts of attention to it. For another, and this is more
important for the present point, as long as our souls are imprisoned in our bodies
they have a natural tendency (if not neces-
sity) to peer out, as it were, through the only windows of the prison, the five senses.
As a result, our souls become contaminated by the distortions, illusions, and
relativities of the sensible world.
Plato himself represents the twofold problem posed by the body as
follows:
Now take the acquisition of knowledge. Is the body a hindrance or not, if one takes
it into partnership to share an investigation? What I mean is this. Is there any
certainty in human sight and hearing, or is it true, as the poets are always dinning
into our ears, that we neither hear nor see anything accurately? Yet if these sense
97
are not clear and accurate, the rest can hardly be so, because they are all inferior
to the first two. Don't you agree?
Certainly.
Then when is it that the soul attains to truth? When it tries to
investigate anything with the help of the body, it is obviously led astray.
Quite so.
Is it not in the course of reflection, if at all, that the soul gets a clear view offacts
?
Yes.
Surely the soul can best reflect when it is free of all distractions such as hearing or
sight or pain or pleasure of any kind-that is, when it ignores the body and becomes
as far as possible independent, avoiding all physical contacts and associations as
much as it can, in its search for reality.
That is so.
Then here too-in despising the body and avoiding it, and endeavoring to become
independent-the philosopher's soul is ahead of all the rest.
It seems so.
Here are some more questions, Simmias. Do we recognize such a thing as absolute
uprightness?
Indeed we do.
And absolute beauty and goodness too?
Of course.
Have you ever seen any of these things with your eyes?
Certainly not, said he.
Well, have you ever apprehended them with any other bodily sense? By "them" I
mean not only absolute tallness or health or strength, but the real nature of any
given thing-what it actually
t
is. Is it through the body that we get the truest perception of them ?
Isn't it true that in any inquiry you are likely to attain more nearly to knowledge of
your object in proportion to the care and accuracy with which you have prepared
yourself to understand that object in itself?
98
Certainly.
Don't you think that the person who is likely to succeed in this
205
9
THE
WAY
OF
REASON
220
colossal challenge to them.
THE
QUESTION
CHAPTER 9 IN REVIEW
OF
KNOWLEDGE
SUMMARY
OF
BASIC IDEAS
REASON
Empiricism
Rationalism (strict sense)
Plato: Why philosophers desire death
Two bodily hindrances to knowledge
Innate ideas
Knowledge of recollection
Descartes' "geometrical" method
Intuitionism
99
Descartes' two operations of the mind
Intuition
Deduction
Psycholinguisties
The empirical theory of language-acquisition
Chomsky's theory of language-acquisition
TEST YOURSELF
1. True or false: Plato taught that we bring our ideas into this world from a
previous existence in an ideal world.
2. Rules for the Direction of the Mind was written by
3. According to Plato, how does sense experience help us to "recollect" ideas?
4. True or false: By "intUitiOD" Descartes meant a feeling or hunch about
something.
5. The phrase "linguistic universals" is employed by -. What does it mean?
6. True or false: To know something immediately is to know it through sense
experience.
7. According to Plato, why is absolute knowledge impossible in this life?
8. Why was Descartes especially attracted to mathematics?
FOR FURTHER READING
Julia Annas and Jonathan Barnes. The Modes of Scepticism: Ancient
Texts and Modern Interpretations. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Where does knowledge come from? What is the basis of knowledge?
100
The question of the origin of knowledge is one of the most import ant questions of
philosophy. In fact, it is a crucial question. As we have said already in the
introduction to Part 11, how you answer this question will have everything to do with
the rest of your philosophy.
TWO MAIN THEORIES ABOUT THE BASIS OF
KNOWLEDGE
Throughout the history of philosophy, thinkers have generally answered this
question in two ways. On the one side, we have those philosophers who, in one way or
another and in varying degrees, have emphasized reason as the source of knowledge.
On the other side, we have those philosophers who, in one way or another and in
varying degrees, have emphasized experience as the source of knowledge. The
positioi. stressing the role of the intellect or reason is called rationalism, and those
holding to this position are called rationalists (from the Latin word ratio, 4 4
reason"). The position stressing the role of experience is called empiricism, and
those holding this view are called empiricists (from the Greek empeiria,
"experience").
A special note is in order regarding the labels "rationalism" and
A crucial question:
What is the basis of knowledge?
Empiricism and
rationalism
202
"rationalist." This is because these terms, like so many other important
terms, bear more than one meaning. Here again we must distinguish between a loose
and a stricter sense of these terms. We
THE
have already encountered the loose sense of "rationalism" in the
101
QUESTION
OF Introduction. There we said that rationalism is a dominating interest in
KNOWLEDGE reasoning, reflecting, criticising, examining, and so on. This is what
we meant when we defined philosophy as the attempt to provide, within limits, an
essentially rational interpretation of reality as a whole, and when we characterised
all philosophers as rationalists.
Now, however, in the stricter or more technical sense of the word, rationalism is an
epistomological theory, specifically a theory about the basis of knowledge. Note,
then, that while a rationalist in the strict
have no rational grounds at all for talk about matter or mind! Just as
Berkeley dissolved Locke's material substance into a bundle of ideas
(colour, sound, taste), so Hume now dissolves Berkeley's mental
substance, the "1," into a bundle of ideas. As Hume says, the
dissolution of the one paves the way for the dissolution of the other.
From the Treatise of Human Nature:
Philosophers begin to be reconcll'd to the principle, that we have
no idea of external substance, distinct from the ideas of particular
qualities. This must pave the wayfor a like principle with regard
to the mind, that we have no notion of it, distinct from the
particular perceptions. . . .
There are some philosophers, who imagine we are every moment
intimately conscious of what we call our SELF,. that we feel its
102
existence and its continuance in existence; and are certain,
beyond the evidence of a demonstration, both of its perfect identity
and simplicity. The strongest sensation, the most violent passion,
say they, instead of distracting us from this view, only fix it the
more intensely, and make us consider their influence on self either
by their pain or pleasure. To attempt a farther proof of this were
to weaken its evidence; since no proof can be derlv'dfrom anyfact,
of which we are so intimately conscious; nor is there any thing, of
which we can be certain, if we doubt of this.
Unluckily all these positive assertions are contrary to that very experience, which is
pleaded for them, nor have we any idea of self, after the manner it is here
explain'd. For from what impression cou'd this idea be deriv'd? This question 'tls
impossible to answer without a manifest contradiction and absurdity; and yet 'tls a
question, which must necessarily be answer'd, if we wou'd have the idea of
selfpassfor clear and intelligible. It must be some one impression, that gives rise to
every real idea. But self or person is not any one impression, but that to which our
several impressions and ideas are suppos'd to have a reference. If any impression
gives rise to the idea of self, that impression must continue invariably the same,
thro' the whole course of our lives; since self is suppos'd to exist after that
manner. But there is no impression constant and invariable. Pain and pleasure, grief
and Joy, passions and sensations succeed each other, and never all exist at the same
time. It cannot, therefore, be from any of these impres-
244
THE BRITISH EMPIRICISTS ON SUBSTANCE
Locke
THE
QUESTION
103
OF
KNOWLEDGE
Berkeley
4
Hume
What am 1? I look within, in search of some enduring, stable reality-a self, an ego,
an "1." But all I can come up with is a passing parade of perceptions. We have come a
long way from Descartes', Locke's, and Berkeley's introspective intuition of mind,
the mental
substance!
But Hume is not through. The implications of his relentless and radical empiricism
touch every aspect of philosophy. A second important example is the concept of
causality. Again, do we not have a
Hume's analysis of natural belief in a causal connection that binds things together in
our causality experience? Is it not a universal and certain principle that every event
must have a cause? Hume answers again: Natural belief, Yes; rational knowledge, No.
Look at your experience once more. What do you actually perceive? What are your
impressions? Is it true that in a supposed causal relation, such as A causing B, we
have a perception of A coming before B, and we have a perception of A standing
next to B (or next to something which stands next to B), but none of this is
sufficient to explain a real causal connection between A and B: A could be before B,
and be next to B, but still not be the cause of B. What is required, in addition to
temporal succession and spatial proximity, is a necessary connection. And that we
don't perceive. It is a metaphysical figment without any rational justification
whatsoever.
The idea, then, of causation must be deriv'd from some relation among objects; and
that relation we must now endeavour to discover. I find in the first place, that
whatever objects are considered as causes or effects, are contiguous; and that
nothing can operate in a time or place, which is ever so little remov'dfrom those of
its existence. Tho' distant objects may sometimes seem productive o each other,
they are commonly found upon examination to be link'd by a chain of causes, which
are contiguous among themselves, and to the distant objects; and when in any
articular instance we cannot discover this connexion, we still p
104
presume it to exist. We may therefore consider the relation of CONTIGUITY as
essential to that of causation; at least may suppose it such, according to the general
opinion, till we can find a more proper occasion to clear up this matter, by examining
what objects are or are not susceptible of juxtaposition and conjunction.
The second relation I shall observe as essential to causes and effects, is not so
universally acknowledged, but is liable to some controversy. 'Tis that of PRIORITY
of time in the cause before the effect. Some pretend that 'tis not absolutely
necessary a cause shou'd precede its effect; but that any object or action, in the
very first moment of its existence, may exert its productive quality, and give rise to
another object or action, perfectly contemporary with itself. But beside that
experience in most instances seems to contradict his opinion, we may establish the
relation ofpriority by a kind of inference or reasoning. 'Tis an established maxim
both in natural and moral philosophy, that an object, which existsfor any time in
itsfull
perfection
without
producing
another,
is
not
its
sole
cause;butisassistedbysomeotherprinc' le,whichpushesltfrom IP
its state of inactivity, and makes it exert that energy, of which it was secretly
possessed. Now if any cause may be perfectly cotemporary with its effect, 'tis
certain, according to this maxim, that they must all of them be so; since any one of
them, which retards its operation for a single moment, exerts not itself at that very
individual time, in which it might have operated; and therefore is no proper cause.
The consequence of this wou'd be no less than the destruction of that succession of
causes, which we observe in the world; and indeed, the utter annihilation of time.
For if one cause were contemporary with its effect, and this effect with its effect,
and so on, 'tis plain there wou'd be no such thing as succession, and all objects must
be coexistent.
If this argument appear satisfactory, 'tis well. If not, I beg the reader to allow me
the same liberty, which I have us'd in the preceding case, of supposing it such. For
he shall find, that the affair is of no great importance.
Having thus discovered or suppos'd the two relations of contiguity and succession to
be essential to causes and effects, Ifind I am stopt short, and can proceed no
farther in considering any single instance of cause and effect. Motion in one body is
regarded upon impulse as the cause of motion in another. When we consider these
objects with the utmost attention, we find only that the one body approaches the
other; and that the motion of it precedes that of the other, but without any
sensible interval. 'Tis in vain to rack ourselves with farther thought and reflexion
upon this subject. We can go no farther in considering this particular instance.
Shou'd any one leave this instance, and pretend to define a cause, by saying it is
something productive of another, 'tis evident he wou'd say nothing. For what does
he mean by production? Can
105
245
9
THE
WAY
OF
EXPERIENCE
246
he give any definition of it, that will not be the same with that of
causation? If he can; I desire it may be produc'd. If he cannot; he
1? here runs in a circle, and gives a synonimous term instead of a
THE
definition.
QUESTION
OF Shall we then rest contented with these two relations of contiKNOWLEDGE guity and succession, as affording a complete idea of causation? By
no means. An object may be contiguous and prior to another, without being
considered as its cause. There is a NECESSARY CONNEXIONto be taken into
consideration; and that relation is of much greater importance, than any of the
other two abovemention'd.
Here again I turn the object on all sides, in order to discover the nature of this
necessary connexion, and find the impression, or impressions, from which its idea
may be deriv'd. When I cast my eye on the known qualities of objects, I
immediately discover that the relation of cause and effect depends not in the least
on them.
When I consider their relations, I can find none but those of contiguity and
succession; which I have already regarded as imperfect and unsatisfactory. 10
Hume's position is appropriately called phenomenalism. This is the
Phenomenalism view that all we can actually know is the phenomena or appearances
(phenomenon means, literally, "an appearance") that are presented to us in our
perceptions. For the time-honored view that substance (both material and mental)
is a metaphysical entity and that causality is a metaphysical connection, the
phenomenalist substitutes the view that they are no more than bundles of
perceptions: colors, sounds, pains, pleasures, location, succession, and the like.
These two pillars of traditional philosophizing now lay in dust before the chisel of
Hume's phenomenalism.
106
E0
nowl
Mi d,
erce i h@
A ISM
eb 0 d hat) disclosedinthe
It be
ionally known, is
If you find yourself thinking of Hume as a
skeptic, you are right.
Specifically, his is the sort of skepticism which denies the knowledge
of metaphysical principles and relations is possible, or what we called
"Relations of
ideas" andin Chapter 8 "philosophical skepticism." Perhaps the best way of
'.matters of fact"
of his
summarizing Hume's antimetaphysical skepticism is by means
own derivation of all possible knowledge from two, and only two,
10 Ibid., pp. 75-77 (slightly edited).
sources: "relations of ideas" and "matters of fact." The following two paragraphs
from Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding should be studied until the
distinction is appreciated:
All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds,
to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of Fact. Of thefirst kind are the sciences
of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic; and in short ' every affirmation which is
either intuitively or demonstratively certain. That the square of the hypothenuse is
equal to the square of the two sides, is a proposition which expresses a relation
between thesefigures. That three times five is equal to the half of thirty,
expresses a relation between these numbers. Propositions of this kind are
discoverable by the mere operation of thought, without dependence on what is
anywhere existent in the universe. Though there never were a circle or triangle in
nature, the truths demonstrated by Euclid would for ever retain their certainty and
evidence.
107
Matters offact, which are the second objects of human reason, are not ascertained
in the same manner; nor is our evidence of their truth, however great, of a like
nature with theforegoing. The contrary of every matter of fact is still possible;
because it can never imply a contradiction, and is conceived by the mind with the
same facility and distinctness, as if ever so comformable to reality. That the sun
will not rise to-morrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more
contradiction than the affirmation, that it will rise. We should in vain, therefore,
attempt to demonstrate its falsehood. Were it demonstrativelyfalse, it would imply
a contradiction, and could never be distinctly conceived by the mind.
247
THE
WAY
OF
EXPERIENCE
ma
rea but
specific ex
heit,"
David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, in Hume's Enquiries,
d
ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge, 2 ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902), pp. 25-26.
248
David Hume, who carried British empiricism to
its sceptical conclusion.
108
THE
QUESTION
OF
KNOWLEDGE
Our knowledge is either based on relations olf ideas, in which case it is certain but
has no connection with reality, as with "three times five is equal to half of thirty,"
which, though absolutely certain, is absolutely certain independently of anything in
the world of reality; or our knowledge is based on matters offact, in which case it
does inform us about the world of reality, as with "the sun will rise tomorrow, but
can never be certain because it is derived from a limited and passin 9 parade of
perceptions.
This same skeptical and antimetaphysical distinction is restated in the celebrated
outburst with which Hume concluded the Enquiry:
When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we
make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for
instance; let us ask, "Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or
number?" No. "Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter offact
and existence?" No. Commit it then to theflames: for it can contain nothing but
sophistry and illusion.12
12 Ibid., p. 165.
Hume's Treatise of Human Nature was first
published in 1739. The disappointed Hume 249
described it as having fallen "still-born from the
press," so poor was the response to it. It was
followed by the Enquiry Concerning Human THE
Understanding.
WAY
109
A
OF
EXPERIENCE
TREATISE
0F
I-Itim@tii Nattix-e:
BEING
An A T T r?,i P T to introduce the expt.riznetital @lethod of
INT0
MORAL, SUBJECTS.
R.r,; te,,,p"um felic;taf, ubi fentire, lux VOID; lux lewt;as, doe liet. I'ACIT.
BOOK 1.
OF TIIE
U N D E R S'I'A N 1) I N G.
L 0 NI) ON:
I'ri,ited for joi@@, Noc)@,,, ;it the
Morcer's-Cl,opol in C,4eapftde.
near
,@j L)Cuxx-x lx.-
Again, there is no halfway house: Our ideas are either certain but uninformative, or
they are informative but never certain. And there we are stuck. But not for long.
CHAPTER 10 IN REVIEW
110
SUMMARY
nipiricism is the epistemological claim that the mind at birth is a tablet" and that all
knowledge (exclusive of logical and atical knowledge) is derived ultimately from
sense experience.
hapter we considered three versions of rationalism,
250
In the previous c
ions of empiri-
and in the present chapter we considered three vers
cism.
rigin in Greek philosophy and is most
THE
QUESTION
Classical empiricism has its o
homas Aquinas. It
ristotle and@ later St. T
OF
notably associated with A
Form-philosophy, wherein the
KNOWLEDGE
will be recalled that Aristotle's is a
essence of things.
object of knowledge is identified with the abiding
Unlike Plato, Aristotle believed that this essence is in particular things, and thus
that it is with particular things that we must begin. From the particulars the mind
is able to form a universal concept, which corresponds to the common essence in the
particulars, and which guides knowledge and discourse amidst the flux and
multiplicity of the sensible world. St. Thomas introduced the intellectual faculty of
abstraction, whereby the mind is enabled to lift the universal features from
particulars, leaving behind in the particulars all that is not essential to them.
In some ways Locke is the giant of all empiricists, and certainly the
one who set the empiricist agenda for the modern period. He began his famous
Essay Concerning Human Understanding with a scathing rebuttal to the doctrine of
innate ideas. In place of innate ideas Locke substitutes experience. This comes in
two forms: sensation, our experience of external objects, and reflection, our
experience of the internal workings of our minds. From sensation and reflection we
form simple ideas, and from simple ideas the mind compounds complex ideas. In all
of this the active and passive functions of the mind should be distinguished. Very
111
important is Locke's epistemological or representative dualism, whereby our ideas
are held to convey to us a likeness of the realities external to our minds: the
perception of a tree, and the actual tree "out there." This, however, involves a great
problem known as the egocentric predicament: If all we can know directly is our own
ideas, how can we ever know whether they correspond to anything that is not an
idea?
Locke believed in material and mental substance; Berkeley believed at least in
mental substance; but Hume's radical empiricism pushes everything further. All we
have are perceptions, divided into lively impressions and pale ideas; that's all we
have. The timehonored concept of underlying but unpereeived substance is,
therefore, an unjustified figment, as is also the concept of causality, which, in its
pre-Humean form, was thought to involve some unpereeived metaphysical necessity.
Hume's phenomenalism, which reduces knowledge to phenomena or appearances or
bundles of ideas, represents a serious skepticism: A proposition is either a mere
relation of ideas ("A is A"), which says nothing about reality itself, or it is a matter
of fact ("Swans are white"), which can never be known with certitude because of the
limitations of our perceptions.
250
In the previous chapter we considered three versions of rationalism, and
in the present chapter we considered three versions of empiricism.
THE
Classical empiricism has its origin in Greek philosophy and is most
QUESTION
OF notably associated with Aristotle and, later St. Thomas Aquinas. It
KNOWLEDGE will be recalled that Aristotle's is a Form-philosophy, wherein the
object of knowledge is identified with the abiding essence of things.
Unlike Plato, Aristotle believed that this essence is in particular things, and thus
that it is with particular things that we must begin.
From the particulars the mind is able to form a universal concept, which corresponds
to the common essence in the particulars, and which guides knowledge and discourse
amidst the flux and multiplicity of the sensible world. St. Thomas introduced the
intellectual faculty of abstraction, whereby the mind is enabled to lift the universal
features from particulars, leaving behind in the particulars all that is not essential
to them.
In some ways Locke is the giant of all empiricists, and certainly the one who set the
empiricist agenda for the modern period. He began his famous Essay Concerning
Human Understanding with a scathing rebuttal to the doctrine of innate ideas. In
place of innate ideas Locke substitutes experience. This comes in two forms:
sensation, our experience of external objects, and reflection, our experience of the
112
internal workings of our minds. From sensation and reflection we form simple ideas,
and from simple ideas the mind compounds complex ideas. In all of this the active
and passive functions of the mind should be distinguished. Very important is
Locke's epistemological or representative dualism, whereby our ideas are held to
convey to us a likeness of the realities external to our minds: the perception of a
tree, and the actual tree "out there." This, however, involves a great problem known
as the egocentric predicament: If all we can know directly is our own ideas, how can
we ever know whether they correspond to anything that is not an idea?
Locke believed in material and mental
substance; Berkeley believed at least in
mental substance; but Hume's radical empiricism pushes everything further. All we
have are perceptions, divided into lively impressions and pale ideas; that's all we
have. The timehonored concept of underlying but unpereeived substance is,
therefore, an unjustified figment, as is also the concept of causality, which, in its
pre-Humean form, was thought to involve some unpereeived metaphysical necessity.
Hume's phenomenalism, which reduces knowledge to phenomena or appearances or
"bundles of ideas," represents a serious skepticism: A proposition is either a mere
relation of ideas ("A is A"), which says nothing about reality itself, or it is a matter
of fact ("Swans are white"), which can never be known with certitude because of the
limitations of our perceptions.
BASIC IDEAS
Empiricism
Tabula rasa
THE
251
?
WAY
OF
Universal concepts
EXPERIENCE
Intellectual abstraction
Aristotle and St. Thomas: Three stages of knowledge
Locke's ar uments against innate ideas
9
Locke: Experience, sensation, and reflection
Simple and complex ideas
The mind as passive and active
Epistemological dualism, or the representative theory of knowledge
113
The egocentric predicament
Hume: Perceptions, impressions, and ideas
Hume's analysis of substance
Hume's analysis of causality
Phenomenalism
Relations of ideas and matters of fact
TEST YOURSELF
1.
True or false: Fido is an abstraction.
2. The impossibility of escaping the world of our own ideas is called
3. Why does Hume have little time for talk about, say, "necessary connections" or
substances?
4. Name a few of Locke's arguments against innate ideas.
5. Why, for St. Thomas, is the singular prior to the universal in one way, but the
universal prior to the singular in another way?
6. What is the empiricist's attitude toward a claim such as "All barking dogs
bark"?
7. What role does induction play in Aristotle's view of knowledge?
8. Who wrote A Treatise of Human Nature?
9. Why is Hume's empiricism called radical empiricism?
inAL
es, believed in mi
252
10. True or false: Locke, like Deseart nd or mental
114
substance.
THE
QUESTION QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION
OF
KNOWLEDGE 0 When
traditions, such
considering
thinkers
who
belong
to
the
same
as the empiricist tradition, be able to identify what they hold in common and where
they differ. Can you compare in this way the
thinkers in this chapter?
& What do you yourself make of the egocentric predicament? Is it a genuine
problem? If not, why not9 If so, how do you propose to
escape the skepticism inherent in it?
á What do you think about Hume's rejection of mind (as a mental substance) or
causality (as a metaphysical connection)? Does it make any difference to your
philosophical perspective? To your practical life?
FOR FURTHER READING
Robert R. Ammerman and Marcus G. Singer (eds.). Belief, Knowledge, and Truth:
Readings in the Theory of Knowledge. New York: Scribners, 1970. A collection of
traditional, recent, and important statements on all aspects of knowledge, including
some encountered
in our chapter.
Bruce Aune. Rationalism, Empiricism, and Pragmatism: An Introduction. New York:
Random House, 1970. Chs. 2-3. Discussions oriented to beginners on "Hume and
Empiricism" and "Contemporary
Emp racism.
V. C. Chappel (ed.). Hume: A Collection of Critical Essays. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor
Books, 1966. An anthology of advanced essays on Hume's philosophy, including
issues considered in our chapter.
115
Frederick Copleston. A History of Philosophy. Baltimore: Newman Press, 19461974. 1, Ch. 29; 11, Ch. 38; V, Ch. 4-6 and 14-15. Authoritative accounts of the
empiricist epistemologies of' Aristotle, St. Thomas, Locke, and Hume, by a
recognized historian of philosophy.
A. C. Ewing. The Fundamental Questions of Philosophy. New York: Collier Books,
1962. Ch. 2. A beginner's discussion of the issue between rationalism and
empiricism ("The 'A Priori' and the Empirical") by an intuitionist philosopher.
Antony Flew. Hume 5 s Philosophy of Belief. A Study of His First Inquiry. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961. A standard treatment of the issues in Hume's
Inqutry, including relations of ideas and matters of fact, the nature of empirical
belief, the idea of necessary connection, etc.
252
10. True or false: Locke, like Deseartes, believed in mind or mental
substance.
THE
QUESTION QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION
OF
KNOWLEDGE
á When considering thinkers who belong to the same traditions, such as the
empiricist tradition, be able to identify what they hold in common and where they
differ. Can you compare in this way the thinkers in this chapter?
á What do you yourself make of the egocentric predicament? Is it a genuine
problem? If not, why not? If so, how do you propose to escape the skepticism
inherent in it?
á What do you think about Hume's rejection of mind (as a mental substance) or
causality (as a metaphysical connection)? Does it make any difference to your
philosophical perspective? To your practical life?
FOR FURTHER READING
Robert R. Ammerman and Marcus G. Singer (eds.). Belief, Knowledge, and Truth:
Readings in the Theory of Knowledge. New York: Seribners, 1970. A collection of
traditional, recent, and important statements on all aspects of knowledge, including
some encountered in our chapter.
116
Bruce Aune. Rationalism, Empiricism, and Pragmatism: An Introduction. New York:
Random House, 1970. Chs. 2-3. Discussions oriented to beginners on "Hume and
Empiricism" and "Contemporary Empiricism.
V. C. Chappel (ed.). Hume: A Collection of Critical Essays. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor
Books, 1966. An anthology of advanced essays on Hume's philosophy, including
issues considered in our chapter.
Frederick Copleston. A History of Philosophy. Baltimore: Newman Press, 19461974. 1, Ch. 29; 11, Ch. 38; V, Ch. 4-6 and 14-15. Authoritative accounts of the
empiricist epistemologies of' Aristotle, St. Thomas, Locke, and Hume, by a
recognized historian of philosophy.
A. C. Ewing. The Fundamental Questions of Philosophy. New York: Collier Books,
1962. Ch. 2. A beginner's discussion of the issue between rationalism and
empiricism ("The 'A Priori' and the Empirical") by an intuitionist philosopher.
Antony Flew. Hume's Philosophy of Belief. A Study of His First Inquiry. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961. A standard treatment of the issues in Hume's
Inquiry, including relations of ideas and matters of fact, the nature of empirical
belief, the idea of necessary connection, etc.
We began this part of the book with a chapter on doubt, and it is fitting to conclude
with a chapter on certainty. To see that certainty really does pose a problem, just
ask yourself whether you are certain of any of the following propositions, and
whether you are certain about them in different ways:
256
19
chapter we will consider the problem in only one of its aspects, but,
philosophically, a very basic one. Still more specifically, we will
discuss one philosopher's attempt to account for certainty, especially
THE in light of the preceding chapter. A warning: This may not be easy
QUESTION going, and the quoted material will be a good challenge.
OF
KNOWLEDGE
KANT AND HUME
"I openly confess my recollection of David Hume was the very thing which many
years ago first interrupted my dogmatic slumber and gave my investigations in the
field of speculative philosophy a quite new direction."' Thus spoke the German
117
philosopher Immanuel Kant2 (1724-1804), who marks a turning point in modern
epistemology.
Kant observed that there must be something radically wrong with the whole way of
thinking that led finally to the phenomenalism and skepticism of Hume. For, Kant
says, I am certain of some of the truths which Hume called "matters of fact." He
cites, as an example, all mathematical propositions, such as 7 + 5 = 12 (though most
philosophers now regard mathematical truths to be true by definition); from natural
science he cites as an example Newton's Third Law of Motion, that in all motion
action and reaction must always be equal; and from metaphysics he cites the
principle of causality, that every event must have a cause. For Kant it was not a
question of whether we possess such knowledge but how. In his explanation of how
propositions can be at once genuinely informative about reality and absolutely
certain,
Kant signals an altogether different approach to the problem and
establishes himself as one of the greatest epistemologists of all time.
SOME IMPORTANT TERMINOLOGY
But, to begin at the beginning, it is necessary to study some terminology which Kant himself introduced into philosophical discussion.
First, the distinction between a priori knowledge and a posterior
A priori and a knowledge. You can pretty much guess the meaning of these Latin
posteriors terms just by looking at them. A priori knowledge is knowledge
which
knowledge comes before (prior to) sense experience and is therefore
independent
of sense experience. This, of course, is the emphasis of the rationalist.
A posteriors knowledge is knowledge which comes after (posterior to)
sense experience and is therefore dependent on sense experience. This
is the empiricist emphasis.
Second, we have the distinction between analytic and synthetic
Immanuel Kant, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, tr. Lewis W.
Beck
(Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill, 1950), p. 8.
Rhymes with font.
Knowledge
257
118
a priory
a posteriors THE
PROBLEM
Derived independently Derived through OF CERTAINTY
of sense experience sense experience
knowledge. Analytic knowledge is another way of expressing Hume's 4 4 relation of
ideas." When this kind of knowledge is expressed in a proposition, the predicate is
contained already in the subject. Examples are: "The sum of the angles of any
triangle is 180 degrees"; "All barking dogs bark"; or any proposition of the form "A
is A" (the predicate "A" is contained already in the subject "A"). Now all such
knowledge or propositions have to be true. For they are true by definition, or to say
the same thing, they are logically true, and this means that you could not deny them
without self-contradiction. Do you recall the Law of Identity from the Three Laws
of Thought? Who in their right minds would be interested in affirming that A is not
A? (Such statements are sometimes called tautologies or redundancies.) Now no one
questions the absolute truth of analytic propositions. Rationalists and empiricists
alike agree that such propositions must be true no matter what. On the other hand,
it is important to see that such truths do not really tell us anything about reality.
They neither affirm nor deny the actual existence of anything. The proposition "AR
barking dogs bark" is necessarily true whether or not there are any dogs, or, for
that matter, whether or not there is an hing. A statement like "Afi barking dogs Yt
bark" only means "If there are any barking dogs, then they bark." The truth of
these propositions is, then, a pn'ori and utterly independent of sense experience and
of the sensible world itself.
Analytic and
synthetic
knowledge
119
analytic
synthetic
True by definition, but Not logica @y certain,
not bearing on reality but bearing on reality
E.g., "Rectangles have E@g "It s snowing in
four sides.
Anchorage Alaska."
Synthetic knowledge, on the other hand, corresponds to Hume's
matters of fact." In synthetic propositions, the predicate adds
258
something to the subject, and thus two ideas are "synthesized" in the
proposition. Examples are: "Water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit";
"Dogs bark"; and any proposition of the form "A is B" (the predicate
THE
"B" amplifies the subject "A"). In this way a synthetic proposition
QUESTION
OF affirms or denies the existence of something (and is therefore someKNOWLEDGE
times called an "existential" proposition); it informs us about things;
it really does tell us something about the actual universe.
IS THERE SYNTHETIC A PRIORI KNOWLEDGE?
Now we have just seen that everyone, rationalists and empiricists both, accepts the
absolute truth of analytic propositions as a priory' certain. It is also clear that few
rationalists have ever insisted that sense experience plays absolutely no role
whatsoever in the acquisition of synthetic knowledge. Just consider: Even if you are
the staunchest rationalist, how do you know that swans are white? that in fourteen
hundred and ninety-two Columbus sailed the ocean blue? Obviously there is much
about the actual world that we could not possibly know except in an a posteriors
way: making observations, lighting bunsen burners, taking field trips, and the like.
Everyone admits this.
120
It turns out then that both rationalists and empiricists accept analytic propositions
as a priori certain, and that they both accept at least some synthetic propositions as
a posteriors probable. The real question and the real issue between rationalists and
empiricists is this: Can we possess any knowledge that is both a priori certain and
synthetically informative? Is there such a thing as synthetic a priori knowledge?
This is a crucial question, and how you answer it will make all the difference to your
general philosophical perspective.
SYNTHETIC A PRIORI, A CRUCIAL QUESTION
One of the
question of
propositions
nonetheless,
questions that divides philosophers into two different camps is the
synthetic a priori knowledge: Is it possible to know synthetic
with a priori certainty? Are there any nonanalytic truths that are,
universally and necessarily true?
s we already have seen, Kant answered the question of synthetic
Kant's Copernican a priori knowledge with a resounding Yes. But his explanation is
revolution:
hardly what traditional rationalists would have expected-or
accepted.
Experience
Kant turned the epistemological world upside-down. In fact, he
dependenton
likened his contribution to the Copernican revolution, which, by
concepts radically shifting our viewpoint (the sun does not go around the earth,
but the earth goes around the sun), resulted immediately in a superior
Descartes Evaluation (LO 3)
It is important to include evaluation into your essay. As well as knowledge &
Understanding, and Analysis you are required to Evaluate - weigh up the arguments
and the implications of arguments. Usually invited to evaluate by some standard
formula, ÒTo what extent would you agree that, How far is it the case that,
DiscussÓ and so on.
NB - Even if the question does not do this, you still have to do it!
Descartes
121
+ve
-ve
Looked at the Big Questions for life
What can I know, what is real and
what am I - ambitious
Detached - lacking practical help
Human -universal questions
Method of Doubt - playing sceptics
Did not force through
at their own game - testing methodology Method of Doubt
= scientific enquiry to this day.
The Demon is pure genius
Never really gets rid of the Demon
Autonomy of thought
Challenge to authority and
Òcommon senseÓ
Circle
God dragged in to make arguments work
Dodgy proofs for God - Cartesian
ÒI clearly and distinctly grasp the idea of
God
Began Modern Philosophy
distand scientific enquiry into humanity
God has given me the ability to clearly and
inctly grasp.Ó
ÒI think therefore I amÓ - one of the
great discoveries in thought
Cogito = circular argument
Cogito = a dead end
The wax example beautiful and
deception of the
persuasive illustration
Never
really
dismisses
the
senses
Never really demonstrates
distinction
the
clear
between waking and dreaming
Relies
demonstrating
demonstrate the reliability of
memory
122
on
memory for testing and
but does not test or
Cartesian Dualism difficult to defend
ÒWith the careful application of his method of doubt, Descartes concludes
Meditations VI
having achieved the certainty he was looking forÓ.
To what extent would you agree with this statement? ( 25 Marks)
ÒBy the end of Meditations VI, Descartes has clearly and distinctly
demonstrated that the
world is as he thinks it to be.Ó
How far would you agree with this statement? ( 25 Marks)
ÒBy the end of Meditations VI, Descartes has clearly and distinctly
demonstrated that the
world is as he thinks it to be.Ó
How far would you agree with this statement? ( 25 Marks)
ÒBy the end of Meditations VI, Descartes has clearly and distinctly
demonstrated that the
world is as he thinks it to be.Ó
How far would you agree with this statement? ( 25 Marks)
ÒBy the end of Meditations VI, Descartes has clearly and distinctly
demonstrated that the
world is as he thinks it to be.Ó
How far would you agree with this statement? ( 25 Marks)
ÒBy the end of Meditations VI, Descartes has clearly and distinctly
demonstrated that the
world is as he thinks it to be.Ó
How far would you agree with this statement? ( 25 Marks)
123
ÒBy the end of Meditations VI, Descartes has clearly and distinctly
demonstrated that the
world is as he thinks it to be.Ó
How far would you agree with this statement? ( 25 Marks)
ÒBy the end of Meditations VI, Descartes has clearly and distinctly
demonstrated that the
world is as he thinks it to be.Ó
How far would you agree with this statement? ( 25 Marks)
ÒBy the end of Meditations VI, Descartes has clearly and distinctly
demonstrated that the
world is as he thinks it to be.Ó
How far would you agree with this statement? ( 25 Marks)
Quick Quiz Post Sheet 18
1
An empiricist is
a)
someone who doubts everything
b)
someone who doubts the reason for
beliefs
c)
someone who relies on reason for
knowledge
d)
someone who relies on the senses for
knowledge
2
Hume was an empiricist.
3
According to Hume Impressions are vivid actual experiences
and ideas are pale copies of impressions.
T/F
T/F
4
Hume was inquiring into innate thoughts.
T/F
5
Descartes believed that the mind was a tabula rasa.
T/F
6
Hume dismissed a) Mathematical statements as
meaningless.
124
T/F
7
Hume dismissed experimental reasoning.
T/F
8
9
The original film script for the ÒMatrixÓ an
example of a complex idea.
T/F
Hume was a sceptic.
T/F
Questions after page 20
1
What is epistemology?
2
What is the cognitive process?
3
What is common-sense scepticism?
4
What are the advantages of this position?
5
What are the different positions which can be taken within
philosophical scepticism?
6
Give examples of each and explain why these positions are taken.
7
Which position is sometimes described as incoherent and why?
8
Where does Plato fit into this?
9 Where does Descartes fit into this?
Check Your Knowledge again
Quick Quiz Post Sheet 18
1
An empiricist is
a)
b)
c)
d)
someone who doubts everything
someone who doubts the reason for
beliefs
someone who relies on reason for
knowledge
someone who relies on the senses for
knowledge
125
2
Hume was an empiricist.
T/F
3
According to Hume Impressions are vivid actual experiences
and ideas are pale copies of impressions.
T/F
4
Hume was inquiring into innate thoughts.
T/F
5
Rationalists believed that the mind is a Òtabula rasaÓ.
T/F
6
Hume dismissed mathematical statements as
meaningless.
T/F
7
Hume dismissed experimental reasoning.
8
The original film script for the ÒMatrixÓ is an
example of a complex idea.
T/F
9
Hume was a sceptic.
T/F
T/F
Revision Exercises on Hume So Far..
Read or Reread Sheets -20.
1 Why is Hume an important figure for psychology as well as philosophy?
2 He is described as an empiricist and a sceptic - why?
3 Identify four sources for knowledge.
4 What is the problem with strict rationalism? Give examples to illustrate this.
5 What is the problem with strict empiricism? Give examples to illustrate this.
6 Why do some philosophers say that scepticism is incoherent and contradictory?
7 What is Hume's Fork? Why was philosophy never the same again?
8 What sort of knowledge does Hume deny?
9 Why did Hume say thinking was either impression or idea? What is the
difference? What
are the problems with this?
10 What is the Missing Shade of Blue, what does it illustrate an what was HumeÕs
response?
126
Philosophical Problem 1
THE COW IN THE FIELD
Farmer Field is concerned about his prize cow, Daisy. In fact, he is so concerned
that when his dairyman tells him that Daisy is in the field happily grazing, he says he
needs to know for certain. He doesn't want just to have a 99 per cent idea that
Daisy is safe, he wants to be able to say that he knows Daisy is okay.
Farmer Field goes out to the field and standing by the gate sees in the distance,
behind some trees, a white and black shape that he recognises as his favourite cow.
He goes back to the dairy and tells his
friend that he knows Daisy is in the field.
At this point, does Farmer Field really know it?
The dairyman says he will check too, and goes to the field. There he finds Daisy,
having a nap in a hollow, behind a bush, well out of sight of the gate. He also spots a
large piece of black and white paper that has got caught in a tree.
Think and Respond
What branch of philosophy does this problem belong to?
Daisy is in the field, as Farmer Field thought, but was he right to say that he knew
she was?
Explain your answer.
Philosophical Problem 2
THE TUCK-SHOP DILEMMA
Two girls have been caught climbing through the school tuck-shop window. Dr Gibb,
the headmistress, tells them sternly to confess to being the long-suspected tuck-
127
shop thieves. They will not. Then the good doctor sends one of the girls out and
speaks in private to the other.
ÔJane, it would be much better if you admit things. If you do, then I will be able to
reduce your punishment to being suspended for the rest of term.' 'But I didn't do
it,'wails the unfortunate girl.
'If you really didn't do it, then you need fear nothing. But if Janet tells me that
you were both stealing and you've lied to me, I shall make sure you are expelled!
Now go next door, tell Janet to come in, and wait on your own to think about what
I've said.'
Dr Gibb then calls Janet into her study and says much the same thing, only leaving
her to think things over in a different room.
When half an hour is up, she asks Jane if she is now prepared to admit to stealing
from the tuck shop.
Think and Respond
What branch of philosophy does this problem belong to?
Irrespective of whether she is guilty or not, what should Jane do to minimise her
punishment if
a)
she can talk to Janet first
b)
she is kept isolated from Janet?
WHAT MAKES PHILOSOPHY DIFFERENT?
If we take an historical area and try to see how this would raise philosophical
questions.....
128
Who killed President Kennedy?
This is an historical question. In looking at it people are concerned with what took
place in Dallas Texas in November 1963. In relation to this if we asked the question
ÒWhat really exists (or existed)?Ó - the answer would include....
the body of John F Kennedy
the cars in the motorcade
Deally Plaza
the book depository
the bullets
They would also refer to the event of the assassination of the president.
Is this event different from the individual elements listed above?
A mathematician might be concerned with questions like - what is the square root of
-7? or - what is the highest possible prime number?
From a philosopherÕs point of view the basic question is - what is a number? Do
numbers exist in the same way guns and bullets do.
The philosophical question - Òwhat really exists?Ó
presents problems which
philosophers try to cope with. There may be a wrinkle in a carpet but does this
wrinkle exist as well as the carpet? Is there something in addition to the hall,
classrooms, toilets and so on which we would call North Berwick High School?
If historians ask questions like Who killed Kennedy? and How big was the British
army in 1914? - mathematicians consider what the square root of a negative is artists ask if modern art is good art, philosophers consider questions such as
ÔWhat are events?Õ, ÔWhat are numbers?Õ and ÔWhat is art?Õ
129
Revision Activity 1
So what do you think makes a question philosophical?
Question
Philosopher
Mathematician
Physicists
Psychologist
Historian
Man/woman Is it wrong to drink and drive?
in a pub
Police person
Artist
In the above exercise, copy out the chart and under the ÒQuestionÓ heading write
two examples of questions for each discipline.
Next under the ÒPhilosopherÓ heading for each case write down the
PhilosopherÕs perspective - what would be the important philosophical
question?
Use the reading on the previous page to help you with this task.
Philosophy is not just about how to think however, it is about how to live.
130
Philosophy takes a closer look at the ideas behind how we live our lives. What we
think is true affects our views of ourselves and how we treat other people in the
world. We all have ideas in our heads about ourselves, other people and the world.
These ideas have to come from somewhere.
That is philosophy - it is about ideas - ideas about the world, ideas about people and
ideas about how to live.
The word ÒphilosophyÓ means Òlover of wisdomÓ. Philosophy began as a mixture of
science, theology, magic and ethics. Early philosophers
wanted to discover
order in the universe.
Logic
No matter what branch of philosophy you are inquiring into, the process used is
logical thought.
Logic is the skeleton on which the flesh of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and all
the rest hang. Or to use another analogy a scientist would use experiments a
philosopher uses logic. So logic is fundamental to philosophical enquiry. A
philosopher tests an argument using logic just as a scientist uses experiments to
test an hypothesis.
The strength of philosophical arguments are tested by logical thought just as the
strengths of hypotheses are tested by experiments.
LetÕs suppose for once that some things are obviously true - that 1=1=2. A toddler
might say Òone what?Ó but we know what these symbols mean and we accept the
statement as true.
If you are actually standing outside and you feel little droplets of water fall on you
head in a continuous manner then you are unlikely to challenge the statement that
Òit is rainingÓ. You would doubt the sanity of anyone who did.
131
But there are many, many beliefs held by us which do not resemble the above. Some
beliefs, perhaps most, are held to be true because we accept some other belief
which we think support them.
We infer some beliefs to be true because of others others which we have previously
accepted.
Logic is about what we can infer to be true from a collection of facts, statements or
beliefs.
For example, we have seen a large number of black crows, we have never seen a crow
that is not black. From this we infer that all crows are black. In experiments we
have seen copper sulphate lose its blue colour when heated and so we infer that this
is always the case.
If we look at the difference between logic and epistemology it might help. When
faced with a set of beliefs A,B, C and D - the epistemologist would ask ÒCan I know
if beliefs A, B, C and D are true?Ó The logician would ask. ÒIf A, B, C and D are
true, what else can I know? What else can be inferred from A, B, C and D if they
are true?Ó
When faced with a conclusion the logician does not ask if the conclusion is true but
does this conclusion necessarily follow from the premises?
All men are humans. (Major premise)
Socrates is a man.
(Minor premise)
Therefore Socrates is human.(Conclusion)
The form is
all pÕs are q.
r is a p.
Therefore r is a q.
So logic is the study of valid inference.
Revision Activity 2
What is logic?
Why is logic important?
132
What question does a logician ask?
Write down three examples of logical arguments.
Video - What is philosophy? (And what good is it anyway?)
The Philosophy of Boxing
1
On what basis is the acceptability of boxing questioned?
2
What is Fleur FisherÕs premise?
3
What is her conclusion?
4
What is her argument?
5
Why does Barry McGuigan say her argument is inconsistent?
6
What according to Fisher makes boxing different (and so her
argument consistent)?
7
What is the Òresponsibility of official sporting bodiesÓ?
8
What does Barry McGuigan use to support his argument?
9
What is empirical evidence?
10 In what way is it argued that boxing is a benefit to society?
11 How is this argument attacked?
12 What is important about consequences and significances?
13 What is important about philosophy?
133
14 What makes philosophy different?
15 It is less concerned with _______ than __________ .
16 What does philosophy teach?
17 What is the first argument for the effect of boxing on spectators?
18 What is the argument for a positive effect on spectators?
19 What does Roy Hattersley argue?
20 What does he use to support his argument?
21 What is meant by rationalise?
22 What is important about the use of analogies to support or attack
an argument
23 What is the Òbig philosophical questionÓ which is raised?
24 What is a libertarian?
25 What is a principle?
26 What is the principle underlying the right to choose?
27 What is a paradox?
28 What is the principle which underlies paternalism?
29 What is moral corruption?
After the video
Give some examples of paternalism.
134
Who Am I? - The Question of Identity
Frank Zappa once asked the someone the question ÒWhatÕs the filthiest part of
your body?Ó before he got an answer Zappa said ÒI think itÕs your mind.Ó
If someone said to you that your most attractive feature was your mind would you
be offended?
Are we just physical or is there more?
Well who are you exactly? Imagine the scene in a cheap soap - a hospital bed on
which the patient lies unconscious, head swathed in bandages. Slowly s/he comes
round .. ÒWhere am I?Ó is usually the first question - as if there are not enough
clues. Sometimes the plot line requires memory loss in which case we move on to
ÒWho am I?Ó
You donÕt need to suffer from amnesia to ask this question. Maybe you catch a
glimpse of yourself in a mirror or perhaps the question just arises from within. Who
am I exactly? How do I know who I am? How can I know that I am the same person
I was yesterday? Do I have a soul? What will happen when I die?
Activity 11
If you had to say who you were how would you do that? What is it that makes you a
unique individual. Imagine you wake up in a hospital bed like our soap character,
what answers would you be looking for in answering the question - ÒWho am I?Ó
135
Mind & Body
In Biblical terms humans are both spiritual and physical. This allows the opportunity
for good and evil.
The Greek Philosopher Plato believed that humans were part of the physical world.
There is a body, the body receives information about the outside world through the
senses but then humans have a mind which in immaterial and can receive information
of eternal truths beyond the physical world. The human soul is another aspect of
identity. Plato believed the soul to be like the driver of a chariot guiding the two
horses of mind and body. The body wanted to be involved with pleasures of the
flesh revealed by the senses while the soul wanted to travel to heaven - the realm
of ideas and to understand them.
IÕve changed my mind. HeÕs lost his mind. My mind was elsewhere. What do we
mean by this ÒmindÓ?
The French philosopher Rene Descartes believe that the body and mind were
different.
Descartes was a rationalist - there was no need for religion and the supernatural.
Human beings should and can rely on their reason.
But the early rationalists like Descartes were not atheists. God may well exist and
have created the world but the world is a rational place and so to understand it we
are required to use our reason. The mind was not physical like the body.
He argued that you could doubt the existence of the body - it could be an illusion.
But the mind was another thing. You cannot doubt that you have a mind even if you
doubt the existence of the mind what is doing the doubting? The thinking thing the mind - therefore Descartes famous statement ÒI think therefore I am.Ó
But we have a problem here. If there are two substances mind and body and they
have completely different properties, how do they interact with each other?
DescarteÕs thinking on this mind/body problem had an influence not only on
philosophy but can also be seen twentieth century psychology.
One critical aspect of this problem is the question of survival after death. Is there
some form of life after the physical body has creased to function? If the mind/soul
is independent of the physical then the treatment of the body after death is not
136
important. If the mind requires some sort of physical attachment then it might
explain why some people spend millions of pounds on hi-tech refrigerators in an
attempt to survive death.
Buddhist believe in rebirth. According to Buddhism, there is no permanent self or
soul. Humans are are a combination of five elements which are constantly changing.
So nothing lasts in life never mind after death. All is constantly changing. In fact
there is no all - there is just change! This is called anatta or the doctrine of no soul.
To illustrate this point a fomous Buddhist called Nagasena compared a human being
to a chariot. If you disassemble a chariot completely - take off the wheels, the
standy-up bit and the leady things, what are you left with? Is there an essence a
soul of chariot left behind? no. Humans, according to Buddhists are made up of five
elements, the skandhas matter, sensation, perception, and consciousness. There is
no permanent soul or self lying behind these and operating them like a puppeteer
does a puppet.
Activity 12
1 What issues might a religious person who was also a rationalist encounter in
their
belief
about God?
2 How important is your mind to you? What place does it have in your overall
thinking
about yourself?
3
What recent examples can be given of the mind being increasingly regarded as
something which needs to be given more consideration and requires more
understanding.
4
To Plato what was a human being?
5
Why was doubt important for Descartes?
6
What is a rationalist?
7
Why is Descartes described as a dualist?
8
What is the problem with this philosophical viewpoint?
137
9 What contrasting underlying beliefs about the mind/body/soul debate are
evident
from?
a)
b)
c)
cryogenics
cremation
a reluctance to cremate
10 What is the doctrine of anatta?
11 Is there a problem with this doctrine?
So what is your viewpoint on this issue? Give reasons for your answer.
Who Am I? By DANIEL C. DENNETT
Now that I've won my suit under the Freedom of Information Act, I am at liberty to
reveal for the first time a curious episode in my life that may be of interest not only
to those engaged In research in the philosophy of mind, artificial intelligence, and
neuroscience but also the general public.
Several years ago I was approached by Pentagon officials who asked me to volunteer
for a highly dangerous and secret mission. In collaboration with NASA and Howard
Hughes, the Department of Defence was spending billions to develop a Supersonic
Tunnelling Underground Device, or STUD. It was supposed to tunnel through the
earth's core at great speed and deliver a specially designed atomic warhead "right
up the Red's missile silos," as one of the Pentagon brass put it.
The problem was that in an early test they had succeeded in lodging a warhead
about a mile deep under Tulsa, Oklahoma, and they wanted me to retrieve it for
them. "Why me?" I asked. Well, the mission involved some pioneering applications of
current brain research, and they had heard of my interest in brains and of course
my curiosity and great courage ....Well, how could I refuse?
The difficulty that brought the Pentagon to my door was that the device I'd been
asked to recover was fiercely radioactive, in a new way. According to monitoring
instruments, something about the nature of the device and its complex interaction
138
with materials deep in the earth could cause severe harm to brain tissues. No way
had been found to protect them. The only solution was to remove the brain of the
person recovering the device!
The brain would be kept in a safe place where it could execute its normal control
functions by elaborate radio links. I would submit to a surgical procedure that would
completely remove my brain. I would then be placed in a life-support system at the
manned Spacecraft Centre in Houston
Each input and output pathway as it was severed, would be restored by a pair of
microminiaturized radio transceivers attached precisely to the brain, the other to
the nerve stumps in the empty cranium So no information would be lost, all the
connections would be preserved.
At first, I was a bit reluctant. Would it really work? The Houston brain surgeons
encouraged me. "Think of it," they said, "as a mere stretching of the nerves. If our
brain were just moved over an inch In our skull, that would not alter or impair your
mind. We're simply going to make the nerves indefinitely elastic.
I was shown around the life support lab on Houston and saw the sparkling new vat in
which my brain would be placed I met the large team of scientists discussed the
procedure and after a time agreed to the
operation. I was tested, scanned, interviewed and psychoanalysed. They took down
by autobiography in great detail, recorded my every belief, hope fear and taste they even asked me for a list of my favourite CDÕs.
A few days later the operation took place. As I awoke from the anaesthetic I asked
the embarrassing question. ÒWhere am I?Ó ÒYouÕre in Houston.Ó replied the
nurse. With that she handed me a mirror. I looked exactly the same except for two
little antennae l on each side of my head!
ÒI gather the operation was a success. Could you take me to my brain please?Ó
In a room down a long passage way I saw what looked like a very large pink walnut
floating in a jar surrounded by circuit chips, plastic tubules, electrodes and other
paraphernalia.
"Is that mine?" I asked. "Hit the output transmitter switch there on the side of the
vat and see for yourself," the project director replied. I moved the switch to OFF,
and immediately slumped. groggy and nauseated, into the arms of the technicians,
139
one of whom kindly restored the switch to its ON position. While I recovered my
equilibrium and composure, I thought to myself.. "Well, here I am sitting on a folding
chair staring through a piece of plate glass at my own brain.... But wait," I said to
myself. "shouldn't I have thought, 'Here I am suspended in a bubbling fluid, being
stared at by my own eyes?Ó
I tried to think this latter thought. I tried to project it into the tank offering it
hopefully to my brain, but I failed to carry off the exercise with any conviction. I
tried again. "Here am I, Daniel Dennett, suspended in a bubbling fluid, being stared
at by my own eyes."
No, it just didn't work. Most puzzling and confusing. Being a philosopher of firm
physicalist conviction, I believed unswervingly that the tokening of my thoughts was
occurring somewhere in my brain: Yet, when I thought "Here I am." where the
thought occurred to me was here, outside the vat, where I, Dennett, was standing
staring at my brain.
I tried and tried to think myself into the vat, but to no avail. I tried to build up to
the task by doing mental exercises. I thought to myself, "The sun is shining over
there, " five times in rapid succession, each time mentally ostending a different
place: in order, the sunlit corner of the lab, the visible front lawn of the hospital,
Houston, Mars, and Jupiter.
I found I had little difficulty in getting my "thereÕsÓ to hop all over the celestial
map with their proper references. I could loft a "there" in an instant through the
farthest reaches of space. and then aim the next "there" with pinpoint accuracy at
the upper left quadrant of a freckle on my arm. Why was I having such trouble with
"here"? "Here in Houston" worked well enough, and so did "here in the lab," and even
"here in this part of the lab," but "here in the vat" always seemed merely an
unmeant mental mouthing.
I tried closing my eyes while thinking it. This seemed to help, but still I couldn't
manage to pull it off, except perhaps for a fleeting instant. I couldn't be sure. The
discovery that I couldn't be sure was also unsettling. How did I know where I meant
by "here" when I thought "here"', Could I think I meant one place when in fact I
meant another?
I didn't see how that could be admitted without untying the few bonds of intimacy
between a person and his own mental life that had survived the onslaught of the
brain scientists and philosophers, the physicalists and behaviourists. Perhaps I was
incorrigible about where I mean I when I said "here." But in my present
140
circumstances it seemed that either I was doomed by sheer force of mental habit
to thinking systematically false identical thoughts, or where a person is (and hence
where his thought are tokened for purposes of semantic analysis) is not necessarily
where his brain, the physical part of his soul, resides.
Nagged by confusion, I attempted to orient myself by failing back on a favourite
philosopher's ploy. I began naming things.
"Yorick." I said aloud to my brain. "You are my brain. The rest of my body. seated in
this chair, I dubbed Hamlet.' " So here we all are: Yorick's my brain, Hamlet's my
body, and I am Dennett. Now, where am I? And when I think, where am l?" where's
that thought tokened? Is it tokened in my brain, lounging about in the vat, or right
here between my ears where it seems to be tokened? Or nowhere? ItÕs temporal
coordinates give me no trouble: must it not have spatial coordinates as well?
I began making a list of the alternatives.
1. Where Hamlet Goes, there goes Dennett.
This principle was easily refuted by appeal to the familiar brain-transplant thought
experiments so enjoyed by philosophers. If Tom and Dick switch brains, Tom is the
fellow with Dick's former body just ask him, he'll claim to he Tom, and tell you the
most intimate details of Tom's autobiography. It was clear enough, then, that my
current body and I could part company, but not likely that I could be separated
from my brain. The rule of thumb that emerged so plainly from the thought
experiments was that in a brain- transplant operation, one wanted to be the donor,
not the recipient. Better to call such an operation a body transplant, in fact. So
perhaps the truth was.
2. Where Yorick goes, there goes Dennett.
This was not at all appealing, however. How could I be in the vat and not about to go
anywhere, when I was so obviously outside the vat looking in and beginning to make
guilty plans to return to my room for a substantial lunch? This begged the question
I realised, but it still seemed to be getting at something important. Casting about
for some support for my intuition, I hit upon a legalistic sort of argument that might
have appealed to Locke.
Suppose, I argued to myself, I were now to fly to California, rob a bank, and be
apprehended. In which state would I be tried: in California where the robbery took
place, or in Texas, where the brains of the outfit were located? Would I be a
141
California felon with an out-of-state brain, or a Texas felon remotely controlling an
accomplice of sorts in California?
It seemed possible that I might beat such a rap just on the undecidability of that
jurisdictional question, though perhaps it would be deemed an interstate, and hence
Federal, offence. In any event, suppose I were convicted. Was it likely that
California would be satisfied to throw Hamlet into the brig, knowing that Yorick was
living the good life and luxuriously taking the waters in Texas? Would Texas
incarcerate Yorick. leaving Hamlet free to take the next boat to Rio? This
alternative appealed to me.
Barring capital punishment or other cruel and unusual punishment, the state would
be obliged to maintain the life-support system for Yorick though they might move
him from Houston to Leavenworth, and aside from the unpleasantness of the
opprobrium, I, for one, would not mind at all and would consider myself a free man
under those circumstances. If the state has an interest in forcibly relocating
persons in institutions, it would fail to relocate me in any institution by locating
Yorick there. If this were true, it suggested a third alternative.
3. Dennett is wherever he thinks he is.
Generalised, the claim was as follows: At any given time a person has a point of view,
and the location of the point of view (which is determined internally by the content
of the point of view) is also the location of the person. Such a proposition is not
without its perplexities, but to me it seemed a step in the right direction. The only
trouble was that it seemed to place one in a heads-l-win-tails-you-lose situation of
unlikely infallibility as regards location. Hadn't I myself often been wrong about
where I was, and at least as often uncertain?
Couldn't one get lost? Of course, but getting lost geographically is not the only way
one might get lost. If one were lost in the woods one could attempt to reassure
oneself with the consolation that at least one knew where one was: One was right
here in the familiar surroundings of one's own body. Perhaps in this case one would
not have drawn one's attention to much to be thankful for.
Still, there were worse plights imaginable, and I wasn't sure I wasn't in such a plight
right now.
Point of view clearly had something to do with personal location, but it was itself an
unclear notion. It was obvious that the content of one's point of view was not the
same as or determined by the content of one's beliefs or thoughts.
142
For example, what should we say about the point of view of the simulator viewer who
shrieks and twists in his/her seat as the roller-coaster footage
overcomes her/his psychic distancing? Has s/he forgotten that s/he is safely
seated in the simulator?
Here I was inclined to say that the person is experiencing an illusory shift in point
of view. In other cases, my inclination to call such shifts illusory was less strong.
The workers in laboratories and plants who handle dangerous materials by operating
feedback-controlled mechanical arms and hands undergo a shift in point of view that
is crisper and more pronounced than anything a simulator can provoke. They can feel
the heft and slipperiness of the containers they manipulate with their metal fingers.
They know perfectly well where they are and are not fooled into false beliefs by the
experience, yet it is as if they were inside the isolation chamber they are peering
into.
It does seem extravagant to suppose that in performing this bit of mental
gymnastics, they are transporting themselves back and forth. Still their example
gave me hope. If I was in fact in the vat in spite of my intuitions, I might be able to
train myself to adopt that point of view even as a matter of habit. I should dwell on
images of myself comfortably floating in my vat. beaming volitions to that familiar
body out there, reflected that the case or difficulty of this task was presumably
independent of the truth about the location of one's brain. Had I been practising
before the operation, I might now be finding it second nature.
You might now yourself try such a trompe l'oeil. (trick of the eye)
Imagine you have written an inflammatory letter which has been published in the
Times, the result of which is that the government has chosen to impound your brain
for a probationary period of three years in its Dangerous Brain Clinic in City
Hospital. Your body of course is allowed freedom to earn a salary and thus to
continue its function of layinÕ around etc. At the moment, however, your body is
seated in an auditorium listening to a peculiar account by Daniel Dennett of his own
similar experience. Try it!
Think yourself to the clinic, and then hark back longingly to your body, far away, and
yet seeming so near. It is only with long-distance restraint (yours? the
government's?) that you can control your impulse to get those hands clapping in
polite applause before navigating the old body to the rest room and a well-deserved
glass of evening sherry in the lounge.
143
The task of imagination is certainly difficult, but if you achieve your goal the results
might be consoling. Anyway, there I was in Houston, lost in thought as one might say,
but not for long. My speculations were soon interrupted by the Houston doctors,
who wished to test out my new prosthetic nervous system before sending me off on
my hazardous mission. As I mentioned before, I was a bit dizzy at first, and not
surprisingly, although I soon habituated myself to my new circumstances (which
were, after all, well nigh indistinguishable from my old circumstances). My
accommodation was not perfect, however, and to this day I continue to be plagued
by minor coordination difficulties.
The speed of light is fast, but finite, and as my brain and body move farther and
farther apart, the delicate interaction of my feedback systems is thrown into
disarray by the time lags. Just as one is rendered close to speechless by a delayed
or echoic hearing of one's speaking voice so, for instance, I am virtually unable to
track a moving object with my eyes whenever my brain and my body are more than a
few miles apart. In most matters my impairment is scarcely detectable, though I can
no longer hit a slow curve ball with the authority of yore. There are some
compensations of course.
Though alcohol tastes as good as ever, and it warms my gullet while corroding my
liver, I can drink it in any quantity I please, without becoming the slightest bit
inebriated, a curiosity some of my close friends may have noticed (though I
occasionally have feigned inebriation, so as not to draw attention to my unusual
circumstances).
For similar reasons, I take aspirin orally for a sprained wrist, but if the pain persists
I ask Houston to administer codeine to me in vitro. In times of illness the phone bill
can be staggering!
But to return to my adventure. At length, both the doctors and I were satisfied
that I was ready to undertake my subterranean mission. And so I left my brain in
Houston and headed by helicopter for Tulsa. Well. in any case, that's the way it
seemed to me. That's how I would put it, just off the top of my head as it were.
On the trip I reflected further about my earlier anxieties and decided that my first
postoperative speculations, had been tinged with panic. The matter was not nearly as
strange or metaphysical as I had been supposing. Where was I? In two places,
clearly - both inside the vat and outside it. Just as one can stand with one foot in
Connecticut and the other in Rhode Island, I was in two places at once. I had
become one of those scattered individuals we used to hear so much about. The more
144
I considered this answer, the more obviously it appeared. But, strange to say, the
more true it appeared, the less important the question to which it could be the true
answer seemed. A sad, but not unprecedented, fate for a philosophical question to
suffer. This answer did not completely satisfy me, of course.
There lingered some question to which I should have liked an answer, which was
neither "Where are all my various and sundry parts?" nor "What is my current point
of view?"
Or at least there seemed to be such a question. For it did seem undeniable that in
some sense I and not merely most of me was descending into the earth under Tulsa
in search of an atomic warhead. When I found the warhead, I was certainly glad I
had left my brain behind, for the pointer on the specially built Geiger counter I had
brought with me was off the dial.
I called Houston on my ordinary radio and told the operation control centre of my
position and my progress. In return, they gave me instructions for dismantling the
vehicle, based upon my on-site observations. I had set to work with my cutting torch
when all of a sudden a terrible thing happened. I went stone deaf. At first I thought
it was only my radio earphones that had broken, but when I tapped on my helmet, I
heard nothing. Apparently the auditory transceivers had gone on the fritz. I could
no longer hear Houston or my own voice, but I could speak, so I started telling them
what had happened. In midsentence, I knew something else had gone wrong. My
vocal apparatus had become paralysed. Then my right hand went limp-another
transceiver had gone. I was truly in deep trouble. But worse was to follow.
After a few more minutes, I went blind. I cursed my luck, and then I cursed the
scientists who had led me into this grave peril. There I was, deaf, dumb, and blind,
in a radioactive hole more than a mile under Tulsa. Then the last of my cerebral
radio links broke and suddenly I was faced with a new and even more shocking
problem: Whereas an instant before I had been buried alive in Oklahoma, now I was
disembodied in Houston.
My recognition of my new status was not immediate. It took me several very anxious
minutes before it dawned on me that my poor body lay several hundred miles away,
with heart pulsing and lungs respirating, but otherwise as dead as the body of any
heart-transplant donor, its skull packed with useless, broken electronic gear. The
shift in perspective I had earlier found well nigh impossible now seemed quite
natural. Though I could think myself back into my body in the tunnel under Tulsa, it
145
took some effort to sustain the illusion. For surely it was an illusion to suppose I was
still in Oklahoma.
I had lost all contact with that body still it occurred to me then, with one of those
rushes of revelation of which we should be suspicious, that I had stumbled upon an
impressive demonstration of the immateriality of the soul based upon physicalist
principles and premises.
For as the last radio signal between Tulsa and Houston died away, had I not changed
location from Tulsa to Houston at the speed of light? And had I not accomplished
this without any increase in mass? What moved from A to B at such speed was
surely myself, or at any rate my soul or mind - the massless centre of my being and
home of my consciousness.
My point of view had lagged somewhat behind, but I had already noted the indirect
bearing of point of view on personal location. I could not see how a physicalist
philosopher could quarrel with this except by taking the dire and counter intuitive
route of banishing all talk of persons. Yet the notion of personhood was so well
entrenched in everyone's world view, or so it seemed to me, that any denial would be
as curiously unconvincing, as systematically disingenuous, as the Cartesian negation,
"non sum."
The joy of philosophic discovery thus tided me over some very bad minutes or
perhaps hours as the helplessness and hopelessness of my situation became more
apparent to me. Waves of panic and even nausea swept over me, made all the more
horrible by the absence of their normal body-dependent phenomenology. No
adrenaline rush of tingles in the arms, no pounding heart. no premonitory salivation. I
did feel a dread sinking feeling in my bowels at one point. and this tricked me
momentarily into the false hope that I was undergoing a reversal of the process
that landed me in this fix - a gradual undisembodiment. But the isolation and
uniqueness of that twinge soon convinced me that it was simply the first of a plague
of phantom body hallucinations that I, like any other amputee, would be all too likely
to suffer.
My mood then was chaotic. On the one hand. I was fired up with elation of my
philosophic discovery and "as wracking my, brain (one of the few familiar things I
could still do) trying to figure out how to communicate my discovery to the journals:
while on the other, I was bitter, lonely, and filled with dread and uncertainty.
146
Fortunately, this did not last long, for my technical support team sedated me into a
dreamless sleep from which I awoke hearing with magnificent fidelity the familiar
opening strains of my favourite ÒDeep PurpleÓ track. So that was why they had
wanted a list of my favourite CDÕs! It did not take me long to realise that I was
hearing the music without ears. The output from the stereo system was being fed
through some fancy rectification circuitry directly into my auditory nerve. I was
mainlining hard rock! An unforgettable experience.
At the end of the track it did not surprise me to hear the reassuring voice of the
project director speaking Into a microphone that was now my prosthetic ear. He
confirmed my analysis of what had gone wrong and assured me that steps were being
taken to reembody me. He did not elaborate, and after a few more tracks, I found
myself drifting off to sleep.
I later learned that I had slept for the better part of a year, and when I awoke, it
was to find myself fully restored to my senses. When I looked into the mirror.
though. I was a bit startled to see an unfamiliar face. Bearded and a bit heavier,
bearing no doubt a family resemblance to my former face, and with the same look of
sprightly intelligence and resolute character, but definitely a new face. Further
self-explorations of an intimate nature left me no doubt that this was a new body,
and the project director confirmed my conclusions. He did not volunteer any
information on the past history of my new body and I decided (wisely, I think in
retrospect) not to pry.
As many philosophers unfamiliar with my ordeal have more recently speculated, the
acquisition of a new body leaves one's person intact. And after a period of
adjustment to a new voice, new muscular strengths and weaknesses, and so forth.
one's personality is by and large also preserved.
More dramatic changes in personality have been routinely observed in people who
have undergone extensive plastic surgery, to say nothing of sex-change operations,
and I think no one contests the survival of the person in such cases.
In any event I soon accommodated to my new body, to the point of being unable to
recover any of its novelties to my consciousness or even memory. The view in the
mirror soon became utterly familiar. That view by the way, still revealed antennae
and so I was not surprised to learn that my brain had not been moved from Its
haven in the life-support lab.
147
I decided that good old Yorick deserved a visit. I and my new body, whom we might
as well call Fortinbras, strode into the familiar lab to another round of applause
from the technicians, who were of course congratulating themselves, not me. Once
more I stood before the vat and contemplated poor Yorick, and on a whim I once
again cavalierly flicked off the output transmitter switch.
Imagine my surprise when nothing unusual happened. No fainting spell, no nausea, no
noticeable change. A technician hurried to restore the switch to ON but still I felt
nothing. I demanded an explanation, which the project director hastened to provide.
It seems that before they had even operated on the first occasion, they had
constructed a computer duplicate of my brain, reproducing both the complete
information-processing structure and the computational speed of my brain in a giant
computer program. After the operation, but before they had dared to send me off
on my mission to Oklahoma, they had run this computer system and Yorick side by
side.
The incoming signals from Hamlet were sent simultaneously to Yorick's transceivers
and to the computer's array of inputs. And the outputs from Yorick were not only
beamed back to Hamlet, my body, they were recorded and checked against the
simultaneous output of the computer program, which was called "Hubert" for
reasons obscure to me.
Over days and even weeks, the outputs were identical and synchronous, which of
course did not prove that they had succeeded in copying the brain's functional
structure, but the empirical support was greatly encouraging. Hubert's input, and
hence activity, had been kept parallel with Yorick's during my disembodied days. And
now, to demonstrate this, they had actually thrown the master switch that put
Hubert for the first time in on-line control of my body - not Hamlet, of course, but
Fortinbras.
Hamlet, I learned, had never been recovered from its underground tomb and could
be assumed by this time to have largely returned to the dust. At the head of my
grave still lay the magnificent bulk of the abandoned device with the word STUD
emblazoned on its side in large letters - a circumstance which may provide
archeologists of the next century with a curious insight into the burial rites of their
ancestors.)
The laboratory technicians now showed me the master switch, which had two
positions, labelled B, for Brain (they didn't know my brain's name was Yorick) and H,
148
for Hubert. The switch did indeed point to H. and they explained to me that if I
wished, I could switch it back to B. With my heart in my mouth (and my brain in its
vat), I did this.
Nothing happened. A ÔclickÕ, that was all. To test their claim and with the master
switch now set at B, I hit Yorick's output transmitter switch on the vat and sure
enough, I began to faint. Once the output switch was turned back on and I had
recovered my wits, so to speak. I continued to play with the master switch, flipping
it back and forth. I found that with the exception of the transitional click, I could
detect no trace of a difference. I could switch in mid-utterance and the sentence I
had begun speaking under the control of Yorick was finished without a pause or
hitch of any kind under the control of Hubert. I had a spare brain, a prosthetic
device which might some day stand me in very good stead, were some mishap to
befall Yorick. Or alternatively, I could keep Yorick as a spare and use Hubert.
It didn't seem to make any difference which I chose, for the wear and tear and
fatigue on my body did not have any debilitating effect on either brain, whether or
not it was actually causing the motions of my body, or merely spilling itÕs output
into thin air. The one truly unsettling aspect of this new development was the
prospect, which was not long in dawning on me, of someone detaching the spare Hubert or Yorick as the case might be - from Fortinbras and hitching it to yet
another body, some johnny-come-lately Rosencrantz or Guildenstern. Then (if not
before) there would he two people, that much was clear. One would be me, and the
other would be a sort of super-twin brother. If there were two bodies, one under
the control of Hubert and the other being controlled by Yorick, then which would
the world recognise as the true Dennett? And whatever the rest of the world
decided which one would be me?
Would I be the Yorick-brained one, in virtue of Yorick's causal priority and former
intimate relationship with the original Dennett body, Hamlet? That seemed a bit
legalistic, a bit too redolent of the arbitrariness of consanguinity and legal
possession, to be convincing at the metaphysical level. For suppose that before the
arrival of the second body on the scene, I had been keeping Yorick as the spare for
years, and letting Hubert's output drive my body - that is, Fortinbras - all that time.
The Hubert-Fortinbras couple would seem then by squatterÕs rights (to combat one
legal intuition with another) to be the true Dennett and the lawful inheritor of
everything that was Dennett's. This was an interesting question, certainly, but not
nearly so pressing as another question that bothered me. My strongest intuition was
that in such an eventuality I would survive so long as either brain-body couple
149
remained intact, but I had mixed emotions about whether I should want both to
survive.
I discussed my worries with the technicians and the project director. The prospect
of two Dennetts was abhorrent to me, I explained, largely for social reasons. I
didn't want to be my own rival for the affections of my
wife, nor did I like the prospect of the two Dennetts sharing my modest professor's
salary. Still more vertiginous and distasteful, though, was the idea of knowing that
much about another person, while he had the very same goods on me. How could we
ever face each other? My colleagues in the lab argued that I was ignoring the
bright side of the matter. Weren't there many things I wanted to do but, being only
one person, had been unable to do?
Now one Dennett could stay at home and be the professor and family man, while the
other could strike out on a life of travel and adventure - missing the family of
course, but happy in the knowledge that the other Dennett was keeping the home
fires burning.
I could be faithful and adulterous at the same time. I could even cuckold myself - to
say nothing of other more lurid possibilities my colleagues were all too ready to
force upon my overtaxed imagination.
But my ordeal in Oklahoma (or was it Houston?) had made me less adventurous, and I
shrank from this opportunity that was being offered (though of course I was never
quite sure it was being offered to me in the first place). There was another
prospect even more disagreeable: that the spare, Hubert or Yorick as the case
might be, would be detached from any input from Fortinbras and just left detached.
Then, as in the other case, there would be two Dennetts, or at least two claimants
to my name and possessions, one embodied in Fortinbras, and the other sadly,
miserably disembodied. Both selfishness and altruism bade me take steps to prevent
this from happening. So I asked that measures be taken to ensure that no one could
ever tamper with the transceiver connections or the master switch without my (our?
no, my) knowledge and consent.
Since I had no desire to spend my life guarding the equipment in Houston, it was
mutually decided that all the electronic connections in the lab would he carefully
locked. Both those that controlled the life-support system for Yorick and those
that controlled the power supply for Hubert would be guarded with fail-safe
devices, and I would take the only master switch, outfitted for radio remote
150
control, with me wherever I went. I carry it strapped around my waist and - wait a
moment - here it is.
Every few months I reconnoitre the situation by switching channels. I do this only in
the presence of friends, of course, for if the other channel were, heaven forbid,
either dead or otherwise occupied, there would have to be somebody who had my
interests at heart to switch it back, to bring me back from the void. For while I
could feel, see, hear, and otherwise sense whatever befell my body, subsequent to
such a switch, I'd be unable to control it. By the way, the two positions on the
switch are intentionally unmarked, so I never have the faintest idea whether I am
switching from Hubert to Yorick or vice versa.
(Some of you may think that in this case I really don't know who I am, let alone
where I am. But such reflections no longer make much of a dent on my essential
Dennettness, on my own sense of who I am. If it is true that in one sense I don't
know who I am then that's another one of your philosophical truths of
underwhelming significance.)
In any case. every time I flipped the switch so far, nothing has happened. So let's
give it a try....
"THANK GOD! I THOUGHT YOU'D NEVER FLIP THAT SWITCH.Ó
ÒYou can't imagine how horrible it's been these last two weeks - but now you know,
itÕs your turn in purgatory. How IÕve longed for this moment! You see, about two
weeks ago - excuse me, ladies and gentlemen, but I've got to explain this to my ...
um, brother. I guess you could say. but he's just told you the facts so you'll
understand - about two weeks ago our two brains drifted just a bit out of synch. I
don't know whether my brain is now Hubert or Yorick, any more than you do, but in
any case the two brains drifted apart and of course once the process started, it
snowballed for I was in a slightly different receptive state for the input we both
received, a difference that was soon magnified.
In no time at all the illusion that I was in control of my body - our body -was
completely dissipated. There was nothing I could do - no way to call you. YOU
DIDN'T EVEN KNOW I EXISTED! It's been like being carried around in a cage, or
151
better, like being possessed - hearing my own voice say things I didn't mean to say,
watching in frustration as my own hands performed deeds I hadn't intended. You'd
scratch our itches, but not the way I would have, and you kept me awake, with your
tossing and turning. I've been totally exhausted, on the verge of a nervous
breakdown. carried around helplessly by your frantic round of activities, sustained
only by the knowledge that some day you'd throw the switch. "Now it's your turn,
but at least you'll have the comfort of knowing I know you're in there. Like an
expectant mother, I'm eating -- or at any rate tasting, smelling, seeing - for two
now, and I'll try to make it easy for you. Don't worry, just as soon as this colloquium
is over, you and I will fly to Houston, and we'll see what can be done to get one of us
another body.
You can have a female body - your body could be any colour you like. But let's think
it over. I tell you what - to be fair, if we both want this body, I promise I'll let the
project director flip a coin to settle which of us gets to keep it and which then gets
to choose a new body. That should guarantee justice, shouldn't it? In any case, I'll
take care of you, I promise. These people are my witnesses. "Ladies and gentlemen,
this talk we have just beard is not exactly the talk I would have given, but I assure
you that everything he said was perfectly true. And now if you'll excuse me, I think
I'd - we'd-better sit down.Ó
Activity
What issues are discussed in the story?
Explain how modern technology can highlight philosophical problems.
Socrates (c 470-399 BCE) was born and lived in Athens. We know of
him from the writings of his pupil Plato (c 428-348 BCE). These
philosophers raised the questions - What knowledge is available?
How do we obtain knowledge? Why is this knowledge true?
Socrates did not ask questions about the physical world (scientific questions) but
about how we should live.
ÒGod orders me to fulfil the philosophersÕ mission of
152
searching into myself and other men.Ó
To know is to be able to do good - the do the right thing. So discovering the correct
questions was important.
In 399 BCE Socrates was tried for corrupting the youth and found guilty. He was
sentenced to death and committed suicide by drinking hemlock.
Plato gives an
account of this in The Phaedo .
Socrates is so important a figure that those who came before him are called the
pre-socratic philosophers.
Epistemology
What does it mean to ÒknowÓ?
I
I
I
I
I
know that Beethoven was a great musician
know that it is going to rain.
know daffodils are yellow.
know Catherine very well.
know God exists.
Most of us take for granted that we know things and can know things.
But to ÒknowÓ can mean different things as the above statements show.
What about the statement....
ÒI know I left the car keys on the kitchen table!Ó
Is this in the same category? What do we mean by knowing?
Where does memory come into this?
153
What are the problems with memory?
What is a just society?
Social Philosophy
What sort of things go into the creation of a just society?
If we think specifically about crime and punishment, why do we have
punishment?
Narrowing it down to capital punishment, what are the arguments for and against
this?
Aesthetics
What is art?
(Or ÒI know what I like!Ó ?)
Recently a new portrait of the Queen was unveiled to a very mixed reception.
Some thought it was good. Some thought it was bad. Some liked it.
Some hated it.
Even more recently, the Sensations Exhibition in London, included a portrait of Myra
Hindley made up of childrenÕs hand prints. Some people demonstrated against it
saying that it was obscene and should be withdrawn. Others said that to do so would
be to censor art just like dictators and repressive regimes have done in the past.
So who was right?
More recently a painting was found in a skip in London. It was taken to a gallery and
put on display as an original painting by a very famous contemporary British artist
and valued by the gallery at a six-figure sum.
154
Later it turned out to be the work of a student who thought it was so bad he threw
it away! And all this is before we begin to discuss the work of Damien Hurst?
What questions does this raise for us? (See also attached sheet)
#
PHILOSOPHY
Metaphysics
What is real?
One of the common issues in this discussion is - Òdo humans have souls?Ó
Can we hold onto the accepted scientific idea that all is change - in a constant state
of flux and yet still say that humans have souls?
What are the other problems raised by the body and soul issue?
What about God?
155
#
Let us discuss how scientific enquiry progresses.
156
#
PHILOSOPHY
The philosophical branch which investigates the question ÒWhat is Real?Ó is called
metaphysics.
Metaphysics is concerned with what constitutes ultimate reality - in other words
what really exists - and the nature of what exists.
ÒMetaÓ means ÒbeyondÓ, so metaphysics is about what exists beyond the physical.
157
Metaphysics is not concerned with questions like whether the Loch Ness monster
exists or not. If it does exist it is a physical object and we can prove its existence
by filming or capturing it.
Two of the major metaphysical questions are...
Is there a God?
and
Do humans have souls?
The answers to these questions are not in the physical realm of science - we cannot
do experiments to find the answers - if they do really exist - they are non-physical.
These are the subjects of metaphysical questions.
BLADE RUNNER
TASK 5
What philosophical questions were explored in the film?
The Categories
Aristotle was a great lister and labeller. He liked to identify things especially things
in nature. ÒSuch and such is a plant, that is a mammal, this is an insectÓ and so on.
In many ways he is the father of modern science as well as being one of the two
158
major philosophers, the other being Plato, who shaped thinking right up to the
present day. Aristotle was a pupil of Plato and studied at his academy.
For Plato the highest degree of reality was that we think with our reason. He
mistrusted the senses. Aristotle was an avid observer of the natural world and so
replied that it was with our senses that we perceive things. For Aristotle the
natural world was the real world.
Plato believed that there existed an almost parallel and perfect ideal world which
contained the forms of everything in the universe. This was also the world where
the individual human souls came from. Aristotle believed that the form of anything
was not determined by an idea of perfection but that the form of something and
what it does makes it what it is. Identity is inherent.
Aristotle had an interesting perspective on causality. For an event like a window
smashing we could say the cause was the brick thrown at it.
#
PHILOSOPHY
#
PHILOSOPHY
159
Form and Substance
In many ways Aristotle identifies a very modern human trait - that of categorising
and labelling.
All of existence can be divided into two categories - things which are alive and
things which are not and then this allows further categorisation.
All living things
All living creatures
All humans
I was at a wee social gathering and one of the women was explaining how she likes to
have things in the house neat, tidy and ordered. Her husband was looking for their
sonÕs football where upon the woman said to her husband there was a place for
balls Bob. There was a pause and then Bob asked ÒAnd where is that place Agnes?Ó
If we are asked to put things away and tidy up and put things away, all will go
reasonably well until we find something which we cannot identify. What is this?
Where should I put it.
LetÕs play a game!
I am thinking of something. Can you guess what it is?
Where do you start?
160
Do squirrels suckle their young? - Where would a Martian start to try to answer this
question?
His (AristotleÕs) views on women seem to have been less enlightened. Women were
imperfect men. Flawed creatures. The woman was passive whereas the man was
active - the woman was the soil but it was the man who planted the seed.
#
PHILOSOPHY
This view was very influential centuries later during the formation of Christian
doctrine and practice as it relates to the place of women in the church and for some
still seems to hold true today.
ARGUMENTS
Are used often to help us act. To identify things.
We all have arguments especially if we live in a family or are a character in a Soap
Opera. We can have either good arguments or bad arguments. The good ones are
generally those we win and the bad ones those we do not.
Philosophical arguments are different - or should be. In philosophical terms to
ÒargueÓ does not mean to have a Òverbal fightÓ with some one; an argument may
simply mean to justify our beliefs about something.
Argument involves at least two components - Logic and Rhetoric.
Logic concerns those reasons that hold for anyone, anywhere, without
appealing to personal feelings, sympathies, or prejudices.
Rhetoric, on the other hand, does involve such personal appeals.
Personal charm
may be part of rhetoric, in a writer as well as in a public speaker. Jokes may be part
161
of rhetoric. Personal pleas are effective rhetorical tools;
sympathetic to readers or playing off their fears.
so is trying to be
But none of this has anything to do with logic. Logic is impersonal. It is important
to note however that usually in a philosophical argument, both logic and rhetoric
function together.
TASK
Can you think of a situation recently where you had to argue a case for something
using both logic and rhetoric?
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
#
PHILOSOPHY
162
As previously stated his views on women seem to have been less than PC. Women
were imperfect men. Flawed creatures. The woman was passive needing care, not
capable of exercising power appropriately .
The Rules of Arguing - There are rules for this?
These came from Aristotle. Maybe he argued a lot with women! Much of making up
your mind about something, finding the truth, discovering what is right or true,
involves argument. By learning the basic rules of argument you will avoid what are
called fallacies and help you to identify the flaw in some one elseÕs argument. How
many times have you thought ÒThereÕs something wrong with that argument - I
donÕt know what it is but.....Ó
By studying a little logic you will be able to avoid that problem.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
This form of argument is called a syllogism - the formula being,
It is an example of a valid form of argument. In a valid form of argument, if the
premises are true the conclusion will also be true.
PHILOSOPHY
163
164
20
PHILOSOPHY
TRY IT YOURSELF!
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
165
21
PHILOSOPHY
But an argument can be both valid and have a conclusion which is false e.g.
If Tom went to the circus he must be mad.
Tom went to the circus.
Tom is a madman.
The argument is valid because it conforms to the rules.
So what is the use if you can get duff results. The important thing
is that the first statements (called the premises) are true. If this is the
case then the conclusion must be true if the argument form is valid.
*
A valid argument is an argument whose form guarantees that
its conclusion is true if the premises are true.
*
An invalid argument is an argument whose form does not
guarantee that its conclusion is true if the premises are true.
166
*
The validity of a form of argument does not say whether the
premises are true or false.
*
Even if the premises are false the argument can still have a
valid form.
*
An invalid form does not guarantee that the conclusion is
true even if the premises are true.
*
Even if the the premises are false the argument can still have
a valid form.
*
An invalid form does not guarantee that the conclusion is true
even if the premises are are true.
However the conclusion may be true it is just not guaranteed as part
of the argument.
If P then Q
P
Therefore Q
If P then Q
Not P
Therefore not Q
23
PHILOSOPHY
167
Some Exercises
_______________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
22
PHILOSOPHY
168
169
#
PHILOSOPHY
170
If we apply this structure to the area of social philosophy for example.
In particular if we look at social justice in crime and punishment,
what is the result?
Can we discuss the issues and problems raised in this area using this
structure of argument?
#
PHILOSOPHY
Some Exercises
_______________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
171
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
#
GLOSSARY
anecdotal
evidence
Generalisations from few particular experiences
172
argument
assertion
deduction
a process of reasoning from one claim to another.
a statement or declaration.
a process of reasoning from one principle to another by
accepted rules. Premise to conclusion. If you are certain of
the premise, you can be certain of the conclusion.
fallacy
an argument which is in error, an invalid argument.
hypothesis
a provisional conclusion, accepted as probable in the light of
known facts.
logic
the rules of valid argument.
paradox
a conclusion which contradicts itself despite the premises
being seemingly acceptable. (See example)
premise
the starting point or basis or an argument
presupposition
a condition which is presumed to exist underlying an
argument although not mentioning it. (See example)
proof
a sequence of steps, each taken according to the rules, which
leads to an acceptable conclusion.
reason
the ability to think abstractly, to form arguments and make
inferences.
reductio ad absurdum refuting an argument by showing that it leads to an
absurd or contradictory conclusion.
rhetoric
the use of persuasive language to get people to accept you
beliefs.
skepticism
be
the belief that knowledge is not possible, that doubt cannot
overcome by any valid argument.
syllogism
a three-line valid argument. (See example)
173
valid
paradox
an argument that correctly follows the rules of inference.
Statement - ÒHelp those who do not help themselvesÓ
Problem - Do you help yourself?
presupposition
A lawyer presupposes that a court tries to achieve justice.
(This would of course raise questions for a philosopher)
syllogism
All PÕs are QÕs. (Major premise)
S is a P.
(Minor premise)
Therefore S is a Q.
(Conclusion)
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
174
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
#
PHILOSOPHY - ASSESSMENT 1 (1998)
NAME________________________ Class ________
1
In column (a) below there is a list of philosophical problems. Match each
problem with the correctly corresponding branch of philosophy.
(a)
(b)
What is art?
Do humans have souls?
Does every cause have an effect?
Is capital punishment just retribution?
175
Is abortion right or wrong?
How do we know that we are not just
dreaming what we experience?
2
Take any four of the problems above and write a brief explanation on the
reverse side of this sheet explaining exactly what the problem is in each case.
PHILOSOPHY MODULE 1 ASSESSMENT 1
PHILOSOPHY - Revision Exercise 1
NAME________________________
1
In column (a) below there is a list of philosophical problems.
problem with the correctly corresponding branch of philosophy.
(a)
(b)
What is art?
Is there a divine being?
Does every cause have an effect?
176
Match each
What is the balance of freedom and responsibility in justice?
Is genetic engineering right?
How do I know that what I see is what is??
2 Take each of these statements and explain the philosophical issues raised
each question.
by
PHILOSOPHY MODULE 1 Revision Sheet 1
DAVID HUME - PHILOSOPHICAL TERMS
To show your understanding, use the following terms in sentences in connection to
with Hume and his ideas.
You can change the terms to suit your sentence e.g. the first can be changed to
criticised or criticise.
CRITICISM - SKEPTIC - ARGUMENT - REASON - DEDUCTION - PRINCIPLE
EMPIRICISM - INDUCTIVE - DOGMATISM - PRESUPPOSITION
177
What is the Argument from Design ? (The name Paley may be helpful here.)
How would you criticise the argument?
Philosophical Investigation
Investigate the following major philosophical figures.
Hume, Descartes and Sartre.
Where and when did they live?
What thinking were they reacting to?
What were their main contributions to philosophical thought?
In what ways can their thinking be criticised?
Add any technical terms to your glossary list with meanings
DAVID HUME
Answer these questions in sentences.
Which branch of philosophy was Hume most concerned with?
To which area of human enquiry did he apply scientific methods?
What was he a skeptic about?
In what way was he non-dogmatic?
178
What was his view of reason?
HUMAN UNDERSTANDING
PHILOSOPHY
Assessment Sheet 2a)
The aim of this exercise is to assess how well you understand some important
philosophical terms and how well you can use them yourself.
David Hume has been described as non-dogmatic and a skeptic.
What do these terms mean?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
What is a presupposition?
_______________________________________________________
What is a philosophical enquiry into what is real.
_______________________________________________________
What is a paradox?
_______________________________________________________
An argument which correctly conforms to the rules of inference.
_______________________________________________________
179
Give an example of an hypothesis.
_______________________________________________________
What is the difference between an assertion and an argument?
Give an example of each.
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
What is the difference between logic and rhetoric? Why are they both
important?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
How does skepticism and lack of dogmatism relate to views of God?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
Descartes is described as a Dualist. How did this shape his view of the
nature of a human being?
_______________________________________________________
180
_______________________________________________________
What presupposition does a lawyer operate under?
_______________________________________________________
What presupposition does a teacher operate under?
_______________________________________________________
Give an example of a paradox.
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
The object of this section is to consolidate what constitutes a valid
argument and to be able to identify and use valid and invalid
arguments. We will apply this to the exploration of the various
problems and issues faced by the main branches of philosophy.
You should also familiarise yourself with the range and meaning
of the technical terms used in philosophy.
Specifically you have to be able to identify what constitutes a
premise and a conclusion - give 2 examples of each and also
distinguish between a valid and an invalid argument by
giving an example of each and a reason for each choice.
But first let us just stand back a moment and review some of the
ground we have covered so far.
In our discussions we have discovered that, although to begin
with, philosophy may sound like some new and mysterious discipline,
181
its basic principles are familiar to us all.
Just think how often in substantial arguments abstract concepts
like ÒfreedomÓ, ÒidentityÓ, ÒrealityÓ, ÒillusionÓ, ÒnaturalÓ and ÒtruthÓ
are discussed.
We all have some opinion on the questions of God, morality and
the universe but without questioning, these are mere
assumptions. Philosophy gives us the ability to look critically at
our presuppositions.
Remember to be critical means to be careful, cautious and willing
to change our position on things.
Argument is the process by which truth is sought and falsehood
identified.
Deductive Arguments reason from one statement to another by
accepted logical rules - if you accept the premise you are bound by
logic to accept the conclusion.
For example
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
A deductive argument is valid when it correctly conforms to the rules
of deduction.
However a valid argument can still have a conclusion which is false.
For example
________________________________________________________
182
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
The important thing to remember is that the premises should be true.
If the premises are true, the rules are followed then the truth of the
conclusion is guaranteed.
The tests are
1
2
Are the premises true?
Is the form valid?
If the answer to both is yes then the argument is said to be sound.
Sometimes a valid argument can leave out a step.
For example
Men canÕt give birth
___________________
Robert canÕt give birth.
But what about this? What is right and what is wrong?
Some elephants are domesticated.
Some camels are domesticated.
Therefore some camels are elephants.
________________________________________________________
183
This is an argument which is invalid - not valid and therefore a fallacy.
Many political arguments contain fallacies.
Remember the argument about the antidote?
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
What was wrong with it?
________________________________________________________
How could it be corrected?
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
IF P THEN Q.
NOT Q
THEREFORE NOT P
This form of argument ____________________________
In deduction the conclusion never states more than the premises.
In an inductive argument the conclusion always states more than the
premises.
184
This means that it is less certain but not less important.
It is used extensively in science. Moving from an observed set of things
to an entire class of things.
For example
From
All the crows I have ever see have been black.
To
________________________________
But perhaps it should be
Based on _______________
I would hypothesise that ___________
But there is no guarantee of truth. Why?
_______________________________________________________
An hypothesis is acceptable until a counter-example comes along.
A counter-example for the above hypothesis would be
_______________________________________________________
Does this mean that we should not accept what scientists tell us to be
the case?
_______________________________________________________
185
_______________________________________________________
An hypothesis will also be rejected when
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
In inductive arguments the result is either sound or unsound
Hypothesis:
Most philosophy students have red hair.
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
MORE EXERCISES IN ARGUING!
Three examples of deductive arguments.
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
186
Two valid arguments with conclusions which are false.
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
When is an argument said to be sound?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
Two examples of fallacious arguments.
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
What are the major differences between deductive and inductive
arguments?
187
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
What is wrong with the forms of the following arguments?
If P then Q
Not P
Therefore not Q
If P then Q
P
Therefore Q
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
How could it be corrected to make it valid?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
Give three examples of inductive arguments.
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
188
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
For what is there no guarantee in inductive arguments?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
Why is this?
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
What are the implications of this for hypotheses?
______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
Give two examples of sound and two of unsound arguments.
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
189
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
PHILOSOPHY
Revise the following philosophical terms and concepts
Rationalism, Dogmatism (and its opposite) skepticism
See Hume for the above.
Presupposition
Paradox
Dualism and the nature of humankind
See Descartes for the above.
What would their view of Feng Shui, Astrology, Religion and the X-Files phenomenon.
NAME ___________________________________________
February 1998
190
1
Identify the premises and the conclusions in each of these examples.
The pie is either apple or pear.
It is not apple.
It must be pear.
___________________________________________
The accident happened on either Tuesday or Wednesday
Wednesday was accident-free.
It must have been Tuesday.
___________________________________________
Men cannot give birth.
John is a man.
John cannot give birth.
___________________________________________
2
Some arguments are valid and some are invalid.
Give a reason for an argument being valid.
Show this in an example.
Give a reason for an argument being invalid.
191
Show this in an example.
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
Philosophy Introduction Summary
1
Metaphysics - What is real?
just
God? The human soul? Who are you? What is your essence? Are you
physical?
2
Epistemology - What can we know?
192
The problem of the Òcage of the mindÓ. What can we know about the
external world? Can we rely on our senses? What can we
know about other
minds?
The problem of nature of mind.
Solipsism - itÕs all in the mind! - no proof that there is anything out
there!
Just because it is observable does not mean that this is
proof that it exists.
may
Scepticism - There may or may not be an external world and if it exists it
or may not be different from the way it seems to you.
If there is an external world and it is observable because it exists.
3
Ethics - What should we do? (And Why?)
Some times called ÒMoral PhilosophyÓ - this is the enquiry into how we
should act. What are right and wrong, good and bad, and also what
makes an
action right or wrong etc.
are
authority.
So we are looking at moral codes, the rules for behaviour, and what these
based on - the principles which lie behind them and give them
S6 Module 2
1998
Philosophy
Philosophy Quick Quiz 1
1
What does the word ‘philosophy’ mean?
193
2
Link the three main branches of philosophy to the statements below
“We should care for the environment.”
“Behind the material universe lies a positive creative and intelligent force.”
“When I say ‘green’ I mean green like that object there.”
3
Give an example of a question from each branch.
4
What do philosophers deal with?
5
What tool do they use for this activity?
6
One branch of philosophy inquires about whether there is anything beyond the
physical world.
Give an example of a question from this area of philosophy.
7 A Chinese philosopher once said that his hat may be old and battered but it
contained
the whole world.
What did he mean by this?
What two philosophical problems arise as a result of this?
8
Why do humans sometimes disagree on what constitute a right or wrong action?
9 How do we explain that there are similarities in moral codes across the world
and
even back in time?
Philosophy Introduction Revision June 1999
Revise
What the word ‘philosophy’ means
The three main branches of philosophy and the statements and problems they
deal
with.
194
An example of a question from each branch.
What sort of questions and problems philosophers deal with.
What tool they use for this activity - the process they use to enquire into the
problems.
The main problems/questions/arguments dealt with in each branch
The application of philosophy in every day life.
Philosophy Introduction Revision June 1999
Revise
What the word ‘philosophy’ means
The three main branches of philosophy and the statements and problems they
deal
with.
An example of a question from each branch.
What sort of questions and problems philosophers deal with.
What tool they use for this activity - the process they use to enquire into the
problems.
The main problems/questions/arguments dealt with in each branch
The application of philosophy in every day life.
Philosophy - August Revision Sheet
1
Which branch of philosophy do the following questions come from?
195
a) Does God exist?
____________________
b) Do animals have rights?
____________________
c) What is real?
____________________
d) How do I know I am not alone?
____________________
2
What is a moral code?
3
What is the problem with philosophical questions?
4
What is an “argument” in philosophy?
5
Who was Socrates and what was his method?
6 What is the difference between the rationalist and the empiricist position?
(Use
the terms innate and tabula rasa in your answer)
7
What is the tripartite definition of knowledge?
196
8
What is the sceptical position?
197